Showing posts with label habatat. Show all posts
Showing posts with label habatat. Show all posts

Sunday, July 12, 2009

o'doils rule

1982?



I know this is a bad copy, but I wasn't paying attention the photo when I copied this article out of Glass magazine [Vol 9, No. 1], check out the doilies under the glass pieces.

"As for selling pieces from their glass collection, which has increased considerably in dollar value, the Fitzgeralds are not interested, thank you. 'We don't intend to resell the pieces,' states Jim emphatically. 'Money is not our interest, aesthetics is.' Daisy add, 'If it was the other way around, we would've gotten into glass collecting fast, and gotten out of it fast.' Their glass is more than just a collection of high-priced objects--each piece is more like an appreciated loved one, something you look forward to seeing throughout the day; especially as the sunlight changes, catching the glass from different perspectives. Although the Fitzgeralds haven't always been attuned to the extent of technical expertise involved in making many of their pieces, they have always appreciated the beauty of the piece, which springs from the artist's soul."

Author Unknown. "Collectors Fitzgeralds". Glass vol 9. no 1. pages 67, 68. March of (1982?)

Sunday, June 7, 2009

37th International Glass Invitational at Habatat


"Saturday, April 25, 2009 to Tuesday, June 30, 2009, 8:00. Featuring : Over 90 artists from around the world. Celebrating the 37th Annual International Invitational Awards Exhibition"

http://www.habatat.com/exhibit_international_detail.asp

Friday, May 1, 2009

Secondary Market: Art Alliance for Contemporary Glass

Habatat had their Masterworks Auction recently.
Studio glass is absent from Sotheby's and Christie's.
What are prices like elsewhere in the secondary market for contemporary glass on May 1, 2009?
Richard Marquis "Tall Teapot" (15½" x 5" x 4½"--blown glass, signed.)
asking price: $7,000Richard Marquis "Large Orange Teapot" Large Orange Teapot (6½" x 7½" x 7½", blown glass. Includes glass signature cane, also signed.)
asking price: $13,000.Richard Marquis "Crazy Quilt Murinni Teapot 1979 (5" x 5½" x 4½"--blown glass, clear bottom includes signature cane, also signed)
asking price: $6,500Dan Dailey "Bird with Worm / Man with Cigarette" (9" h x 7¼" x 4¾"--"Done at Daum, but signed by Dailey and one-of-a-kind; not part of Daum edition")
asking price: $10,500Richard Marquis "Rocket Jar" ("blown glass clear bottom includes signature cane signed also") asking price: $10,000 for the pairDante Marioni "Leaf Vase" 1993 (33¾" x 9" x 7"--blown glass)
asking price: $8,000Martin Blank "Willing" (26" high--"hot sculpted glass torso with gold leaf")
asking price: $27,000

These pieces are all for sale on the Art Alliance for Contemporary Glass Marketplace website. Here is what a glimpse of the "Offered for Sale" page looks like:
  • Dante Marioni. Leaf Vase, 1993, 33¾" x 9" x 7" blown glass. Click here for photo. $8,000. Inquiries: baisdengallery@aol.com
  • Paul Marioni. 2 "Nudes - Windows," 1982, 28" x 24" x ¼" & 28" x 21" x ¼" leaded glass, freehand cut and assembled, hanging rings for installation, signed. Click here for photo.bw1234@mac.com
    $10,000. / pair. Inquiries:
  • Paul Marioni. "Powder Vase," 14" x 6½" x 6½" blown glass. Click here for photo. $8000. Inquiries: bw1234@mac.com

  • Paul Marioni. "Life on Mars," 1980, 8½" x 7" x 7" blown glass
    with figurative inclusions and canes, signed. Click here for photo. $13.000. Inquiries bw1234@mac.com
  • Richard Marquis. 2 "Rocket Jars," blown glass, signed. Click here for photo. $10,000 / pair. Inquiries: bw1234@mac.com

  • Richard Marquis. Crazy Quilt Murrini Teapot, 1979, 5" x 5½" x 4½", blown glass, clear bottom includes signature cane, also signed. Illustrated in "Richard Marquis- Objects" pg 23. Click here for photo. $6500. Inquiries: bw1234@mac.com

  • Richard Marquis. "Tall Teapot," 15½" x 5" x 4½", blown glass, signed. Click here for photo. $7000. Inquiries: bw1234@mac.com
  • Richard Marquis. Large Orange Teapot, 6½" x 7½" x 7½", blown glass. Includes glass signature cane, also signed. Click here for photo. $13,000. Inquiries: bw1234@mac.com.

