Seeing Into It: Messages in Glass

SEEING INTO IT:
MESSAGES
IN GLASS
PAUL MARIONI AND SUSAN
STINSMUEHLEN-AMEND

gossip
Paul Marioni, 2011

all it takes
Paul Marioni, 1974

SEEING INTO IT:
MESSAGES
IN GLASS
PAUL MARIONI AND SUSAN
STINSMUEHLEN-AMEND
EMILY ZAIDEN
WITH ESSAYS BY
ANNIE BUCKLEY
GEOFF WICHERT
PUBLISHED BY
CRAFT IN AMERICA

VAGUE SO SO TH T
INTO IT IT WH W
THEY WAN
- MA - M
ILLUMINATING
THE MESSAGE
by Emily Zaiden
A chance encounter at a gathering
of glassmakers in the late 1970s
brought Paul Marioni and Susan
Stinsmuehlen-Amend together
for the first time. The exact
circumstances remain fuzzy but
regardless of the specifics, their
kinship was inevitable. In the
thirty-six years that have passed
since that initial encounter,
Marioni and Stinsmuehlen-
Amend have continually inspired
each other as colleagues and
friends and intersected at pivotal
moments in their careers. What
binds their work together, aside
from their mutual admiration
for one another, is the nurturing
of glass as an expressive medium.
This exhibition is a selective
retrospective of Marioni and
Stinsmuehlen-Amend’s most
meaningful and characteristic
works, spanning the 1970s to
the present. It is a glimpse at
where they started, where they
have gone, and where their work
is heading today. They share a
common belief that anything
is possible and a willingness to
experiment freely as they manifest
their visions. The intent of
this exhibition is to spotlight the
range of processes that they have
expanded, their innovative use
of figurative imagery, and the
way they have translated thoughts,
experiences and emotions into
"I "I PREFER TO TO LEA
THE MEANING INI
WORK SOMEWH
VIEWERS CAN

7
LEAVE
G IN IN MY
WHAT
THAT
AN N SEE
WHAT
ANT."
- - MARIONI
glass. Throughout time, glass
has been used to form vessels,
windows and lenses. Marioni and
Stinsmuehlen-Amend interpret
these functions metaphorically,
turning to glass in their art for
its ability to contain, convey,
frame and illuminate messages
and meaning in a way that
no other material can.
When they first met,
Stinsmuehlen-Amend was
already aware of Marioni’s work
and his limitless potential to
reinvent leaded glass. Dale
Chihuly had asked Marioni to
teach at the fledgling Pilchuck
Glass School in Washington
several years prior and Marioni
had established himself as an
outspoken non-conformist. Like
many of the studio glass pioneers,
Marioni was self-taught.
After completing an English
"I PLAY WITH
WHEN YOU CAN
SEE YOURSELF IN
THE GLASS AND
WHEN YOU CANNOT."
- STINSMUEHLEN-AMEND
and philosophy degree in 1967
at the University of Cincinnati,
he moved to the West Coast and
started making films and installation
art before turning to
stained glass. Marioni was drawn
to glass because he felt that it had
the power to elucidate his ideas
visually and symbolically. He
first became known for creating
painterly, content-rich panels
that dealt with existential and
politically charged subject matter.
He was dedicated to pushing
glass out of the aesthetics-centric
shadow of the Arts and Crafts
movement that had passed
numerous decades before.
Stinsmuehlen-Amend studied
painting and drawing before
going on to run a successful
Austin architectural glass
business starting in 1973.
After meeting Marioni at the

