1984 part two

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.

1984 Dean Jensen:

"Wausau, Wis. –The glass artist still doesn’t get much respect. In the hierarchy of the art world, he seems to rank just a rung or two above the artisans who tool leather belts.

Oh, there have been times when museums of the stature of Washington’s Corcoran Gallery of Art or New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art mount surveys of contemporary studio glass. But such shows are very rare and excite little interest outside glass circles. Rarely, if ever, are glass artists taken seriously enough to be represented in such prestigious derbies as the Whitney Biennial or the Venice Bienale.

Like glass artists, potters and fiber artists used to be viewed by the art world as pariahs, mere craftsmen who really did not qualify for the honorific of artist. By bringing the visions of their towering imaginations into contact with their chosen media, ceramists like Peter Voulkos and Robert Arneson and weavers like Lenore Tawney and Claire Zeisler demonstrated that it is at least possible for works in clay and fiber to hold their own with painting, sculpture and photography.

Some glass artists say their medium hasn’t yet gained the recognition of painting or sculpture because the studio glass movement is still comparatively young. There could be some validity to their argument. As recently as 25 years ago, almost all art glass was mass-produced in factories. Then in the early 1960s, ceramist Harvey Littleton established glassblowing facilities at the University of Wisconsin and showed that technology had advanced to the point where individuals could create glass art in their own studios. Universities across the country followed suit in establishing glass programs and the studio glass movement was born

If the relatively low esteem of glass artists can be explained by the newness of studio glass movement, though, this would seem to be only part of the story. One might learn of another big reason for the low estate of contemporary glass by visiting ‘Americans in Glass, a show organized by the Leigh Yawkey Woodson Art Museum in Wausau that will continue at the Woodson through July 8.

Among the show’s more than 60 exhibitors are Dale Chihuly, Marvin Lipofsky, Littleton, Joel Philip Myers and Thomas Patti—artists who are as much venerated by contemporary glass connoisseurs as Jasper Johns and Willem de Kooning are by painting enthusiasts. For all of the admiration these artists might hold in glass circles, though, not one produces work that has anything close to the impact of, say, one of Voulkos’ monumental forms in clay or one of Zeisler’s great constructions of braided, woven and crocheted yarns.

Most of the work in ‘Americans in Glass’ seems to fall into one of two categories—pure decoration or restatements of expressions that have already been made and remade in other media. The studio glass movement seems to be waiting for some messianic figure of the force and originality of a Voulkos who could smash all of the shibboleths of glass art and deliver its makers from the esthetically arid land they now habitate.


What this exhibition does well, though, is demonstrate the seemingly magical property of glass to take on the qualities of just about any other substance. Flo Perkins, for example, seems to have metamorphosed glass into spiky cacti. Chihuly, who well may be the greatest master among glass artists, seems to have transmuted glass into a living, organic material in a ravishing work that, in its form and rich and varied colors, suggests some great sea creature. And in Mary Shaffer’s sculpture, ‘Mamore,’ the glass spilling from an iron block has the look of cool, clear water.

While one might be momentarily wowed by the alchemy these artists practiced, their works really do not engage the mind. The primary message of their art seems to be about the transmutability of glass.

There is a clunkiness about Christian M. Schiess’ ‘igna Serrata’ that is hard to love. The work resembles a transparent plastic pillow that is stuffed with a large, rainbow-colored and bacon-like strip of glass. But there is something compelling about the work because it seems to transform light into tangible form.

Also arresting is James C. Watkin’s wall relief ‘Still Life,’ an arrangement of three simple vessels. Glass artist William Warmus, one of the judges for the show, accurately states in the show’s catalog that the Watkins’ work conveys the magical spirit of Giorgio Morandi painting.

Probably Italo Scanga has created the most jolting works—pedestals on which rest wine bottles and primitively conceived human heads. Scanga, an artist who is better known as a sculptor and painter than a glassblower, seems intent on renouncing the glassness of glass in the new-primitive sculptures that are part of what he calls his ‘Funnel Head’ series. He has so heavily slathered his creations with paint that their glassness has disappeared.

The seriousness with which the Woodson museum took on the job of organizing ‘Americans in Glass’ should be evident to all by the caliber of the judges who were selected to make the selections—J. Stewart Johnson, curator at the Museum of Modern Art in New York; William Warmus, a curator at the Corning Museum of Glass, Helmut Ricke, deputy director of the Kunstmuseum in Dusseldorf, West Germany; and Julian Schnabel, who, just now, is probably the most talked-about painter in the United States.

And what is surprising is the frankness with which some of the judges themselves have spoken out in expressing their disappointment in the glass art that is being done to day. Johnson, for example, concluded his catalog essay this way: ‘…It might have been hoped that this exhibition could be a celebration of the mature achievements of the American studio glass movement. Instead, the challenge not having been met, it could be its requiem.’

After closing at the Woodson, the show will travel to museums in 10 European cities.[…]”

Jensen, D. The Milwaukee Sentinel. June 15, 1984. 'Studio glass works fail to break artistic ground.' accessed September 8, 2009. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=gdUVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=OhIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5793,3254550&dq=glass+artist

1984 Barbara Mayer:

[Excerpt] “The public for the work has also increased.  Where once gift buyers and individuals decorating their homes might have been the typical purchasers, today serious collectors tend to make the important purchases.  Prices for art glass have also substantially increased.

Recently the medium has received a boost with the number of glass artists by American museums. Besides the Corning Museum, which owns 21,000 historic and contemporary pieces, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York is known to have acquired work b glass makers such as Harvey Littleton, Dale Chihuly and Michael Glancy, among others.

Other museums interested in glass include the Chrysler in Norfolk, Va., and the San Jose (Calif.) Museum, according to Ruth Summers, a gallery owner in Los Angeles.

Another force in the development of the studio glass movement, according to some authorities, has been the Corning Glass Museum which is part of the Corning Glass Center. Approximately 500,000 people visit the center each year, according to Dwight P. Lanmon, museum director.”


Mayer, Barbara.  AP Newsfeatures.  Kentucky New Era, June 18, 1984.  “Handmade studio glass becoming more popular.”  Accessed June 19, 2010 from Google news archive: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=TPowAAAAIBAJ&sjid=R-AFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3608,6059988&dq=corning+glass+art+society+conference&hl=en