  • Richard Marquis. "Crazy Quilt Banded Cylinder," 1979, 13½" x 4" x 4" with signature cane and signed. Click here for photo. $9,000. Inquiries: bw1234@mac.com

  • Mark Matthews "Midas Touch", grouping of 7 glass spheres and bowl. Tiger Predator sphere (3"), Filigrana sphere from 1993, Irridescent Aurene Pearl sphere, and a gold air trap rectangle sphere. Each sphere, and the bowl, are signed and dated. Spheres from ½" to 3" dia; bowl 10" x 6". Click here for photo. $9,800. Inquiries: Jonathan, 516-313-2218 or ninesfull@hotmail.com

  • Mark Matthews "Blue & Orange, for Now", grouping of 11 glass spheres and bowl. Royal Blue Overlay sphere from 1993 and 4 complementary Opaque Banded Lutz spheres, clear blown bowl with sandblasted foot. Each sphere, and the bowl, are signed and dated. Spheres from ½" to over 3" dia; bowl 11" x 7". Click here for photo. $8,500. Inquiries: Jonathan, 516-313-2218 or ninesfull@hotmail.com

  • William Morris, Vase and three stones (set); matching pieces in Morris' early tribal cave glyphics phase. Vase is 20"h x 14"dia; stones range 12" - 20" long, 10" - 14" wide, 5" high. Click here for photos. $50,000. Inquiries: lmiles@ma-ad.com

  • William Morris. Early orange plate, 1979, approx. 15" diameter x 4" depth, blown glass, signed. Click here for photo. $24,000. Inquiries: bw1234@mac.com
  • William Morris, "Standing Stone," 23" x 11" x 4" blown glass. Click here for photo. $15,000. Inquiries: bw1234@mac.com

  • William Morris. 2 "Shard Vessels," Brown: 1982, 12" x !4" x 5", Purple: 1980, 11" x 10 " x 4." Blown glass, signed. Click here for photo. $ 26,000 for both. Inquiries: bw1234@mac.com

  • William Morris, "Stones Vessel," 1984, 15½" x 16" x 6", signed. Click here for photo. $37,000. Inquiries: bw1234@mac.com

  • William Morris. "Petro Vessel," 1988, 24" x 16" x 14", signed. Click here for photo. $44,000. Inquiries: bw1234@mac.com


Art Alliance for Contemporary Glass "MarketPlace". Website accessed May 1, 2009. http://www.contempglass.org/market_place/wantad.html

