You are correct Kevin - Kevin O'Grady was the 'originator' of the vortex, at least the deep kind that we call consider a vortex today. I have some seen some things that establish this fairly well. At the time, there was another artist who started claiming he was the inventor, since he was the first one to start marketing the marbles, but it was Kevin who showed him the tech.
Personally, I think O'Grady's story is a pretty good example of how to handle this. From what I gather, I think Kevin tried to set the record straight right at first, but pretty quickly realized it just wasn't worth it and so let it go, and since then has never really tried to make a point of the fact that the vortex was originally his thing. However, people always wondered, so the truth has been sought out and has come out over time and the facts of the matter are fairly widely known - and that was without Kevin doing much. He'll always be known as the main founding father of it and an excellent craftsman in using it.
Kevin, I think the positive way you handled that other artist is THE right way to deal with these things. In the end, you DO benefit, and all artists and collectors benefit.
Gateson, I think the same can be said of what is happening with the space marbles. Who knows how many people will come across the M&M marbles first, and then see yours and say wow, I gotta have one of those also, because by that point they're hooked. I just think you're trying to lay claim to too big a piece of the pie. Trying to say that 'any marble with a lens on it and inclusions inside which resemble space is stepping on my territory' is just too broad. I know you didn't make that quote, but that's the basic implication of what you've said above. How about your exo-planet marbles? Sure, they don't really look that much like Simpson planets, but you're basically making a marble look like a planet, just like Simpson. How is that any different than what M&M have done? Their Exploding Planets really don't look that much like your Universe marbles - they simply have a similar concept in that they give us a view of space. Your exo-planet marbles are also the same concept as Simpson's planets - you just threw an exo- in front of the name to indicate they've been extracted from a universe marble, right (that's what I've been thinking anyways). Like I said, I can see why it's a sensitive subject for you - but really, you've gotta back up here and try to see things from a broader perspective. There's just no good evidence that M&M have truly tried to rip you off or cash in on your success.
M&M have said they've been inspired by your work, and to me, that's good enough. I think it's good they've said that, because it's true - if a person just takes ONE look at ONE of your universe marbles, then they've got the concept in their heads and can now roll with it. The fact that their marbles make me think of yours indicates to me that the concept might have been based in your work. However, even if that were so, and I'm not sure it is, I still don't think you can lay claim to that big of an idea - 'space inside a marble'. It's just too big. It's better for you to be content in the solid fact that you're BY FAR the best at realistically producing 'space inside a marble'. You are, and we all admit that - that should be good enough. Flowers, eyeballs, sea life in marbles - these are all exactly the same thing, simply concepts which work well in marbles. Nobody can lay claim to any of those - they can simply hope to say theirs are the best, or maybe that they were the first one to really do it right.
Yeah, maybe it's different for me, seeing it through a collector's eyes. What about other artists here - how do you all see it? As long as we're out in the public eye here, might as well get some community feelings on the subject.
Brian
Personally, I think O'Grady's story is a pretty good example of how to handle this. From what I gather, I think Kevin tried to set the record straight right at first, but pretty quickly realized it just wasn't worth it and so let it go, and since then has never really tried to make a point of the fact that the vortex was originally his thing. However, people always wondered, so the truth has been sought out and has come out over time and the facts of the matter are fairly widely known - and that was without Kevin doing much. He'll always be known as the main founding father of it and an excellent craftsman in using it.
Kevin, I think the positive way you handled that other artist is THE right way to deal with these things. In the end, you DO benefit, and all artists and collectors benefit.
Gateson, I think the same can be said of what is happening with the space marbles. Who knows how many people will come across the M&M marbles first, and then see yours and say wow, I gotta have one of those also, because by that point they're hooked. I just think you're trying to lay claim to too big a piece of the pie. Trying to say that 'any marble with a lens on it and inclusions inside which resemble space is stepping on my territory' is just too broad. I know you didn't make that quote, but that's the basic implication of what you've said above. How about your exo-planet marbles? Sure, they don't really look that much like Simpson planets, but you're basically making a marble look like a planet, just like Simpson. How is that any different than what M&M have done? Their Exploding Planets really don't look that much like your Universe marbles - they simply have a similar concept in that they give us a view of space. Your exo-planet marbles are also the same concept as Simpson's planets - you just threw an exo- in front of the name to indicate they've been extracted from a universe marble, right (that's what I've been thinking anyways). Like I said, I can see why it's a sensitive subject for you - but really, you've gotta back up here and try to see things from a broader perspective. There's just no good evidence that M&M have truly tried to rip you off or cash in on your success.
M&M have said they've been inspired by your work, and to me, that's good enough. I think it's good they've said that, because it's true - if a person just takes ONE look at ONE of your universe marbles, then they've got the concept in their heads and can now roll with it. The fact that their marbles make me think of yours indicates to me that the concept might have been based in your work. However, even if that were so, and I'm not sure it is, I still don't think you can lay claim to that big of an idea - 'space inside a marble'. It's just too big. It's better for you to be content in the solid fact that you're BY FAR the best at realistically producing 'space inside a marble'. You are, and we all admit that - that should be good enough. Flowers, eyeballs, sea life in marbles - these are all exactly the same thing, simply concepts which work well in marbles. Nobody can lay claim to any of those - they can simply hope to say theirs are the best, or maybe that they were the first one to really do it right.
Yeah, maybe it's different for me, seeing it through a collector's eyes. What about other artists here - how do you all see it? As long as we're out in the public eye here, might as well get some community feelings on the subject.
Brian