8
conference, Stinsmuehlen-
Amend tracked Marioni down
and invited him to speak at her
studio. Energized by what
Marioni was doing with glass,
fearlessly taking it to new levels
of complexity and irreverently
thumbing his nose at stylistic
trends, Stinsmuehlen-Amend
decided to take the plunge and
explore her artistic voice more
profoundly. Marioni in turn
selected her to T.A. for him at
Pilchuck in 1980 and a world of
possibilities opened up to her.
Marioni was a teacher and
mentor who recognized
Stinsmuehlen-Amend’s
potential, and he generously
helped her enter into the inner
sanctum of leading artists at
Pilchuck, where she swiftly
found her place. Her work
made such a mark that she was
asked to come back and teach
on her own the next year. Like
Marioni, teaching came naturally
to her and it became an important
component of her career.
WHILE THE THE EM
IN IN STUDIO
WAS WAS ON ON COL C
ABSTRACT FORM
FOCUSED ON ON CO
From the beginning, although
Stinsmuehlen-Amend entered
the scene several years after
Marioni, both artists created
work that challenged existing
modes and provided a channel
for personal expression. While
the emphasis in studio glass was
on color and abstract form, they
focused on concept. They saw
the potential of the material to
extend far beyond its physical
characteristics. Glass had the
power to stimulate the mind as
well as the eye. In their hands, it
became a reflection of their lives.
Punk to the core, Stinsmuehlen-
Amend shook up the glass world
with her fragmented X series. In
these pieces, which she started
creating around 1978, she
melded together a pastiche of
colors and textures in a way that
was utterly post-modern. These
were garish, chaotic and powerful
works. They were meant to hang
on walls and be treated in the

SEEING INTO IT
E EMPHASIS
UDIO GLASS
COLOR AND AND
FORM, THEY THEY
N CONCEPT.
hexaplex
Susan Stinsmuehlen-Amend, 1978-79
the conversationalist
Paul Marioni, 1974

10
garden of eden/paradise i
Susan Stinsmuehlen-Amend, 2004
same way that paintings were
presumed to be art. The X was a
symbol of how Stinsmuehlen-
Amend wished to slash through
the old, more staid ways of
approaching glass. The series
was Stinsmuehlen-Amend’s
declaration of the same
radical values that Marioni
put forth in his early installation,
Let Tiffany Die (pg 21).
Stinsmuehlen-Amend concentrated
on bold, experimental
pieces that defied idealized
standards of beauty, taste, form
and pattern in this early period.
She felt free to make glass that
was not bogged down by being
merely pretty, a move which had
visual outcomes but also feminist
implications, especially coming
from one of few women working
in studio glass at the time. She
crossed over the various methods
of manipulating glass and
incorporated other media into
her assemblage-like pieces, using
scraps of everyday material to
give them texture and depth.
Deconstruction and juxtaposition
became formal elements in
Stinsmuehlen-Amend’s work
early on and they have continued,
although shifted, over time.
These initial pieces consisted of
shards and shattered parts that
she assembled together to build
the Xs. Then, in the late 1990s,

11
with the death of her mother
and birth of a son, the structure
of her work moved towards
rectilinearity, with diptychs and
triptychs of contrasted figures
and patterns. She broke her
compositions down into split
segments that were meant to
be absorbed together despite
being separated into individual
panels. Recently she has begun
to sandwich the individual glass
planes of images on top of one
another, giving them multidimensionality.
In these layered
wall panels the viewer is meant
to see into the depth of the piece
but not through it, as would be
the case if these panes were acting
as traditional windows or screens.
The desire to convey ideas
drives Paul Marioni and Susan
Stinsmuehlen-Amend today,
and it has set them apart
from their peers since the
1970s. As Marioni put it,
“Art is a form of
communication.
I make it as a form
of expression.”
Tongues form the scaly skin of
Marioni’s elegantly restrained
portrait of Gossip (pg 3). Spirits
Lifting, with a light reference to
the iconic floating lips of Man
Ray’s lover, holds Marioni’s
personal catharsis after a breakup.
A Man’s Chair (pg 46) by
Stinsmuehlen-Amend possesses
spirits lifting
Paul Marioni, 2008