Habatat Masterworks Auction Results

On April 23, 2009 Habatat Galleries in Michigan held "Masterworks: A Contemporary Glass Auction". Here is a list of the pieces sold that also have the selling price available online. Others may have sold, but the price is not posted online (instead of price there is written, "Call Habatat").
Shown above is
Kyohei Fujita "Red Leaves" circa 1994 (mold blown glass box and cover with gold and platinum leafing) estimate $3,200-$3,600/sold for $3,450. The pieces that sold within the price range which Habatat estimated beforehand will appear in bold red, as Fujita's does above. On average, the successful pieces (with prices posted online) sold at 86% of their lowest estimate price.
Dale Chihuly. "Basket Cylinder Series" 1980 (blown glass vessel with shards) estimate $6,000-$8,000/sold for $4,312.
Harvey Littleton "Eye Form" (blown cut and polished glass sculpture) estimate $10,000-$12,000/sold for $12,075.
John Littleton and Kate Vogel. "Acro Bag" 1995 (blown and hot worked sculpture) estimate $2,800-$3,200/sold for $2,588.
Mark Peiser. "Skyscape" 1991. (cast glass sculpture) estimate $10,000-$12,000/sold for $12,075.
William Morris "Untitled #111" (blown glass vessel) estimate $9,000-$12,000/sold for $6,900.
Bohumil Elias "Space" circa 1992 (blown and plate glass sculpture with mixed media and fired enamels) estimate $12,000-$15,000/ sold for $6,038.
Dale Chihuly. "Seaform Group" 1990. (blown glass sculpture) estimate $14,000-$20,000/sold for $12,075.
Michael Pavlik "Dual Gate" 1985. (cut polished and laminated glass sculpture) estimate $14,000-$20,000/sold for $11,788.
Lino Tagliapeitra. From the "Batman Series" 1990. (blown and carved glass sculpture) estimate $24,000-$28,000/sold for $16,100.
Bertil Vallien "Sand Blown Vessel" 1983 (mold blown and sand blasted vessel) estimate $6,000-$9,000/sold for$4,313.
Keke Cribbs "Ibis Waltz" 1985 (blown, carved and painted glass vessel with beads) estimate $3,500-$5,000/sold for $4,025.
Dan Dailey "Le Vin: Cristallerie Daum (The Wine)" 1993. (cast glass sculpture-Edition of 125) estimate $25,000-$35,000/sold for $21,850.
Robin Grebe "Untitled" circa 1995. (pate de verre and mixed media wall sculpture) estimate $7,000-$9,000/sold for $6,612.
Howard Ben Tre "Wrapped Form #21" 2007. (cast glass sculpture with silver leafing) estimate $50,000-$64,000/sold for $34,500.
John Kuhn "OST 199" 1999. (cut, polished, and laminated crystal sculpture with stainless steel base) estimate $10,000-$12,000/sold for $11,500.
Joel Philip Myers "Contiguous Fragment Series" 1979 (hot worked glass vessel) estimate $8,000-$12,000/sold for $7,475.
Martin Rosol "Duet XIV" 2002. (cut polished and laminated glass sculpture) estimate $10,000-$12,000/sold for $6,000.
Richard Ritter "Untitled" 1980. (blown glass vessel with murinni) estimate $7,000-$9,000/sold for $3,738.
Mark Peiser "Summer Cattails" 1978 (hot worked glass vessel) estimate $14,000-$18,000/sold for $11,213.
Flora Mace and Joey Kirkpatrick "Dancers Cylinder" 1983. (blown and fused glass vessel with wire drawings) estimate $22,000-$28,000/sold for $18,400
Stanislav Libensky and Jaroslava Brychtova "Free Through II" 1992-01. (cast glass sculpture) estimate $100,000-$120,000/sold for $89,125
Richard Marquis "Murrini Teapot" 1985 (blown glass teapot with murrini) estimate $9,000-$11,000/sold for $10,350.
Martin Blank "Gold Ruby Duet" 2002 (hot sculpted glass sculpture) estimate $17,000 to $22,000/sold for $11,213.

Habatat Masterworks

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Habatat sells 40% of SOFA inventory

From SOFA:

"NEW YORK. April 19, 2009... Even opening SOFA NEW YORK on tax day did not scare off buyers. Over 2600 persons jammed the vernissage and many supported The Museum of Arts & Design, New York by attending a benefit cocktail reception held concurrently in the Armory’s Tiffany Room. Plucked up immediately from London dealer Joanna Bird was a Pippin Drysdale 2009 Installation 1, a series of carved, thrown ceramics for $79,000. As of Saturday, Bird had racked up a dozen significant sales. Nearby, Leo Kaplan Modern of New York sold a Richard Jolley 2009 Still Life for $38,000, while the Chicago Habatat Galleries red-dotted a Shayna Leib glass installation for $46,000, selling close to a staggering 40 percent of its material on offer, including blown and cast glass sculptures by Oben Abright at $38,000 each. “Initially we were concerned about the economic climate but clients are still seeking to buy,” says Michael John Hofer, Habatat’s Assistant Director."

http://campaign.constantcontact.com/render?v=001tVZPsFcOxvuovWDOM8ioDWMpZOE7lcW9drVRRo1fYpa7XEvredThDLt3OMAZJMF1Zs48wzxbwjh8OO7_cgBjUgglDSHqjWAN242J8areJyQn1yumwPxR227OeGyKR0c-2uCB-5mAdKU%3D

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

1979

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. The years are not in chronological order, there are posts from 1886 to 2009, you may search by year, i.e. "1981" in the search box.


1979 Richard Marquis:

Marquis, Richard.
“Ruby Heart Murrini Teapot”. 1979. At Habatat Galleries auction, April 23, 2009 for an estimate of $9,000 to $12,000. Accessed April 21, 2009. http://www.habatatglass.com/upimages/2009auction/2009_auction_preview.htm

1980

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. The years are not in chronological order, there are posts from 1886 to 2009, you may search by year, i.e. "1981" in the search box.

