1976

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.

1976 Glass Art Magazine:Glass Art Magazine. Volume 4, No. 3. 1976

Glass Art Magazine. "Jimmy Carter lusts after glass donkey." Volume 4, number 4. 1976.

1976 Fred Martin:

Robert Kehlmann: “Robert Kehlmann distributes his material on the diagonal, and makes his pictures of line and area, like greatly expanded scribble sketches. That they do not integrate the format makes them small random cutouts from a larger work; that they are not the larger work itself makes them unimportant. That they are excellently made in glass, a medium which requires every care for every part, makes all the time and material even more sad a waste.”

“Among the other artists in this show, Narcissus Quagliata is a frenzied Romantic/Surrealist--and his book, as his work, strives to break beyond the limits. His works grasp at the preposterous and haul us into experiences beyond the picture, where mind does indeed become light: The Opal Dance after the Earthquake, androgynous, half womb and half phallus, made partly of flesh but mostly of bone….”

“When all the questions of form, content and medium are over, I think any medium is a parameter of the artist’s expression, but what is made of it is the result of the artist’s soul. (Soul is the detritus of experience burning in the flames of aspiration.) So, to rank these artists and pin on a board the squirming, human butterflies: Marioni is technically amusing but without ideas or experiences of any great value. Posner is the same, although he does make people giggle in a small way. Kehlmann proves that the drift of experience in a small scale may be less interesting than experience itself; he should make them room size. Barnett has a superb, clear vision of the luminosity of glass, the necessary pattern of lead and steel, and a green egg which will not be forgotten. Quagliata is becoming, I think, one of the driving, creative forces in the medium, expanding the physical parameters of stained glass to accommodate the spiritual expansion of his soul.”

“Six artists working with glass” Fred Martin Berkeley, December 4, 1976. Artweek, west coast, vol. 7, no 42. P. 4

1976 Artweek:

“George Jercich: Arnica, Glass Triton Museum, Santa Clara

“Working with blown glass in a sculptural manner, George Jercich creates combinations of brilliantly colored biomorphic shapes which convey a sense of movement and growth. His pieces, although measuring less than two feet in any direction have a monumentality, a quality that Jercich hopes to explore in future works intended for architectural settings.”

Artweek. May 15, 1976. vol 7. no 20. west coast. pg 6.

1976 Richard Ritter:"Family Portrait" Ritter, Richard. 1976, Penland, NC. Corning Museum of Glass. 76.4.15 Photo ABJ 2008.

1976 David Williard:

"Wall Hanging Sculpture" David Willard. 1976, Doylestown Pennsylvania. 76.4.31 @ Corning Museum of Art. ABJ photo, 2008.

1977

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.

1977 Artweek:

Stained Glass--From Social Comment to Decoration

“An impressive installation of stained glass works by eighteen California artists is now at the Fresno Arts Center.  Most of the works, designed without constraints of architecture, have been illuminated and set into temporary walls for the duration of the show.  Guest curator Dan Fenton included his own work, with others who represent a wide range of contemporary sensibilities.  The majority of the artists work with geometric abstractions a stylizations from nature, while a smaller content0conscious group related messages of personal fantasy and social comment.  The artists in the show who are boldest about using glass as a means of literal communication are generally most innovative in technique.  Their inventions sometimes smack of gimmickry, but the bravado is refreshing.  One of the most intriguing, Fred Abrams’ graph of U.S. Dependence on Overseas Oil, is surrounded by a border of credit card receipts, sandwiched between layers of clear glass.

Paul Marioni, Richard Posner “Another Look at My Beef with the Government”, Narcissus Quagliata…

“Several artists show handsome abstract works that find justification beyond their decorative appeal or possible architectural function.  In one of these, Sandford Barnett’s whimsical Space Age Couple…"

Peter Mollica, Robert Kehlmann, Peter Wickman…

“This exhibition is a seductive crowd-pleaser, but it doesn’t stop there.  Those who enter the gallery with the promise of decorative pleasantries leave enlightened with the expressive possibilities of stained glass.”

Artweek January 8, 1977 vol 8 no 2 west coast p 6.

1977 Laurie H. Glass:

“Frederick Eversley knows about the variety of reaction to his cast polyester resin sculpture, on exhibit at the Oakland Museum.  He knows, too, that his work draws on his background in science as an engineer, and that it shares the joining of technology with art clearly present in recent kinetic and light/motion sculpture.  He ought to know, and probably does, that his sculptures are beautiful. 