12
black jaguar
Paul Marioni, 1987
the rage that surged in a dysfunctional
home. Moments in time
and the feelings that come with
them are encapsulated in glass.
or paint, which meld together
to create the piece, and flat
or dimensional forms, would
dominate her future efforts.
Sensuality appears throughout,
sometimes overtly and other
times with more subtlety.
Marioni has never shied away
from eroticism, noting its essentiality
to the human experience.
Some of his works are outright
racy while others are veiled in
ambiguity and innuendo. For
Stinsmuehlen-Amend, sexuality
is intertwined with identity
politics and feminist viewpoints.
In Who’s the Lead, Rex, (pg 27) two
phallic shapes take the stage, and
she played out a multi-faceted
dialogue involving gender
SENSATIONS
dynamics and whether glass
AND
Sensations and experiences,
whether they take place in reality
or in dreams, provide endless
content to both artists. Among
the various themes that emerge
in their work, consciousness and
psychic awareness are launching
points for each, although they
take two very different routes
that have equally unique results.
Marioni is fueled by a desire to
explore the creative power of the
unconscious mind. He often
depicts figures and forms that
come directly from dreams and
the depths of his imagination.
Hallucinatory visions and
EXPERIENCES, WHETHER
THEY TAKE PLACE IN
REALITY OR IN DREAMS,
PROVIDE ENDLESS
CONTENT TO
BOTH ARTISTS.

13
SEEING INTO IT
primordial nightmarish creatures
are embodied in blown vessels
and flat panels that he spikes with
Surrealist wit. Skeletons, hollow
faces with beady eyes, and pointyeared
beasts play leads in Marioni’s
poetic cast of characters.
Stinsmuehlen-Amend instead
makes reality her muse. Especially
in her recent works, she
peels through the layers that
come together to compose her
daily existence and the imagery
that weaves through her mind
as she goes about her business.
She contemplates scribbles and
doodles and asks whether or not
these offhand sketches inadvertently
divulge inner thoughts and
the subconscious identity. Always
willing to reveal herself in her
work, her Calendar series gives us
“a look into her brain,” and the
multitude of ideas and demands
operating in her life in any
single instant. Mental images are
broken down into individual glass
sheets and then overlaid to create
multi-dimensional paintings.
Her process of assigning imagery
to the panels is often plotted
digitally as a starting point, and it
is, in her own words, “a dyslexic
nightmare.” These notes expose
grocery nude to-do
(calendar girl)
Susan Stinsmuehlen-Amend, 2013

14
yew
Paul Marioni, 2003
the complex stratum of life.
Scrawled messages wind up juxtaposed
next to records of lifechanging
moments: her mother’s
chemo, for instance (pg 33).
Everything from the pivotal
to the mundane is jumbled
together on a daily basis. In
her take, womanhood is the
constant piling-on of demands
and the obligation to
multi-task responsibilities.
Although she rarely works in
three-dimensional sculptural
glass, starting in 2006
Stinsmuehlen-Amend created
a series of cleaning products
and cosmetic bottles containing
painted imagery that floats
within (pg 47). Thoughts drift
as one cleans and the mind is
free to wander as one takes care
of the tedious chores that fill
the day. Stinsmuehlen-Amend
filled these containers with
glimpses into the subconscious
psyche. The trivialized tasks that
take up so much of our time
have more significance than we
realize. In addition, she makes
the point that the everyday,
overlooked objects surrounding
us can provide the clearest
insights into who we are.
Marioni also reinvents the
traditional function of glass
as a container. Rather than
storing liquid or other substances,
Marioni’s blown vessels
gather and collect light to be
held inside, which then
illuminates his imagery.