1980 William Morris:
Morris, William. "Untitled #111". 1980. Auctioning off at Habatat Galleries, estimated value $9,000 and $12,000 on April 23, 2009. Accessed April 21, 2009. http://www.habatatglass.com/upimages/2009auction/2009_auction_preview.htm

1993

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. The years are not in chronological order, there are posts from 1886 to 2009, you may search by year, i.e. "1981" in the search box.

1993 Michael Perrault:
"
With a twinkle in her eye, Sandy Sardella walked away from a career

Sandy Sardella shamelessly carries on a love affair in front of her husband, KUSA-Channel 9 news anchor Ed Sardella.

It's a love affair that has changed her life.

Ed understands and supports his wife.

You see, Sandy is in love with glass -- exquisite glass sculptures, the kind that can sell for tens of thousands of dollars.

"Once you get into glass, you tend to really get into it. It's addictive," said Sandy Sardella, owner of PISMO, an art glass gallery at 2727 E. Third Ave. in Cherry Creek North.

"I love glass, I truly do," she said, pointing out how finely cut glass breaks sunlight into brilliant colors.

For Sardella, the appreciation for glass artwork was an acquired taste. She once was committed to a career as a financial analyst and tax accountant. She spent years earning a bachelor's and a master's degree in the field.

"I always wanted to be in finance," said Sardella, who after earning her master's degree thought she'd "stay in the field forever."

Sardella's former boss, Earl Wright, president of Asset Management Group, said she was an outstanding financial analyst and strategist while working for his company. But even in the financial industry she showed an inherent creative ability.

"I certainly saw that side of her," said Wright, who isn't surprised that Sardella has made a success of her gallery.

"Success was written all over Sandy," said Wright. "The only surprise is what she decided to be successful in."

In some ways Sardella, too, is surprised that she ended up owning the art glass gallery, which now features the works of more than 100 artists from around the world.

"I had no idea that this is what I'd end up doing," said Sardella. "I was just looking for something more creative, something of my own."

The only real retail experience she had before starting the gallery was during her college years at the University of Denver, when she was employed at Grassfield's, a local clothing store.

Max Grassfield, owner of the store, remembers Sardella for her exuberant personality.

"She had a Ph.D. in common sense," said Grassfield.

When Sardella was exploring the possibility of an art glass gallery several years ago, she bounced the idea off a number of friends and business people. Several people told her the Denver market wouldn't support such a gallery. She took that advice to heart and decided to open a shop that featured natural decorative items, such as coral and seashells, along with glass. In the back of her mind, though, she knew she wanted more glass.

From the beginning she knew she wanted her shop located a few blocks north of the Cherry Creek shopping center. It was always one of her favorite places while attending college, and she preferred a boutique shop.

Coming up with a name for the shop was initially difficult. She opened the shop a day before the Cherry Creek shopping center opened its doors, and she didn't want the name to resemble any new mall shops.

The name "PISMO" came up during a conversation with her husband as they strolled down the beach by that name in California, one of their favorites.

"It's short and catchy," said Sardella. It also works well as a conversation starter with curious customers. She didn't waste any time when she decided to commit to the business. She researched it in May of 1990, rented a location in June and opened in July.

In the three years since Sardella opened the shop, she has changed the product inventory dramatically. Instead of featuring primarily shells and coral, she now has 90 percent glass art. But she insists on keeping a few of the more natural items on hand to provide customers with an interesting product and price mix.

She likes the fact that her customers range from young boys who collect shells to serious glass art collectors -- she doesn't want to run a "stuffy" gallery.

A good portion of PISMO's profits have been reinvested in the store, primarily in improving the quality and caliber of glass art in the shop.

Sardella has honed her list of artists in the gallery to include people like John Nickerson, a former University of Colorado professor whose glass art is featured in the Smithsonian Institution. Artist Josh Simpson's "inhabited planets" glass pieces have been featured in Smithsonian magazine.

A few weeks ago, Sardella's gallery featured a showing of Italian artist Dino Rosin's work, a showing that drew students from Nebraska and glass art lovers from across Colorado. She now has about 10 showings per year.

Prices for glass art pieces in the shop range from about $50 to $20,000. Many of the more expensive glass pieces are purchased by clients of interior decorators. Sardella works with the decorators to find just the right glass for a particular mantel, table or corner of a room.

She said in most cases people decide on glass art much the way they select other types of art.

"Normally you fall in love with a piece," she said. "You want it to be part of your collection."

