Art Glass, Blown Glass, Dale Chihuly

The Seattle Times: Local News: Glassblower challenges integrity of Chihuly art

Okay, so yes, we are back to the topic of glass artist Dale Chihuly. Every once in awhile I do the search and catch up on the progress of this copyright case. It is probably partly because of the mystery that has always surrounded this particular glass artist’s studio, and partly because I live right down the street from RISD (Rhode Island School of Design) but also I feel the outcome of this case, whatever it may be, could have a significant impact on emerging glass artists.

The concept of Work for Hire definitely has it good and bad points. For those of you that don’t really understand what work for hire is here is the definition according to Nolo’s glossary:

Work for Hire- A work created by an employee within the scope of employment or a work commissioned an author under contract. With a work for hire, the author and copyright owner of a work is the person who pays for it, not the person who creates it. The premise of this principle is that a business that authorizes and pays for a work owns the rights to the work. There are two distinct ways that a work will be classified as “made for hire.” The work made for hire status of a work affects the length of copyright protection and termination rights.

In the scope of a glass studio (or ceramic, jewelry or similar) it allows emerging artists to work and learn the business from an experience glass artist while protecting the ideas of that glass blower. Like Labor Unions, the spirit of the concept is good for both parties involved but, like Labor Unions, the reality is not always the same. As a gallery owner and photographer, I’ve had many colleagues take this career path. Some are fortunate to work for studios that are nurturing and not afraid to help a new artist find their own vision and some would prefer to keep the talent under their own roof making the relationship more like indentured servitude than work for hire. It is hard to know what it really the case here.

Now don’t get me wrong, I fully recognize the talent of Dale Chihuly and the positive impact that he has brought to the world of art glass. The installation pieces I have seen are incredible and I love the fact that they are accessible to the public, especially children. I would love to take my own kids to see “Fireworks of Glass”, at the Children’s Museum of Indianapolis. Not only is it the largest permanent blown-glass sculpture that Chihuly has ever created, but the museum has an activity center that includes virtual "hot shops"--computers that enable visitors to try glass blowing in a simulated studio, and other programs focused around glass and glass blowing.

What I don’t understand is why the lawsuit? If you walk down the aisle of any large fine craft show, you will see many artists that are clearly influenced by Chiluly’s work. The first piece of art glass I ever bought (long ago) would fit that description to the point that I have been asked if it is by him. Chihuly’s impact on the world of art glass is so great that even my mother, who isn’t even interested in art glass, knows who he is. His legacy isn’t in any individual piece but yet in the generations of glass artists that have been inspired by him and the recognition he has brought to the medium. So again I ask, why this particular lawsuit. Why open the studio to that kind of legal and public scrutiny?

On the flip side, I also think the artists involved in the suit couldn’t have been a bit more creative in naming their pieces.

Just one girl’s opinion…thanks for listening and please feel free to comment. I'm very interested in your opinions because this case, and all that it implies, is very interesting to me.

Here is an exert from the article by Susan Kelleher that inspired this rant:

A Redmond glassblower who was sued for copyright violations last year by artist Dale Chihuly fired back in court Friday — challenging the integrity of Chihuly's art and the public's impression of how it's created.

Among other things, Robert Kaindl alleges in a counterclaim filed in U.S. District Court that Chihuly is not involved in conceiving, creating, designing or even signing a "substantial number" of artworks that bear his name.

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.

Kaindl's countersuit challenges that assertion, noting that when Rubino was blowing glass for Chihuly as a contractor, Chihuly "would often ask Mr. Rubino to 'come up with something' for Dale Chihuly to review and purchase" so that he could sell it through Chihuly Inc.