15
In his words, he chose the
material because,
mediums are as entwined with the
mastery of immaterial forces.
SEEING INTO IT
“Glass eats light.
It’s unique, nothing
can capture light and
hold it within, even
if it’s transmitted
through…that brings
the glass to life.”
It is understandable that Marioni
talks about working glass as being
addictive, considering it gives the
artist a mystical ability to harness
and manipulate the intangible,
and to figuratively awaken
inanimate objects. Few other
There is wizardry to the processes
that Marioni has originated over
the decades. A cast glass course
in 1987 with Jaroslava Brychtová
and Stanislav Libenský gave him a
greater understanding of sculpture,
light, volume and space that
prompted him to start making
kinetic Rockers a few years later.
For his Yew, a kinetic mask form
that he cast using a clipping
of the sacred, cancer-curing
tree, the clear glass face is a play
on words instilled with a trace
of that tree’s mysterious spirit.
caption title
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet,
consetetur sadipscing elit

16
mean mountain
Paul Marioni, 2012
luxury glass (sugar bowl)
Susan Stinsmuehlen-Amend, 2013
Arguably, his kinetic sculptures
are the most extraordinary
objects that he has devised.
Challenging the idea that glass
should not move because of its
fragility and rigidity, Marioni
makes his Rockers with the notion
of “putting life into a stationary
object.” When Marioni describes
how he makes and views them,
they are undeniably animated
with a form of higher power.
They grab light and hold enough
energy to self-sufficiently rock
for as much as ten minutes or
more, purring, chattering
or sputtering all the while.
He creates his rocking pieces
to have the capacity to sustain

17
SEEING INTO IT
momentum over time, and
carefully listens to the way that
they “speak through sound.”
These Rockers do not emerge from
Marioni’s hands spontaneously.
Part of what drives Marioni is
the rewards he finds in putting
his vision into reality, despite
the trial and error that it often
entails to get to the final product.
He calculates and perfects the
engineering of these complex
pieces in terms of how they
operate, their structural design
and their center of gravity,
often making several versions
of a piece until he gets it right.
They are multi-sensory works
in the most innovative of ways.
Glass objects are often locked
away as fragile treasures to never
be touched. In Luxury Glass,
Stinsmuehlen-Amend brings
glass to life in her own way by
forming an alien-like creature
out of a cut glass design that
caught her eye. This portrait fits
comfortably alongside Marioni’s
crew of monstrous beings,
including Mean Mountain and
the mysterious Ghost (pg 24).
Decoration and surface pattern
have value to Stinsmuehlen-
Amend and she sees them as
having importance that lies
deeper than the exterior. From
the beginning, she questioned
the modernist dismissal of value
in ornamentation.

18
the visitor
Paul Marioni, 1984
MARION
When Stinsmuehlen-Amend
applies pattern in her work as
STINSMUEHLEN-AM
a
background or overlay, it links
the piece to history and personal
memories, and provides another
LOOK AT GLASS
dimension of associations.
Over the years, the two artists
have taught at the top schools in
A PERSPEC
the country, including Penland
School of Crafts, California
College of the Arts and Rhode
Island School of Design.
UNFETTERE
They have been honored with Marioni and Stinsmuehlenresidencies
in the U.S. and Amend look at glass from a
abroad; most notably, they were perspective unfettered by
CONVEN
selected as Hauberg Fellows at convention. They have never
Pilchuck in 2001 and again in worried about following fashion.
2012. Their work is significant Lamentably, that readiness to
to public and private collections explore new directions has also
across the country and they have contributed to pushing their
shaped numerous civic spaces work into the outer fringe of the
with their contributions. art conversation and limiting its
ability to receive the recognition
that it deserves. Their works have
not fit easily into the categories
of the artistic dialogue during
the late twentieth century. As
such, their contributions have
been skipped over all too often,
despite their having carried glass
beyond the existing hierarchies
and into the broader realm of
the art world. These two rulebreakers
have boldly taken the
road less traveled and they will
continue to push glass into
new territories of expression.

