1985

In this time line I pull quotes to illustrate a thread in popular and scholarly writing and criticism about glass. Here we will see current glass artists defending their art against the accusations and separating themselves from these stereotypes and, hopefully, find out how and where the now-common opinion was born. Fundamentally, the general thesis seems to be born of the question, What Is Art? This question I will leave to others to answer, here I am only documenting the written history of a popular way of thinking and a popular taste.

1985 Marsha Miro:

“For the 13th time, Ferdinand Hampson, director of Habatat Galleries in Lathrup Village, has gathered glass art from around the country for his annual invitational exhibition. The goal is to show what’s been done with glass during the year. But the topic of conversation is the state of the art—glass art—in the wake of recent talk in the art world that the glass-as-art movement is dead, dismissing it as a revolution that died of stagnation. Such pronouncements are pretty silly stuff. No one told Howard Ben Tre that he better stop making his seven-feet-high columns of cast green glass and copper. The Tre column at Habatat has a presence, an aura, that defies categorization, that simply says, “I’m right. I have a right to be created, to exist”—for the sake of beauty, mystery and power. What else justifies the making of art?”

…Glass artists, for the most part, are decorative artists—as compared with fine artists like painters or sculptors—but decorative art should not be considered a pejorative term. Unfortunately, the term has acquired a negative connotation under the precepts of modern art. Glass as art can succeed by being precious, or pretty or ornamental if it’s good and indicative of an individual. At Habatat, Joel Philip Myers’ vase with its stretched proportions is a fine example. So are William Dexter’s shimmering collapsed bowls and Harvey Littleton’s new vase with its veiling of constrasting colors. Then there are the innovative works, which are experiments within the tradition of the medium—like Dan Dailey’s unforgettable red bowl with a monster carved in it; Christopher Ries’ golden egg, dealing like a prism with the qualities of like; Richard Marquis’ teapots that are a funky conglomeration; Sidney Hutter’s stacks of glass building into vase forms and Michael Cohn’s “Space Cups,” which continue to explore the cup form using constructivist and futurist ideas.

Finally there are the purely innovative works, which strike out beyond the traditional, like Hank Adams’ “Heads,” which contain information inside; Stephen Dee Edwards’ sea creatures dressed in metal; Michael Pavlik’s dense wheel forms; James Watkins’ exploration of shadows and painted shapes in glass; Sydney Cash’s pointillist picture of glass and David Huchthausen’s architectural structres.

Every one of these artists is pushing on in style and becoming more sophisticated in command of the materials.

To say the glass movement is stagnant is absurd. This show demonstrates, as did the last, that contemporary glass art is maturing, ripening. Early stages of the movement may have been fresher in that everything was the first time, but there is excitement in the work today; but it is a different more complex excitement, as a result of the years of experience.”

“Status of glass is unshattered” by Marsha Miro. Detroit Free Press, Sunday April 7, 1985. Located at http://www.habatat.com/article_detail.asp?id=3
Accessed April 15, 2009.


1985 Robert Kehlmann:

"The founders of GAS insisted upon a certain exclusivity by limiting its focus to blown glass. Not until 1978 were stained glass artists invited to speak at a GAS conference. Gradually, as the society's membership grew, collectors, gallery directors, art critics and others whose expertise relates only tangentially to glass have addressed the membership from the conference podiums. Thus did 'glass arts' evolve into a multi-faceted category....

...The Bauhaus idea that well-crafted and well-designed production work can be as pleasing and as valid and relevant as one-of-a-kind work forms the keystone of GAS's approach to the glass arts...During the organization's early years, technical presentations were of interest to virtually all who attended the conferences, but today they are rarely brought before the conference as a whole...As the society's membership has grown, issues of aesthetics have assumed greater importance....

...craftsmen tend to emphasize process when delivering slide presentations of their work...more attention to how an object is crafted than on why it looks the way it does. This fascination with the how rather than the why accounts in part for the observed absence of a solid body of criticism. Craftsmen must assume a portion of the responsibility for this void, for critics often take their cues from the words of the artists whose work they discuss. The few critics who deal with crafts tend to be descriptive, emphasizing their fascination with materials and process....

...The worlds of crafts and commerce are increasingly related, yet it remains unclear to what degree and in what manner these worlds should mix in the context of an educational service organization. These are but a few of the questions the society--and other craft groups--must face in the future."

"The Glass Art Society: Profile of a Changing Craft Organization." Kehlmann, Robert. American Craft. April/May 1985.