…Be that as it may, some fault Eversley’s work as exemplary of the too slick, too easy art supported by “The Establishment,” to the detriment of different efforts battling for the same meagar support.  While it makes little difference whater I defend or condemn his work with respect to those harsh criticisms--since each person may judge for her-or himself--I do believe that his work flirts dangerously close to a thralldom to an ideal of perfection acclaimed by those who believe, more than I can, in our ultimate redemption by science and technology.”

Fred Eversley Retrospective by Laurie H. Glass p. 16 Artweek march 26, 1977, vol 8 no 13 oakland.

1977 Robert McDonald:

“The porcelain works of Lee Gray, at the Tyson Gallery, either confuse the issues of beauty and utility or clarify the one about the utility of beauty.  I feel it’s the latter.  If a piece is beautiful, it’s useful….”

“Gray’s form [sic] are refined, but substantial and chaste.  There’s no fussiness or extraneous decoration, whether the object is a butter dish, teapot, cup, vase, lamp or sculpture.”

Artweek april 23, 1977 vol. 8 no 17  75 cents a copy west coast p 16  Lee Gray and George Woodward SanFrancisco by Robert McDonald

1977 Suzanne Muchnic:

“The earliest works of the show are clearly concerned with plastic as plastic.  Doug Edge's plexi-glass Beaudry Chair, dated 1970, is a masterful re-creation of a familiar object. This transparent version of a wooden classic does not imitate the original; it illuminates the beauty of both traditional form and contemporary material.”

Work in Plastic Opens New L.A. Arts Center by Suzanne Muchnic (place: Sylmar) artweek sept 17 1977. Pg 5 vol 8 no 30

1977 Ron Glowen:

“Works created in the 1977 summer workshops at the Pilchuck Glass Center are on display at the Polly Friedlander Gallery.  The center, located about fifty miles north of Seattle on a privately owned, wooded site, attracts many renowned artists and students to the sessions, which are devoted to molten and blown glass methodology.

The works, representing about twenty-five artists, were selected by Dale Chihuly, Pilchuck’s educational coordinator.  Many of the pieces are “classical’ in the sense that they conform to the traditional cylindrical or radial shapes created about theh axis provided by the blowing or turning rods.  Also included are stained glass and panels, castings and free-form works.”

Fritz Dreisbach, Paul Marioni, Dale Chihuly, Steve Edwards, Rpvert Adamson, Scott White, Russell Kelly, Benjamin Moore, David Fernandez, John Leighton, Stan Price, Ann Warff

“As group shows go, this one is quite successful in presenting a wide range of technique, skill and idea.  Glasswork deserves respect, as its elegance and purity belie the difficulties of execution; the essentially ‘one-shot’ chance at success, the high temperatures necessary to render the glass plastic and the cutting edge of sharp glass combine to create what seems to me a somewhat dangerous work environment.  The practitioners at the Pilchuck Center ply their trade with skill, discipline, and elan.”

"Glass from Pilchuck" Ron Glowen Seattle Artweek p 20 oct 1 1977 vol 8 no 32

1977 Suzanne Muchnic:

“Richard Marquis’ whimsical, blown glass containers are permanently capped and hold nothing but air.  His Crazy Quilt Cofeepot and Checkerboard Teapot are built from square modules of colored glass that are stretched, distorted and fused under heat.”

“An inventory of containers”  suzanne muchnic (Sylmar) artweek November 12, 1977 p 5

1981

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.

1981 Paul Hollister:

“Not all the glass [at Heller Gallery] is the pleasing easy-to-live with work that most collectors enjoy; some of it is frankly outrageous and some, like the weighty skull sculptures of Raoul Goldoni shown recently, evoke solemn thoughts. Such work is there because Douglas feels it is important to educate, but he shows it along with more salable work that, in effect, subsidizes the exhibitions.”

“The country is in the midst of glass madness and it’s partly my fault.” -Douglas Heller

American Craft. April/May 1981. p. 20. “Contemporary Art Glass Gallery: Heller Gallery” by Paul Hollister.

