GAS News S/O 06 copy - Glass Art Society

More documents

Recommendations

Info

L E T T E R S T O T H E E D I T O R 2 Dear GAS, Recently, while paging through the summer ‘06 newsletter, I happened upon an image on page 10 of what a first glance looked to be a Chihuly Sea Form. Closer inspection revealed it to be a Sea Form by a Mr. Jeau Bishop, someone I have never heard of before. I thought that it must be a typo at first but no, he is an “artist” making Chihuly copies and even calling them “Sea Forms”.... Shameful. Each day that we venture into our studios we are challenged to create something that we can call our own, work that comes from our own thought processes whatever they may be and, as glass artists, we have a furnace full of molten goo to start with, the way I see it, the possibilities are almost limitless. When I see work like Mr. Bishop’s the first thought that comes to mind is: ‘Is this the best that you can do?’ 13 Ways of Looking at a Chihuly by Scott Benefield In a recent private communication to the publications committee of this newsletter, we were brought to task for publishing an image in the Galleries section that strongly resembled original work done by Dale Chihuly. Because the author raised a question–does this constitute an endorsement by GAS of derivative work?–that seems to evoke some larger issues current to the glass world, it seemed time to consider the topic of originality and authorship as it is treated in our field. We’ve all had the experience of looking at an object and bristling with vicarious resentment as we recognize the original source of the form or imagery or distinctive surface decoration. The unfairness of copied work, infringing on an artist’s imagination and creativity, inspires a mild form of outrage in anybody who has ever struggled to do something new. But what triggers that reaction differs from individual to individual and therein lays the problem: there is no canon; there are no guidelines, no arbiter of taste and judgment to determine the legitimacy of any single object. In the legal realm there are structures in place to determine and preserve artistic originality–ideas like copyright, which are designed to protect intellectual property–and systems to redress infringements and punish those who would seek to profit from another’s vision. Legal standards are based on a concept of fairness and also are designed to protect financial incentives to innovate. But legal standards are also distinct from the ethical standards that often govern behavior in professional fields. Our work as artists, collectively, resides in a freewheeling, freestyle, free-market bazaar with nothing like an Academy to dictate standards and pass restrictive critical judgments. As more work from the Studio Glass movement enters museum collections perhaps those kinds of judgments will be made (bearing in mind that posterity has its own way of working these things out), but for the moment the glass world is marvelously and woefully free of that institutional control. What we have instead is the marketplace and people who make objects out of glass. There is a commercial venue for nearly anything anybody can make out of glass and a dearth of scruples on the part of artists, gallery owners and consumers concerning issues of authorship. This has recently come to the attention of a wider public when Chihuly Inc. sued Robert Kaindel, former Chihuly gaffer Bryan Rubino and two galleries (since dropped from the suit) for copyright infringement. To most of us, this is an obvious case of taking signature work and marketing reproductions as originals. Because of the philosophical ambiguities, it’s also an extremely interesting case. Two objects, set side by side, are virtually identical–because they are both made by Bryan Rubino–but have different legal identities because one has Chihuly’s intention of being made as original work, and the other lacks that. There is a metaphysical difference between the two that has Making copies is nothing new, it has been done. For me, the pertinent issue here is with the GAS itself. Should the GAS be promoting “artwork” like this? Personally, I think not. GAS has a larger responsibility to educate people and I am of the opinion that an image like the one in question here should only appear in the newsletter in the context of a feature story about plagiarism or perhaps the pending legal action Chihuly has brought this past year, certainly not in the service of promoting such truly bad “artwork”. I imagine that many others, besides just myself, have come to expect more of a professional organization, like GAS, whose purpose is to encourage excellence, advance education, and promote the appreciation and development of the glass arts. Sincerely, Dante Marioni nothing to do with what they look like or who actually made them. For most of us, it’s simply too close to looking like a Chihuly for us to be comfortable with the idea of attributing it as original work to Rubino. The courts have to take into account all the legal aspects of this in order to determine the status of the object, but we can make our own informal determinations based on common sense. But if the Rubino case represents one end of the spectrum of infringement on originality, it’s impossible to find consensus on what represents the other end– what are the minimal conditions in which a work is judged unacceptable as a derivative piece? What one person sees as influence or an intelligent permutation of an established idea, another would see as blatantly imitative. For instance, James Yood’s somewhat surprising apologia of Afro Celotto’s work in a recent issue of GLASS magazine comes immediately to mind. Celotto’s pieces seem unambiguously derivative to me, echoing Lino Tagliapietra’s work in form and pattern to an unacceptably close degree. While admitting the obvious similarity to Lino’s work, Yood constructs an unconvincing argument that this is a natural outgrowth of their long relationship. (Celloto last served as an assistant to Lino in the late 80s, when Lino was still