first of all, almost all cuemakers aren't artistic or creative enough to be "inspired"....they can merely copy, thinking that replacing a diamond with a snowflake, ebony with snakewood, is inspired thinking. BUT THAT'S THE WAY IT IS,,,,so let's leave that thought on the backburner.
I disagree with this thought, although the growing number of backyard start up hacks are swaying the numbers a bit. Seems right now anyone with 5K buys a lathe and a book and calls themselves a cue maker. How about if we narrow it down to guys who have a name, guys who have been at it over 15 years, guys who's sole income is cues. I believe there are more artistic people then you give credit for, but knowing it's your field I understand you are a tough grader. I believe tha lack of vision is more on the side of the buyer, and new innovative things cost money, so in the long run being super creative isn't cost effective.
simply put, craft evolves by imitation. the artist who can leapfrog past that trend and build his own is the one who pushes the craft to a different direction. when you start out, you copy. you copy because that is how you learn. there's no way to boldly go where no one has gone before if you don't know where to start. most craftsmen, even the great ones merely copy....yet within their ouvre, they are distinct from one another and hold their own influence, but against the backdrop of history, they're merely part of a larger movement. the artist who changes history comes once every eon. i don't know the history of cue design, but if you want to crown szamboti or ernie that genius, then so be it,,,and everyone else is his legion.
I'm glad you posted this, it's a truth that seems like common sense to me, but I guess many people don't understand it. it's also the reason that Joe's holier then thou BS doesn't float. "find me a cue maker who hasn't copied", Well, as you so clearly pointed out most have due to this reason. Has Jerry McWorter done some SW style knockoffs? Sure, does he do it now? No, Was Jerry Franklin a HUGE influence on him? Yes, but again his work now stands alone, call him and ask for a copy of someone else's design now see what he says.
i consider "theft" a willful use of another's design NOT to improve upon one's own art, but to create a substitute copy, concomitant with that is the usual monetary gain from its sale, or maybe the NON-acknowledgemnet of the origin of inspiration. i hate to bring this up(it is probably the second or third time) but mottey's ripoff a unique ginacue,,,probably at the behest of someone who didn't want to pay ginacue prices,,,and mottey's subsequent use of his copy on the front of his webpage with absolutely no homage to ernie,,,is the paradigmatic example of unabashed thievery.
I could not agree more, yet there are a few who find no problem with it, and one who will pretty much reach for any tiny thread to try and show how the cue wasn't an exact copy, now I know deep down in the bottom of my heart that Joe isn't that dumb, so I write it off as his obsession with me. What I really don't get is why Joe tries to say that cue isn't a copy when all he has to do is back up his original belief that there is nothing wrong with making a copy in the first place? Why say it's not a copy the rings are different? Why not just say sure it's a copy and making a copy is fine with me?
one of the things that blur the distinction as in the case of the szamboti dsign, is the lapse of time. i guess you can say the patent ran out. szam designs have become so iconic, i don't know that "design theft" holds. creative thinking really has many influnces, and it has been posited often that there is no such thing as "original". think of all the suits brought against musicins who have SUPPOSEDLY "stolen" a riff from another song. today, we are so inundated with visuals and ideas, it's hard to say that anyone is truely unique. szam designs are SO elemental, imo, that it is almost impossible to NOT copy. to design something not szam-like would almost require a revolution in cue structure,,,,a cue that looks like a tennis racket maybe
I posted my thoughts on this in the other thread.
there are those who can address the very nature of things, and everyone really has no choice but to follow. there is a truth about what they have to say that speaks to everyone. such would not be the case of say,,,tad. a great creative spirit,,,but do you see anyone copying him? he is unique but ultimately his designs are affectatous,,,bad word,,,non-elemental, so that it is easy to NOT copy him and almost impossible NOT to copy szam.
i think all those cues in your examples were "influenced by", not "inspired by", as there is nothing inspirational about them.