1981 Matthew Kangas:

“Seattle Glass Artists, a broad survey of glass being made in and around Seattle, curated by Walter Lieberman for the Northwest Crafts Center; raises three critical issues about the use of glass as an art medium today in America.  Firstly, some of the artists whom I thought were offering an alternative to the famous Pilchuck Glass Center’s ‘aesthetic of perfection” have in fact, caved into it; secondly, glass may not be the sturdy vehicle for carrying art-meaning that I had previously thought it was; thirdly, though glass is flourishing as one of the most vital crafts media in the Pacific Northwest, it has still not made the heroic strides that clay made twenty years ago.

That said, this is a beautiful exhibition, infinitely superior to Portland State University’s recent west coast survey (Artweek, March 28, 1981).  Most of the major local talents are included (except Buster Simpson, Dick Weiss, and Michael Burns) and are shown to advantage.  Dale Chihuly is represented by a set of eighteen pale green and coral-striped dishes of varying sizes.  This is art that unabashedly refers to a tradition of functional form yet is elevated to the realm of fragility and grace.  Chihuly’s technical mastery is unquestioned, but I just wish he would turn it toward more experimental ends; presently he heads up what I have called the Pilchuck ‘perfectionists’.  Benjamin p Moore is a major member of that group.  I suppose that, by some standards, his uranium yellow plates and bowls are ‘experimental’’ because of their unusual tint. To me they resemble a matched set of Tupperware: uniform, plastic, and machine-made.

One artist has done an about-face away from both Seattle’s hard-core ‘antiperfectionists’ and the Pilchuckers.  Charles Parriott;’s earlier work was a marvel of social issues wedded to functional, beautifully cast glass shapes (fans, etc.) incorporating slogans and phrases with photo transfer newspaper images (bombs Away, Jonestown Fan).  Now all that seems to have been tossed aside (welcome to the 1980s!) in favor of retardataire, gold-leafed salad bowl shapes.  Only Serene Apathy has its title inscribed on the surface, and ironically seems to be a dismaying commentary on what has happened to the direction of Parriott’s work.  Stephen Edwards, in Brakken, Englesby, and Sonja Blomdahl also employ basic vessel shapes with varying results.  Again, elegance and technique supersede any attempt at meaning beyond the decorative aspect.

On a purely sculptural, nonfunctional level, Dorit Brand’s and Therman Statom’s works emerge as vividly individual.  Brand’s Bound Shard, a wall sculpture, uses gold thread to extend its territory in a striking way.  The black and gold Duo X, recalling art deco jewelry, suggests monumental earrings.  Two of Statom’s untitled cast-glass house-shapes, set on high, decorated pedestals, balance transparent and opaque qualities of glass.  Broken bits of brightly colored glass are embedded int eh works, which are covered with pastel and Day Glo pink chalk.  This use of found or shattered glass is a hallmark of ‘antiperfectionsism’ and symbolizes the vitality of Seattle artists who are shying away from the Pilchuck approach. 

Paul Marioni is the only other hot glass sculptor worth mentioning.  His red mono-print on glass, depicting archbishop Romero’s face in a kind of updated, memorial Shroud of Turin, indicates that Parriott’s apparent forsaking of social conscience in his art is probably an isolated case.  Marioni’s other flat piece, the premonition, leads us into two-dimensionality, its straight forward depiction of a pink house with snakes on the ground and volcanoes in the distance forms the exhibition’s strongest single image.  It is lit from behind and reveals the influence of the nineteenth-century Tiffany tradition of etching and painting but with a limited use of lead.

Michael Kennedy, Douglas Hansen, and Richard Spaulding are three leading artist working in large-scale flat glass and who are represented int this show.  Their contributions remind us that Seattle artists’ interest in combining representationalism and abstraction is wide spread.  Hansen’s Spaghettini Calamari, a tall vertical design, is flawed by a typical crafts “sin”: virtuoso use of material.  The tour-de-force application of lead line compresses the image into a dense metal screen over glass.  By comparison, Spaulding’s pas de quatre which abstracts the human figure as it assumes four different dancers’ poses, reveals a mastery o lead, and raises hopes that the most exciting glass of the current decade will achieve an imagery worthy of the technical accomplishments so convincingly demonstrated throughout this display.”

"Image and Technique in Contemporary Glass." by Matthew Kangas. Artweek. April 25, 1981. vol 12 no 16 pg 24.