Collectors are willing to invest in the pieces that capture their attention. That makes keeping the bottom line a little easier for Sardella. But she still has to be careful to know when not to buy a piece, even if the brilliant glass refraction has captured her eye -- and heart.

Having a solid financial background helps her keep her penchant for buying in check. That is one of Sardella's strongest retail traits, said Tracey Welch, executive director of the Cherry Creek North Business Improvement District.

"She brings a numbers approach that not all retailers do," said Welch, who has known Sandy since she opened her shop.

Sardella doesn't always stick to the numbers approach, however. When customers occasionally ask her for the price of a little glass piece that she happened to make from hot molten glass, she answers -- unequivocally -- "priceless."

Then she goes about her business of tending her elegant shop. And some days, if you look closely enough, you may spot Ed Sardella sweeping the sidewalk or carrying out a crate. He wouldn't have it any other way."

Perrault, Michael. "Taking a shine to glass. (art glass gallery) (Women in Business)." Denver Business Journal. November 5, 1993. Retrieved November 06, 2009 from accessmylibrary: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-14585508/taking-shine-glass-art.html

1993 Betty Klausner:
"
Scanga aptly introduced his latest body of work, which makes strategic use of floral arrangements, in Santa Barbara, a year-round garden paradise. Each sculpture is made of found objects, mainly antiquated tools and architectural scraps, welded together to form tall vertical shapes. Each work features a conical glass vessel containing different kinds of fresh flowers, some in bunches, some alone. The vases, varying in height from 19 to 26 inches, sit in iron ring-shaped holders attached to the metal upright part of the sculpture. Many of the tools are painted in Scanga's signature expressionistic style. It was a buoyant experience to see these 12 witty, totemic sculptures - a vision of unexpected pleasure.

For the past 20 years, Italian-born Scanga (now based in San Diego) has occasionally incorporated glass forms into his mixed-medium work. But these are the first pieces in which he has used such gorgeously colored, hand-blown glass in such a utilitarian mode. His contemporary-styled vases - most in intense, scumbled reds, greens and blues, with contrasting lips - were made by a Murano craftsman at the Pilchuck Glass Center in Seattle, under Scanga's supervision. An important part of the concept behind the new series is the participatory nature of the pieces, which goes beyond their collaborative fabrication. The gallery (or owner of the work), not the artist, gets to do the floral arrangement - choosing the roses, delphiniums, gladioli or birds of paradise to finish off what Scanga started.

Inspired by museums and flea markets, Scanga unabashedly dips into both art history - a full range of 20th-century "-isms" - and leftover stuff from everyday life to make his work. He ferrets out such discarded objects as a scythe, a doorknob, a chain, a scale, a frying pan, a ladle and a wrought-iron cowboy riding a bucking bronco to construct his floor-standing and table-sized assemblages. Like the objects in George Herms's or Betye Saar's work, Scanga's recycled artifacts evoke memories and questions about the past. Recontextualized in works of art, our culture's junk provokes us to reassess our disposable environment.

The essence of Scanga's strategy is clearest in one of the more successful works, a 70-by-16-by-14-inch sculpture titled Ice Tong and a Wrench. Here the contrasts and counterbalances are at their most effective. The organic flower atop the man-made tools invites an allegorical reading - life and death, perhaps. The ice saw's sharp-toothed edge, aggressive and dangerous, is pointedly incongruous with the delicate calla lily. And, adding to the internal contradictions of this sculpture, the transparent glass vessel, fragile and reflective, is placed in implicit opposition to the rugged steel blade.

This show marked a major shift for Scanga, not only in his choice of materials (primarily metal instead of his customary wood), but also in his willingness to allow his work to be "completed" by the variable addition of short-lived flowers. Here he seems to have won his gamble, demonstrating that art can be accessible, potentially useful, participatory and beautiful - attributes not often valued in the postmodernist mainstream."

Klausner, Betty. "Italo Scanga at Ro Snell. (Santa Barbara, California)." Art in America. March 1, 1993. Retrieved November 05, 2009 from accessmylibrary: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-13578441/italo-scanga-ro-snell.html

1993 Dan Dailey:

“Le Vin: Cristallerie Daum (The Wine)”. 1993. Edition of 125. At auction at Habatat Galleries on April 23, 2009, estimated value $25,000 to $35,000. Accessed April 21, 2009. http://www.habatatglass.com/upimages/2009auction/2009_auction_preview.htm

1993 Wheaton Arts:

"
Maximizing the Minimum: Small Glass Sculpture, 1993 exhibition catalog text

More than thirty years have passed since a workshop held at the Toledo Museum of Art gave birth to the American Studio Glass Movement. In the summer of 1962, ceramist Harvey Littleton, grass scientist Dominick Labino and a group of young artists built a small glass furnace and blew glass outside of the traditional glass factory setting.

Their goal was to prove that glass, like clay, stone or metal, could become a contemporary artistic medium. Up until this time, glass was primarily utilized in factory settings to create purely functional objects.

The size and cost of building and fueling a glass furnace had previously been based on the industrial glassmaking scale, making the cost prohibitive for the individual artist. For their experiment, Littleton and Labino reduced the size of glassmaking equipment and created new glass formulas which made glassblowing possible in an independent artist's studio.

With the assistance of Harvey Leafgreen, a retired glassblower, who demonstrated the art of glassblowing before the eager but inexperienced students, the first workshop paved the way for a second one. After Littleton and Labino met with further success, glassblowing programs sprang up at universities throughout the country during the 1960s and 1970s.

Intrigued by its potential, students and artists began experimenting with this ancient medium. Within ten years, glass became an accepted material for artistic expression.

These artists soon discovered that working with molten glass required extraordinary discipline and dexterity. Utilizing tools such as the blowpipe and the pontil which had changed little since Roman times, they produced simple forms and bubbles. These designs were predominantly influenced by ceramic designs because many of the budding artists, like Littleton, had received artistic training in that field.

After mastering the rudiments of this demanding craft, the artists began to challenge glass into new directions, leaving the utilitarian vessel behind and moving on to sculptural forms. Limited only by their imagination, they produced work ranging in style from the realistic to the abstract.

The appeal of the emerging studio glass movement spread rapidly. Museums and gallery exhibitions heightened public awareness of this new art form in both the United States and Europe.

In the meantime, each generation learned from its predecessors and continued to make new strides in the field. The diversity of the movement can be seen in the vast array of work created by the artists.

As glass technology advanced in the years that followed, unleashing new creative possibilities, so did individuality. Machines no longer dictated the form and function of glass but took on a whole new role as artists adapted technology to the area of contemporary art.

The artists who worked with glass began pushing the boundaries of size until sculptures became larger and larger. The tendency toward grand scale, while often dramatic, can be imposing for collectors and museums with limited space.

This exhibition was organized to illustrate that size constraints do not interfere with the scope of an artist's vision. The glass artists invited to participate in this exhibition have displayed a wide range of talent despite the fact that they were required to submit a piece limited in size to 8 inches by 8 inches by 8 inches. Several of the artists, such as Tom Patti, Paul Stankard and Emily Brock regularly create works within these parameters. Doug Anderson, although his sculpture is not illustrated in this exhibition catalog, is another artist who has produced work of this size. Others, like Jon Kuhn, Jay Musler and Amy Roberts-Chamberlain, were challenged to confine themselves to this restrictive scale. The collective work in this exhibition is infused with an innovative spirit that intrigues both the observer's eye and imagination.

Liberated by readily available technology and training, which had been unknown to earlier generations, today’s glass artists can concentrate on translating their ideas into reality. As a result, contemporary glass art, like most forms of art, will continue to evolve in new directions in the years to come.

For some artists, work created on a small scale will remain as challenging to create as massive sculpture. Just as glass has transcended its functional limitations in the past thirty years, so too, these artists will continue to prove that size has no effect on the quality of a successful work of art."

Unknown. "Maximizing the Minimum" catalogue text. Wheaton Arts, NJ. website accessed June 8, 2009. http://www.wheatonarts.org/museumamericanglass/exhibitions/pastexhibitions/1993maximizingtheminimum/

1983

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. The years are not in chronological order, there are posts from 1886 to 2009, you may search by year, i.e. "1981" in the search box.

1983 Joey Kirkpatrick and Flora Mace:
"Dancer's Cylinder" $22,000-$28,000 at Habatat Galleries auction on April 23, 2009. Accessed April 21, 2009. http://www.habatatglass.com/upimages/2009auction/2009_auction_preview.htm

1990

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. The years are not in chronological order, there are posts from 1886 to 2009, you may search by year, i.e. "1981" in the search box.