19
SEEING INTO IT
IONI AND
-AMEND
SS S FROM
PECTIVE
ERED BY BY
VENTION.

TOGETHER BEFOR
IS IS CHANGED
PLAYING
WITH FIRE
by Geoff Wichert
Paul Marioni was already an
accomplished independent
filmmaker when he discovered
the American stained glass
movement that briefly, in the
1970s, seemed poised to bring
about a revolution in glass art.
He rose quickly among studio
glass celebrities who were
building an audience for
their art through what they
called ‘the road show.’ Logging
endless miles in a series of rebuilt
Porsches, he showed his work in
lively, often controversial slide
lectures, then taught workshops
where his celebrated inventions
—pointedly labeled ‘cheap
tricks’—inspired glass crafters
to throw out the manual and
find more personal approaches
to art. By the time stained glass
lost its vogue he had moved on,
adding first blown glass, then
"YOU PU P
architectural installations, and
eventually kiln-forming sculpture
and painting to his range
of skills. He continues to break
TOGETH
new ground across this spectrum.
Lucky enough to be present
at the invention of a new art,
TWO THIN
when there were no rules and
everything was yet to be done, he
found no canon, little history,
and few preconceived THAT
ideas. Forty
HAVE NN
years later, a genuine understanding
of studio glass begins
with knowing what he achieved.
BEEN PU P
AND THE WOR
-JULIAN BAR

21
SEEING INTO IT
U PUT
THER
HINGS
E NOT
N PUT
FORE.
ORLD
GED. ""
There is no ‘typical’ Marioni
artwork; his range of subjects and
techniques continues to evolve.
The inimitable, frequently erotic
images that appeared in his early
pictorial panels became as notorious
as the claims he made from
the lectern for marijuana as a
boost to creativity. More iconoclastic
than either, though, was
his scorn for the lead line, which
tied him to a past he excoriated
in Let Tiffany Die, an installation
where shards of glass littered the
floor, while over them lead strips
that might have joined them
dangled from a clothes line, as if
hung out to dry. As befits anything
genuinely new, he and his
work were often misunderstood.
Alongside the contemporary
gamut of art-historical pastiches,
his Magritte-inflected puzzles
were misperceived as knockoffs
of Surrealism. Even his most
characteristic trope, the inventive
use of non-traditional materials
and techniques, was popularly
misread as an effort to make
more convincing representations.
It probably owed more to
Assemblage, the magic synthesis
of sculpture and installation that
had taken root on the West Coast
a decade earlier. Determined to
break down the false distinction
that opposed the artificiality of
art to the reality it aped—but
which was also a social construct
—he filled his illuminated
let tiffany die
Paul Marioni, c. 1975
BARNES

22 parables and paradoxes with
salvaged automobile headlights
and prosthetic glass eyes. Optical
lenses scavenged from Edmund
Scientific become the hair
and eyes of Dali, while in The
Conversationalist (pg 9), his
actual eyeglasses recall his
participation. Such works
were not meant to be realistic;
they were meant to be real.
Almost forty when he began to
blow glass, with no early training
in its demanding craft, he might
have settled for directing teams of
artisans in executing his plans.
Instead he asserted the importance
of surface articulation
over ornamental construction,
thus keeping his own hands on
evermore sophisticated objects,
each unique, even when they
constitute loose variations on an
idea, and each of which, hollow
or solid, is a vessel containing a
metaphysical link meant to
locate and encounter deep-set
thoughts and feelings.
looking back
Paul Marioni, 2001
Drawn to hot glass by its spontaneous
results, he found his task
inverted. Where the traditionally
spiritual medium of stained
glass had lacked materiality,
blown glass was a utilitarian,
design-oriented process already
situated in the mundane world.
What it lacked was metaphorical
content, which he would insert—
literally—into its surface.
Marioni’s voracious curiosity
feeds a worldwide awareness that
informs and inspires his work.
When the legendary aerialist
Karl Wallenda fell in 1978, his