working at Effetre International as their lead gaffer and artistic director). Without offering any substantiation at all, Yood states that perhaps Celloto’s imitative work is really an example of an assistant making unattributed contributions to the master that he later reclaims as his own. He also seemed to think that Celotto invented the ‘giro’ or switched axis technique, despite the fact that Lino published similar work as far back as 1981. But all the same, Yood is reputable critic who holds a sincere conviction that Celotto’s work is defensible. It’s an example of a subject upon which people of good conscience can disagree. In the absence of any regulating body to set standards for ethical practice, what remains is the elastic sense of good practice which governs individual behavior. Each of us has a responsibility to define that standard for ourselves in our own work and to be advocates for ethical behavior, according to our own lights. If you can’t acknowledge your own sources honestly, then you need to question if your work is sufficiently innovative to exhibit as original work. When you see a gallery (or a newsletter) displaying what you consider to be a blatant example of imitative work, you have a certain responsibility to say something. In this regard, the person who wrote to us strongly objecting to the published images was being a diligent and responsible member of our community–by acting on his own conscience, the writer was drawing his own line and adding his voice to the larger conversation. What might be termed a peer consensus is the really the strongest ethical authority that exists in the art world. Scott Benefield is the former editor of GAS NEWS, and frequent contributor to the newsletter. He owns and operates a production studio on Camano Island, Wash. To the Editor, I hardly know where to begin in responding to Eddie Bernard’s technical article in the recent issue of GAS NEWS. For starters, it is the first time that I have ever seen a response printed to a letter that was not also published. So since Eddie’s article was in response to my letter to the editor, I am at a disadvantage because he seriously misinterpreted several of my points and then proceeded to respond to these misinterpretations. In NO way did I suggest that only “a chosen few” GAS members would be eligible for the loan of optical pyrometers in the proposed project. I suggest no limitation on the number of participants or require that they even be GAS members. The larger the pool, the better. In any event, if the editors had followed common editorial practice and printed my original letter, readers would see that my proposal was based on two realities: 1) a significant number of studio glass owners are not even members of GAS; and 2) many studios have poor pyrometry or none at all. My proposal, though not claiming to be perfect, has two aims: 1) to reach out to the American hot glass workers who see no benefit in participating in GAS and 2) to make a dent in the waste of fuels that occurs in glass studios. Simply restated, I proposed a program, under the auspices of GAS, through which optical pyrometers would be acquired and made available for loan to study melting practices and resulting energy use in glass studios. Applicants for pyrometer loan would agree to carefully monitor and record their melt cycles and report their results while specifying the glass melted and furnace type. Even given the variation of furnace type and size, such a project could go a long way toward determining optimal melting schedules in similar furnaces for the various commonly used glasses. Given that some studios currently use air or gas pressure gauges as their only measurement and really have no objective idea of their melt temperatures, such a project could result in both conservation of fossil fuels and prolong the life of furnaces and crucibles. As for expense, I would be very surprised if grant funds could not be found to underwrite the project under GAS’s not-for-profit status. Given the increasing media attention and general public interest in energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, funds could surely be found. Diligent communication with the Corning Glass Works Foundation might be all that’s needed (I had a very positive experience with the Foundation on behalf of a not-for-profit years ago). I also believe that it would not be difficult to find a graduate student with environmental concerns to compile, organize, and process the data and extract useful information. Although GAS may serve a portion of the glass community very well, many in the ranks of producing hot glass workers have given up on GAS as being largely irrelevant. I believe that this proposal is an opportunity for GAS to reach out to the wider world of glass makers and be of service not only to the glass community at large but, through promoting energy conservation, to society as a whole. As I originally stated, I would be happy to work with GAS on such a project. It would be wonderful if others such as Eddie Bernard would participate, bringing various viewpoints and experience. I trust that this time, you will follow normal editorial practice and print this letter in its entirety. Bill Glasner (blowing glass and trying to save gas since 1973) Response from Eddie Bernard Bill – Thank you for submitting your letters. Please excuse us for not printing the first version. To clarify a few points: By the term “chosen few,” I didn’t mean you were suggesting “special people,” but that if there was an application process, then obviously the recipients would be "chosen" and probably “few” in relation to the size of the membership. On another point, I don't think the project would serve the membership in the way that you think it would for the various reasons I stated in the article. In an effort to help the membership, I gave my thoughts on how one would go about determining an appropriate melting schedule. Sorry if offense was taken and we do appreciate your thoughts and ideas. Sincerely, Eddie
Art and Originality by Gianni Toso, translated by Karyn Toso Mary Smith,“Fall Necklace”, photo by the artist. GAS LINE Congratulations Are In Order! GAS members Laura Donefer and Norman Faulkner recently received Lifetime Achievement Awards from the Glass Art Association of Canada (GAAC). Mary Smith’s “Fall Leaf Necklace” took First Place in the 2006 Saul Bell Design Award Competition. She was honored in Las Vegas during The JCK Show–Las Vegas in June. GAS member Kathleen Elliott was featured in the 50th issue of AmericanStyle, which highlighted nine emerging artists in different categories, whose work is raising excitement among collectors. Fuel Your Habit on the GAS Message Board There has been a lot of interest in the conference panel “Fueling the Habit,” focusing on how to maximize fuel use and cut costs in the shop. David Levi will host this new topic on the GAS Message Board. Get online and share your ideas, tips and questions with the group. You can check out this and other new categories on the GAS Message Board at www.glassart.org. A Passing We are saddened to hear that Edwin A. Hansen of The Glass Gallery, who has been affiliated with the GlassWeekend at the Creative Glass Center of America at Wheaton for many years, passed away on June 20, 2006. He was an intelligence analyst for many years, including two tours to Australia, and retired in 1979. In 1981, he and his wife opened the Glass Gallery, a Bethesda art gallery presenting the work of nationally recognized artists. He had a strong dedication to the studio glass movement, and was a member of the James Renwick Alliance, the Farmland Trust, and the Nature Conservancy. He is survived by his wife Sally, two children, Deborah Trunzo and David Hansen; a brother; and five grandchildren. OBITUARY Veronique Valkema- Kindermans Uithoorn, May 6, 1919 - Blaricum, May 20, 2006 The Glass Art Society mourns the passing of Veronique Valkema, wife of the late Sybren Valkema (recipient of the Lifetime Achievement Award in 1994). Trained as a nurse, she worked at a hospital in Amsterdam and during WWII was the head nurse at a mental hospital in the south of Holland. After the war she was running a children’s sanitarium in the French countryside where she met my Sybren Valkema; they were married in 1950. Veronique ran the library at the Gerrit Rietveld Academy in Amsterdam from 1965 to 1980. Ulla Forsell tells of visiting the Glass department for the first time in 1972 as a prospective student. One of the students was showing her around–the glass studio, the canteen –and then told her to come and visit the place and person that really mattered: he introduced her to Veronique Valkema in the library. She was a beloved presence at the school, unfailingly helpful and also famous for the many dinners (she was an incredible cook) and parties at the Valkema house in Blaricum. Her passions in life were travel–to Vietnam, Australia, Kazakhstan, Jordan, Portugal, New York and New Orleans– and the books with which she surrounded herself. She is survived by her son Durk Valkema, daughter-in-law Anna Carlgren and her grand-daughter Wyke Valkema. I would like to thank Robin Cass for reopening the question of what constitutes original art to our international community of artists. It is difficult to overemphasize the importance of this debate, and the importance of articulating our own views on the matter not only as regards to intellectual property rights or plagiarism, but rather as a way for laying the foundations of our own art. I have been engaged in this debate for over thirty-five years, and would like to take the opportunity to contribute to the current dialogue. It seems to me that the interviews in the previous article touched upon the technical and academic aspects of the question, but did not grasp the real heart of the matter, which speaks less to lawyers than to creators and connoisseurs alike. Before we can answer the question of what is original art, we must arrive at a workable definition of “Art” itself. What factors go into producing a work of art? Genius? Mastery of technique and the approbation of the Academy (or whatever the contemporary equivalent of that venerable institution)? Interpretation? Culture? My early years of academic education have taught me that there are two types of teachers. Both types profess to teach “culture” to their students. The first type of teacher, best described as a “bureaucrat of culture,” passes on information to the student, with the goal of having the student memorize and acquire that knowledge. The goal of the other type of teacher is rather to actualize the potential of the student by facilitating an internalization and assimilation of the required knowledge. They do this with the understanding that they are merely providing the student with the foundation for his or her own intellectual and creative development. Yet this knowledge cannot develop in a vacuum. Artists–and art–constantly refer to and develop from the work of other artists, as well as the cultural and intellectual climate of the day. The history of art is actually a history of the record of the living dialogue between artists through the centuries. Artists constantly need new stimulation, from within their fields and from the world at large. And herein lays the seeds of the plagiarism question: when has a work of art evolved from what preceded it, and when is it a mere copy? There are those artists who approach a “classic” work of art with the motivation of acquiring knowledge and technique to enhance their own artistic development. (My professor, the late Anzolo Fuga, who taught and influenced an entire generation of Murano maestri, would make us copy the masterpieces of Michelangelo line by line, warning us that if we did not improve upon the original in at least a single detail, we were not evolving in our art, but rather contributing to its decadence.) Then there are those imitators who chose to reproduce original art, typically with the goal of “cashing in” on a popular style or trend. Such “artistry” is best described as theft. During my years as an art student at Murano’s Abate Vincenzo Zanetti, more than half the academy’s funding came from the old glass factories on Murano Island. As a result, at the end of each academic year we were required to create new glass designs for the factories’ production. Our drawings and the glass prototypes we created were exhibited in a local government gallery. Each factory would send its head maestro, who would then select the best design to be reproduced (and mass produced) in his glass factory. Although we were generally a competitive bunch, and were extremely proud of the other awards and recognition our work garnered, this was one “honor” none of us looked for. We knew that our designs would be acquired by some factory, only to be poorly imitated by less skilled workers and sold for a cheap price. Seeing our distress, Professor Fuga assured us that the creator of an idea is always superior to the mediocre imitator, for if the artists were to stop creating, there would be nothing to copy and the furnaces would close. Yet, on a personal note, let me say that I find that cold comfort. As someone who has spent more than half a century working in glass and endeavoring to give value to glass culture, as someone who has tried to elevate the medium of glass as a vehicle for the highest level of human expression, it was infinitely painful to me, on a recent trip to Venice, to see cheap, grotesque “knockoffs” of my work in store after store after store. More recently, I found myself in a Baltimore craft gallery selling mediocre imitations of Maestro Lino Tagliapietra’s work at a fraction of the cost of the originals. It is this kind of market that-far from expanding and popularizing the audience for glass art, as the “gallery” owner claimed– destroys any potential for the healthy growth of the Glass Studio Movement. Where has all of this left us? Whether considering “Art with a capital A,” or “art with a small a,” (I prefer these terms to the rather tired and somewhat clichéd dichotomy of Craft/Art), I believe it is imperative that we as artists reevaluate what it is we are trying to achieve when we create. Even “art with a small a” can be a means to refine taste and enhance the quality of life; true Art has the potential to open new channels of thought and surprise the viewer into new ways of looking and seeing. A vase by Pablo Picasso is only incidentally a vessel that can contain flowers– it is, first and foremost, a container for his intellectual, spiritual and creative experiments. Accordingly, fancy design, color and even composition are merely the formal elements of the work and do not define the whole of the artistic effort. I tell my students that every shape, form or technique they master is the equivalent of a single word in a dictionary. As we accumulate our artistic vocabulary, we begin to develop our own grammar. Once we have amassed a vast number of forms and technique, we have the tools to create a unique language that is the highest form of self expression. Only when an artist has discovered the medium and the language that best matches his chemistry, culture and personality, can he begin work as a real artist who does not merely reproduce life, but has the gift to transmit it. Whether the medium is bronze, marble paint or glass, Art transforms the material into an original language with the pulse and vibration of life itself. I have read of an art critic who had a sure way of identifying authentic ancient Maltese art objects: he found himself crying before them. The “painful joy” he felt was his own intuitive response to the life and the excellence which still infused the work centuries later. This places a very great responsibility on the artist. It is not enough to bemoan the plagiarism and knockoffs flooding the market. Indeed, the phrase “intellectual property rights” implies that there is a measure of thought and intellect, if not true humanistic expression, in the works that we produce. At the end of the day, if we do not maintain the classic standards of our education, through exposure to literature, music, sculpture, etc., if we do not constantly work to expand the boundaries–both technical and intellectual–of our art, we will have no recourse but to resort to mere repetition by marketing an idea that has been done (if only by ourselves) over and over. Gallery owners, too, must be unafraid to take the risk of promoting the newer, experimental work of the artists they represent, rather than pushing for more of the popular, proven crowd pleasers. I find myself bemused that after so many years spent out of the public eye, I felt compelled to respond with these musings in this forum. Perhaps it comes with age–the responsibility I feel to maintain the ideals and direction of the Glass Studio Movement, and to underscore their continued relevance to the young artists working today. Or perhaps it is because I am afraid that in the current debate we risk losing sight of the extraordinary potential and possibilities inherent in the creation of our art. Or perhaps it is my link in the chain: a way to pass on the beauty of the glass experience as it has been handed down to me in a family tradition that began in Venice 700 years ago. Gianni Toso studied at the Abate Vincenzo Zanetti, Murano, Italy, and graduated with a Maestro d'Arte in 1962. His work is held in public and private collections around the world, including Corning Museum of Glass, Corning, New York; the Glass Museum of Dusseldorf, West Germany and others. He has had many solo and group exhibitions, and has been a guest artist at the California College of Arts and Crafts, Oakland, California; the Cleveland Institute of Art, Cleveland, Ohio; the Gerrit Rietveld Academie, Amsterdam and other places. 3
Page 1: september october 2006 volume 17 is
Page 5 and 6: seminars, conferences, events Ankar
Page 7 and 8: UrbanGlass Visiting Artist Fellowsh
Page 9 and 10: PENNSYLVANIA Pittsburgh Glass Cente
Page 11 and 12: County Durham, The Bowes Museum, Te

GAS News S/O 06 copy - Glass Art Society

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?