1990 Lino Tagliapietra:

Tagliapietra, Lino. "Saturno", 1980. Up for auction at Habatat Galleries on April 23, 2009. Estimated Price $15,000 to $20,000. Accessed April 21, 2009. http://www.habatatglass.com/upimages/2009auction/2009_auction_preview.htm

Habatat Auction


Sotheby's currently has 7 items that are categorized under both labels of glass and contemporary art. One work by Mona Hatoum called "Drowning Sorrows", edition 2 out of 3, year 2002, which is priced at $80,000-$120,000 is shown above.

One might conclude from all the opinions collected here at ABJ Seattle Glass Online, that contemporary glass is not respected (for good reason) by critics and others who know about art, as well as, say, contemporary painting or bronze sculpting, and this is why it is not often included in major auction houses' catalogues.

However, while the monetary value of glass art suffers for it's exclusion from this major marketplace, other types of value may remain and people may buy glass (at lower prices) for purposes other than investment and social status.

Whether as a result of purposeful exclusion from Christies, Sotheby's and other houses, or simply because it is continuing an annual tradition, Habatat is holding a glass-only auction called "Masterworks: A Contemporary Glass Auction" on April 23, 2009. All 47 items on the auction block are glass, though the making processes vary.

This is Stanislav Libensky's and Jaroslava Brychtova's "Free Through II", dated 1992-2001 (shown above) and estimated at $100,000-$120,000.

You can find the entire Habatat auction catalogue here:
http://www.habatatglass.com/upimages/2009auction/2009_auction_preview.htm
Accessed April 21, 2009.
And the Sotheby's Contemporary Art Day Sale, May 13, 2009, catalogue, here: http://catalogue.sothebys.com/events/N08551
Accessed April 21, 2009.

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

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.


Monday, March 30, 2009

2009

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.

2009 Alix Browne:

"And while [Beth Lipman] is the first to admit that she is not a master craftsman, this, she believes, is what ultimately sets her apart as an artist. The tension in her work, she is quick to point out, doesn’t come from its technical virtuosity but from the feeling of 'Oh my God, it’s broken and it’s on the table.' Lipman doesn’t reject anything that she makes. 'Basically, I’m a hack,’ she says. ‘‘But I’m setting deliberate parameters so I don’t become too invested in the crafts process. I want it to be about the fragility of life and the inability to achieve perfection.'"


Brown, A. "Alix Browne meets with an artist with a heart of glass." The New York Times Blog. Design Fall 2008.
http://www.nytimes.com/indexes/2008/09/28/style/t/index.html#pageName=28lipman

2009 Annie Buckley:

“The history of glass as art is…lengthy--stretching from ancient glass beads, to Syrian tablets iterating instructions for glassblowing, to the storied glass factories of 16th-century Murano, where keeping techniques exclusive was the key to this lucrative industry. Yet while the history of making objects from glass is fairly clear, the art world’s reluctance to accept objects made from glass for consideration as sculpture is far murkier.

“For more than two decades, accomplished teacher and artist Jocelyne Prince has used glass in the service of a fascinating and moving study of the ephemeral. Yet her website opens with the phrase, ‘Glass is my material, not my tradition.' Prince is not alone in her keen awareness of the negative associations of the term “glass artist.” Mark Zirpel, whose primarily glass works are inspired by nature and the environment, makes a similar point when discussing his work in interviews."

"In a sign of a generational shift, emerging artist Carrie Paterson, who has been investigating art and science in mixed-media works and recently collaborated with a technical glassblower for a new project, is less reticent about her relationship to the material. Perhaps it is the actual labor of blowing glass that seems suspect to the art world focused on concept and fabrication, but the preference for fabrication verus developing one’s own craft could swing back the other way as artists and their audiences adjust to a worsening economy…"

“The Art of Inquiry.” by Annie Buckley. "Glass Quarterly." No. 114 Spring 2009 pg. 41.

2009
Author Unknown:

"HABATAT GALLERIES, CHICAGO, IL
“Even as an undergraduate, Shayna Leib’s dazzling glass art was racking up awards as she snapped up an “Emerging Artist” award from the Museum of Arts and Design,” says Michael John Hofer, Habatat, Chicago gallery manager. “But still her artistry remains significantly undervalued,” he says, “as compared to contemporary art, her work is a bargain with prices beginning at only $12,000.”

A number of high profile corporate CEOs, private investors and interior designers own her glass sculpture. Above all, they are attracted to Leib’s dynamic exploration of materiality. “To complete just one square inch of her wall pieces requires more than a grueling two hours of pulling intricate glass canes for firings,” says Hofer. “If you don’t collect her work very soon, it will become untouchable in terms of prices as Shayna branches into the fine arts like few other glass artists.” “She’s amazing,” he says. “Just how many other artists have technical skills honed while earning a Masters of Fine Arts, Summa Cum Laude?”"

Author Unknown. Quote taken from the front page article on www.sofa.com: "SPECTACULAR HIGHLIGHTS TO BE OFFERED AT 12TH ANNUAL SCULPTURE OBJECTS & FUNCTIONAL ART FAIR". SOFA NEW YORK APRIL 16-19, 2009, OPENING NIGHT PREVIEW, APRIL 15 PARK AVENUE ARMORY, PARK AVENUE AT 67TH STREET

2008-09 Tomoko Aoki:

“Living and working abroad was a first for [Naomi] Shioya; in Marseille, she experienced culture shock for two reasons. One was the European hierarchical concept of art; despite the best efforts of an institution like CIRVA, the attitude was that fine artists and glassblowers were considered separately in French society, and Studio Glass wasn’t valued.”

Glass Quarterly no. 113 Winter 2008-9, “The Door Left Ajar” by Tomoko Aoki. p. 24

2008-09 William Warmus:

“...And the Museum of Arts and Design, perhaps alone among American museums, might also be able to mount a second, more controversial exhibition, one that explores the value of Studio Glass in the context of other media. Is glass still a “minor art”? Did Studio Glass come to an end in the 1980s, as some claim I once suggested? Is ceramic art fundamentally purer and better than glass? It might be excruciating to tackle these issues, but it also will lead to a healthier dialogue among the critics and curators of the various media.

“MAD Deciphered.” by William Warmus. Glass Quarterly no. 113 Winter 2008-9. p. 37.

2008-09 Andrew Page and Judith Schaechter:

“AP: In an interview years ago, you said that glass is often regarded by the art establishment as the ‘dumb blonde’ of the art world, of which little is expected except a pretty appearance. Can you talk a bit about how you feel about working against this preconception?

JS: I think glass and perhaps especially stained glass, sets itself up to disappoint the view by being ‘beautiful’ before the artist has so much as touched it. But I don’t think the public expects a pretty appearance--quite the contrary! I think they expect nothing short of enlightenment, catharsis, empathy, and revelation! But often what they get is another artist to bedazzled to manipulate the medium into something like a Tran formative experience, and that leads to frustrated expectations and the sense that glass art is all glitz and/or kitsch. As for me, I like to put some hurt onto the glass. Perhaps I want to punish it for being so pretty when I often feel so ugly.

AP: Have you experienced the much-discussed bias against work that bears ‘glass’ or ‘craft’ associations? As your work is increasingly embraced by the so-called fine art world, such as being included in the 2002 Whitney Biennial, how has this changed, if it has changed?

JS: It is correct to infer that I see a difference between the two--although as a maker it’s clear to me that they are not separate at all.
It’s a cultural and historical distinction. The division has grown over the centuries to where they are now discreet practices, and art has become so intellectual as to reject objects and have much more in common with philosophy. This is wonderful news for the unskilled and for students! Any moron can have a meaningful idea. (And they do! They do!) What’s really challenging is to make a decently made physical object that is intelligent, original, ‘beautiful’, and that engenders empathy. To me, so much is lost in making art a predominantly cerebral pursuit.”

“My work-being so derived from materials and process-is clearly craft, but so heavy into subject matter and representation that it’s art. I am happy to show in a fine arts context. There’s a lot more clout and money in that arena; the stakes are higher. Of course, I am utterly unconvinced that one has any superiority, in any arena, over the other. I am not impressed with a lot of what goes on in the art wold in terms of the social climbing and weird self-promoting, which seem sleazy and distracting.
I intensely dislike humoring the opinions of people who disdain craft. On the other hand, the craft world bothers me because it often lacks critique. I deeply admire the idea of a ‘virtuoso’ but not at the expense of brains. For all the crowing about and celebrating of a merger of art and craft, I more often see ‘fine arts’ shooting itself off into impossible realms of intellectual refinement and arcane conceptualism, and ‘craft’ embracing feel-good unquestioning support and inclusiveness. Glass itself seems to be in a downswing. I'm not sure if that’s a natural response to how trendy it got for a bit there, or if it needs to do something to change that!”

“Everything is Sacred” by Andrew Page. Glass Quarterly no. 113 Winter 2008-9.