23
death inspired The Fallen Hero.
Although it took shape in a
dream, Premonition, its earth
convulsed by volcanoes and
spewing up serpents, follows years
of environmental degradation.
Not one to deny a compelling
visual its allegorical potential, he
alchemically converts life and art
into social and political criticism,
then back again into art and life.
A playful, determined provocateur,
he remakes every medium
he touches, including some, like
his pictorial Terrazzo floors,
where he has ventured virtually
alone. In one, those who visit a
government office encounter a
bird’s nest, with eggs they must
choose to walk over or around.
Paradoxically, he holds no brief
for glass, yet the material draws
the premonition
Paul Marioni, 1981
fallen hero
Paul Marioni, 1978
SEEING INTO IT

24
ghost
Paul Marioni, 2001

25
SEEING INTO IT
him on. Bending, reflecting,
capturing and emitting light,
it more than compensates for
its obstinate nature. Cast glass
resembles semi-precious stone in
Lickin’, while a diaphanous, blown
Ghost capitalizes on its ectoplasmic
insubstantiality. An eloquent
medium for the dreams and
ecstatic states that bring unconscious
material to awareness, it
locates timeless themes in signs
drawn from the outer reaches of
popular culture: tattoos, skulls,
totems, hearts, masks, disguises
meant to trick the gatekeepers.
He explores the late-Modern
disjunction between expressive
form and content, creating
works that make us laugh and
shiver at the same time. Perhaps
his most subversive achievements
are his kinetic sculptures, the
Rockers, which violate sanctions so
deeply ingrained they operate
without conscious consent. Glass
is always both precious and dangerous,
rarely to be played with,
yet Marioni urges us to take out
our deepest feelings, encoded in
art, and do just that: play with
them, until they become familiar
enough for us to view directly.
Few artists ever reach the level of
hyper-creativity where Marioni
began, where he still works today:
where content, familiar or not,
calls forth radically new media to
contain it. Those who do usually
find their work more readily
appreciated by specialists—in
particular, by other artists—than
by laymen. Indeed, most of what
eventually did revolutionize
glass art has scarcely touched the
general public. Had that been
different, though, Marioni’s
path would not have changed. He
has always made exactly what he
wants to make. His uncanny understanding
of art and unshakeable
self-confidence allow him to
bridge the gap between eccentric
and exceptional. The things
he makes are extraordinary,
and have changed the world.
lickin’
Paul Marioni, c. 2005

X IS FOR
XYLOPHONE:
AND ENDINGS,
AND ERASURE
AND XSTASY:
THE ART OF SUSAN
STINSMUEHLEN-AMEND
by Annie Buckley
xtinxion
Susan Stinsmuehlen-Amend, 1980-81
who’s the lead, rex
Susan Stinsmuehlen-Amend, 1989
After poring over a stack of
exhibition catalogues and
magazine articles on the work of
Susan Stinsmuehlen-Amend,
it is difficult to ignore that
nearly all of these publications
pertain to glass. While
Stinsmuehlen-Amend’s history
with that medium is definitely
important, such specificity raises
the question: Why has the artist’s
work been so pigeonholed? Not
only has she worked with paint,
metal, wire, and a variety of
other materials since the 1970s,
Susan is also an artist for whom
ideas are tantamount to media,
and at times even more integral.
So it is confounding that her
work has been viewed so consistently
through the lens—permit
the obvious pun—of glass.
Beginning in the 1960s, technological
innovations made
it possible to work glass in the
studio rather than in factories.
This change in practice energized
a small but strong community
of artists to transform the way
in which glass could be used in
art. As this shift got underway,
Stinsmuehlen-Amend was still
in college, studying painting.
In the early 1970s, fresh out of
the University of Texas, Austin,
Stinsmuehlen-Amend settled in
Texas. Soon afterwards, a neighbor
invited her to be a partner
in his new business, Renaissance
Glass. Stinsmuehlen-Amend
put her art background to work
designing commercial pieces
while simultaneously turning
the business into an energetic
hub for glass art, inviting artists
from around the country to
lecture and share their work.
She spent long days tending
to the business, and evenings
experimenting with the material
and ideas in her studio, creating
a playful body of work couched

27
SEEING INTO IT
as much in that era’s material
innovations as it is in the art
and culture of the time— and
then she would go dancing.
This was the seventies, the decade
when the radical changes of the
sixties began to find their way
into mainstream American life
and culture, and Stinsmuehlen-
Amend took the newfound freedoms
gained from the Women’s
Rights movement to heart in
her life choices and in her
art. Brushing aside traditional
expectations for the stay-at-home
wife, she was a partner in a thriving
business, a mother, and an
exhibiting artist at a young age.
It was during this time that
Stinsmuehlen-Amend began to
fuse her studies in painting, her
new experience with glass, and
her particular worldview to create
the dimensional collage pieces of
the X series. These wildly colorful

28
weight
Susan Stinsmuehlen-Amend, 1993
fusions of found glass, lead, and
sundry domestic items, including
nail polish, glitter, and wire, each
employ an ‘X’ motif as structural
and visual ground. X is for
xylophone, the ABC books told
us, but it is also for endings
and erasure and those dizzy
knocked-out cartoon eyes darkly
suggesting violence, inebriation,
and ecstasy in various combinations.
At once playful and challenging,
these X works channel
the radical spirit of feminist
artists of the sixties and seventies.
Stinsmuehlen-Amend’s adventurous
early work attacked many
of the typical ideas associated
with glass as a material—that it
be transparent, beautiful, pure,
polished, and generally pleasing—an
impulse that remained
a thread in much of her work.
In these early, busy years,
Susan pioneered many of the
approaches to glass in wide use
today including non-traditional,
unfired painting on glass, mixing
glass with other media, and
presenting painted, decorated
glass on the wall in reflected
light. However, rather than
settle into a style, as she might
have with a successful business
and career, she continued to
experiment. By the middle of the
decade she had left the Xs behind,
as well as her business partnership
and, before long, Texas.
Stinsmuehlen-Amend’s ongoing
visual vocabulary is equally
humorous and incisive. The
wild and witty mélange of jarring
colors, shapes, and textures in
Tower of Multiple Nonfunctions, for

29
SEEING INTO IT
example, draws on the disjunctive
palette and construction of the
X works but with increased layers
and complexity. She began to
integrate imagery and symbols in
what she refers to as narrative
poetic works. In Chernobyl Cocktail,
a brown bird flies away, seemingly
lost, from a rusty brown flame
atop a structure; if that bird had
eyes, they would surely be Xs.
In 1988, Stinsmuehlen-Amend
moved to Los Angeles. She
quickly applied her energy and
experience with commercial
projects to civic renovation,
joining the Community Redevelopment
Agency’s Hollywood
Cultural Plan Committee and
being named lead artist on the
Hollywood Boulevard Streetscape
Team. In the studio, the
tower of multiple nonfunctions
Susan Stinsmuehlen-Amend, 1985
chernobyl cocktail
Susan Stinsmuehlen-Amend, 1986

THE PROG
30
HER
EXP
RESONAT
AND EXPER
gender issues embedded in
Stinsmuehlen-Amend’s work
since those first attacks on
convention in the X series shifted
from suggestion to prominence.
Her use of multiple patterns
posited against one another,
integration of domestic
materials, and the insertion
of her own life experiences
resonated with the progressive
and experimental work of
feminist artists of the era.
Works such as Weight and Buoy (pg
40), take the form of a uterus.
Like Hannah Wilke and Carolee
Schneemann, Stinsmuehlen-
Amend’s approach to the female
body came from experience,
and posed a counterpoint to
centuries of images of women
in art created by men. Infused
with humor, pathos, and irony,
String of Boobs, (not included in
this exhibition), is a line of clear
glass orbs with nipples that was
constructed by a team of male
fabricators at Pilchuck under
Stinsmuehlen-Amend’s
direction. In this piece,
Stinsmuehlen-Amend fluidly
moved between maker and
facilitator, playing against
stereotype of both materials
and gender roles in art.
In Common Vessels (pg 47),
Stinsmuehlen-Amend addressed
glass’s relationship with functionality,
casting household items,
associated with women’s work,
in glass and layering in painted
imagery. Her interest in the
day-to-day, specifically in its
relationship to the unconscious
mind, fuelled Calendar Notations
(pg 33), a provocative series
of layered paintings on glass.
Enlarging fragments from calendars,
notebooks, and doodles
(including a picture drawn by her
son as a child in Happy Face) on
glass, Stinsmuehlen-Amend fused
WORK OF
ARTISTS OF

