The Price of Artisan Pipes

Brothers of Briar

Help Support Brothers of Briar:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Whoa... Uh...

So... by "steal" I do not imply actual theft of property but appropriation of an idea and utilization of that idea in new and creative ways without directly referencing the person who pioneered the idea.

So... for pipes specifically... how many people are making reverse calabashes right now? That's a concept that was pioneered by Acme Pipes, used by Tom Eltang in his tubos pipes (and Rolando Nagoita showed him), and made famous by Michail Revyaigin. It's now being used by a huge number of artisans. If asked, I bet everyone would credit Revyaigin, but forget about Acme (sorry, I don't remember the guys name :oops: ).

There are stylistic concepts that are used without reference to the artisan who pioneered said concept everywhere in art. Most people who are knowledgeable might say, "Ah I see he's studied the work of (insert artist here)," or, "Their work certainly adheres to (insert school of artistic thought)" because they recognize stylistic elements and know who their originator was. Those artists are using well established or innovative ideas that they did not come up with. However, they may take an idea that someone else came up with and use it in an innovative way different from the originator.

I don't think I've ever seen a modern impressionist painting whose artist titles the work and follows it with, "some stylistic elements taken from Van Gogh." It's implied in the work and is not an original idea, even if it's used in an original way.

I don't have any evidence one way or another, but I doubt everyone who's made a reverse calabash called Acme and gained legal permission to use his idea, just as impressionist artists don't likely contact the estate of Van Gogh in order to paint something using a technique he pioneered.

Is there a semantic disagreement here? Should this be called borrowing and not stealing? If so, why?

Edit: I remembered a name, Rolando Nagoita.
 
Bach copped ideas from everybody. And assimilated them all into Bach.

Mozart copped ideas from everybody. And incorporated them all into Mozart.

Beethoven copped ideas from a surprising number of people . . . directly.

When a critic pointed out that Brahms' First Symphony borrowed quite a lot from Beethoven he snapped, "Any ass can see that."

In historical context, the notion that there is "Intellectual Property" in any art is absurd.

Anybody who makes a beautifully-proportioned classic shape is copying Comoy, Ben Wade, Barling, Dunhill, GBD or BBB.

Fact.

Anybody who does sandblasting is copying Dunhill.

Fact.

People who do high-contrast staining are copying Comoy.

Fact.

Makers who shape bowls for maximum grain display are copying Charatan.

Fact.

There are -- it is said -- only seven basic plots in all of literature.

The point isn't who did it first.

It's who does it best.

:face:
 
Well, we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three concurrent or consecutive. But we can't give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory.
 
Vito":no8jc9jc said:
I suspect that human civilization would be a far better place to live if its members were more focused on gratitude for the value they receive from others and less focused on glorifying theft.
Click to expand...
Now, THAT is a quote worth borrowing and sharing. (With attribution, of course!) It is applicable to so many things in today's world.
 
Art is possible because of a common vocabulary of concepts and applications of them that are effective.

The obsession (from the later 19th Century on) with "originality" (as if this were a touchstone separating the "great artist" from the "mere copyist") has been one important factor in virtually guaranteeing the the production of works (and schools) which, absent effective promotion, have the lifespans of insects.

Special effects aside, what great improvements in cinematic art have surpassed the accomplishments of Wells, Hitchcock, Liebenthal or Eisenstein ?

Does GLP's standing in the blending world depend on him having invented an entirely "new" genre of pipe tobacco ? Or on how accomplished he is at making surprisingly "new" blends out of the common vocabulary of components ?

The Bach Mass in b-Minor is a catalogue of every compositional procedure that existed from 1550 up to the time it was written. What puts it over the top is that no one has ever done any of them better.

:face:
 
As a guy who has added absolutely nothing original to the world of pipe making, I tend to agree with Yak on this one.
 
Has anyone in the last 4,000 years "invented" a new and "better" way to put Tab "A" in slot "B" ?

Or is the point of that exercise excellence at the familiar ? :lol:

:face:
 
Well, since Greg gave you the credit, Veet, I'll just do the "borrowing." :twisted: :lol: That is a good line and concept.

Also, points to Yak for those who do something best. Personal pride legacies be damned if someone picks up the baton and continues the race and the effort...makes sense to me. Originality is a farce. Otherwise we'd be still driving "horseless carriages" rather than allowing all sorts of people to have their way with an engine and some wheels.
 
Yak":hej0v578 said:
Has anyone in the last 4,000 years "invented" a new and "better" way to put Tab "A" in slot "B" ?

Or is the point of that exercise excellence at the familiar ? :lol:

:face:
Click to expand...
Side thought: no, but we've invented a few artificial "analogs" to kill the downtime between tabs and slots. They still generically approximate the real thing--which there are not many replacements. :lol:
 
We're in an area where "stealing" isn't the right word, I'd say.

Far as I know, pipe design isn't subject to patent or copyright law, unless you've developed some functional twist, like, say, the Pete multi-chamber system.

The applicable idea seems to be well articulated by Harold Bloom, a lit crit from Yale. He often writes on "the Western canon," -- i.e., Western classics -- an idea the politically correct are hostile to, but bear with me a moment. Bloom admits writers to the canon based on their influence. Influence is not synonymous with popularity or copies sold. To Bloom, influence is the impact an author has on other authors.

Pre-Shakespeare, serious fiction was regarded as earning its place on its ability to teach. (See Plato's Republic.) But post-Shakespeare, fiction was about character and plot. Big change. But not the kind of thing that The Bard could have copyrighted. In fact, he borrowed all (I think) of his plays from historical sources, his characters were familiar to his audience, but what he added was uniquely his own and couldn't be "stolen."

If you buy into the metaphor, a maker of "classic" pipes (individual or group) is one who pruduces designs that influence other carvers, implying that copying is a compliment to the original master carver.

Another way the literary metaphor can apply to pipes is that -- with plays, particularly -- the final product isn't the work of a single person. It's presented through collaborating directors, actors and techies, all of whom have their hands on the final product. So you have different "versions" of Hamlet, just as you have different versions of a simple billiard.

 
Yak":s7v4gzxz said:
In historical context, the notion that there is "Intellectual Property" in any art is absurd.
Click to expand...
Point crystallized.

This is one of those rare occasions I agree wholeheartedly and passionately with :face:
 
Copped this from UberHuberMan :

Frederic Chopin":52dqm4d5 said:
Simplicity is the highest goal, achievable when you have overcome all difficulties. After one has played a vast quantity of notes and more notes, it is simplicity that emerges as the crowning reward of art
Click to expand...
This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^This

:face:
 
And for anybody who actually bothers to read either of those, my frequent denigration of Ernie Markle is part of a running joke between he and I. It makes him feel notorious. :pirat:
 
Sasquatch":lazb775i said:
And for anybody who actually bothers to read either of those, my frequent denigration of Ernie Markle is part of a running joke between he and I. It makes him feel notorious. :pirat:
Click to expand...
:lol: I was wondering about that.
 
Naturally, I had to google Ernie Markle. Found one I kind of liked & read the Smokingpipes sales pitch. (Always entertaining & instructive to read those).

" . . . the bakelite stem . . ."

People seriously make stems out of plastic ?????

Somebody buy me a clue from Vanna here :scratch:

:face:
 
Bakelite was the standard stem material after amber and before vulcanite if I'm not mistaken. The old KB&B (pre-Kaywoodie) pipes had Bakelite stems.
 
Thank you.

I'm familiar with it as a long-since superceded plastic formulation.

What I don't get is why anybody'd go back to using it again ? For one thing, it was brittle. Which, for stuff like radio knobs, didn't matter.

:face:
 
Top