Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Republicanprofessor

Gorgeous stuff. I would not be surprised if much of 'his' work is actually produced by interns in his studio. By the nature of the medium, unless he physically controls the entire glass blowing process, those works are not by him.

However, it's his studio, and his vision.

this is not a Mark Kostabi


24 posted on 05/08/2006 6:53:38 AM PDT by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestu s globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: finnman69

"Gorgeous stuff. I would not be surprised if much of 'his' work is actually produced by interns in his studio. By the nature of the medium, unless he physically controls the entire glass blowing process, those works are not by him."

Read the article:

"Chihuly's studio has long acknowledged that the artist does not blow glass himself, relying instead on a team of glassblowers and hired contractors to execute his ideas. But the concepts, designs and final aesthetic are distinctly his, Chihuly and his associates have repeatedly said."

Chihuly is like many successful artists who mass produce their work, they rely on a studio to manage the output, while he oversees the design. It's nothing new, and it the's defining line between original art and a brand.

Studios have been used by leading artists to maintain and finish large ticket commisions for thousands of years - Michelangelo trained in one such studio on his way towards greatness. It's a good way of training young artists, employing lesser artists who might not sell work on their own, and letting a master free himself from drudge work to concentrate on his art. Granted, it dilutes the art, as a lot of Renaissance work had the central figures done by the Master, and the backgroung by his studio, but the work is still regarded as the masterpieces they are. Michelangelo, if fact, was an odd duck in his day for the periods he insisted on working alone.

Interesting case, but it's not over wether or not Chihuly made the works in question, it's two people accusing Chihuly of damaging their reputation in the market, while, Chihuly maintains they were selling works purported or implied they were by him.

If they copied pieces Chihuly displayed and sold previously, they lose. But, and this is the important part, if Chihuly can get a copyright on a look or technique, that's a chilling blow to artists, and can lead to one artist "copywriting" a style, like Impressionism, and barring other artists from working in that school or style.

And, for what it's worth, Chihuly's work is stunning.


27 posted on 05/08/2006 7:13:46 AM PDT by ByDesign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson