dshpipes
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,787
- Reaction score
- 0
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 ).
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.
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 ).
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.