ER R OWN LIFE
SEEING INTO IT
XPERIENCES
ATED WITH
ROGRESSIVE
PERIMENTAL
OF F FEMINIST
happy face
Susan Stinsmuehlen-Amend, 2001
OF THE ERA

32
t.g.i.f./april,
calendar notations
Susan Stinsmuehlen-Amend, 2005
these with pattern in layered
paintings. T.G.I.F. is a clear glass
panel with layers of handwritten
script, some of it crossed
through, and a figure of a boy
with a crown. The ephemeral
nature of the original text is
made solid in glass, yet remains
apparent in the shadows that
the painted script casts on the
wall. This process of painting
found imagery with notes,
calendars, or shopping lists
raised the minutiae of daily life
to a level of prominence and
focused attention on the
unconsidered, the fleeting
and the left-behind.
Her most recent work continues
to address ideas and processes
developed throughout her
career. Man View II (pg 49), is
exciting in its suggestion of a new
direction and is also one of the
most visually complex pieces to
date. Multiple layers of imagery
include anatomical, cartoon,
and photographic views of the
male body. The combination of
different kinds of images, as well
the probing of social and cultural
iconography, call to mind the
tapestry-like paintings of Los
Angeles-based artist Carole
Caroompas. Stinsmuehlen-
Amend’s roots as a painter are
apparent throughout her work, as
is her long history with glass. But
overall, it is the way she employs
these and other materials, and
their various psychosocial and
cultural murmurings, that
makes her art—in every media
she uses—so deeply compelling.

33
SEEING INTO IT

IN THEIR
OWN WORDS:
PAUL MARIONI
AND SUSAN
STINSMUEHLEN-AMEND
Stinsmuehlen-Amend: Okay,
so Paul, how do you remember
first knowing that I existed
on the planet, how did that
happen in your mind?
Marioni: Boy, I can’t remember
back that far, that
was in the 70s. Didn’t we
meet in ’78 or something?
S-A: Like at some conference,
like at Portcon or something?
M: Where was Portcon?
S-A: Portcon was in Dallas.
There was one in Dallas.
M: That’s probably where we
met. They did a workshop
in your studio in Austin. In
about ’78 or ’79. We might
have met before that, but I
don’t remember where.
S-A: Right…I was reading glass
magazines, and I was reading
about people like you and I was
like, well, that’s being done in
glass, with leaded glass no less,
and I was calling up people and
asking them to come down to
Austin. I just didn’t remember
if I had called you or if we had
met at one of those glass conferences…what
is it like, thirtyseven
years ago, or something?
M: It would be in the late 70s
so yeah, about thirty-six years
ago…I don’t look back like that.
I’m more concerned with the
future than I am with the past.
S-A: I’m a little bit like that
too. I don’t like to think of
the past and kind of shine it
up. Maybe that’s one of the
reasons that we are—one of the
pluses in our relationship.
M: Yeah.
S-A: But I did invite you to come
and teach a workshop in Austin.
You stayed at my house, correct?

35
SEEING INTO IT
splash, dash, dots, & dels
Susan Stinsmuehlen-Amend, 1985
x oohaha
Paul Marioni, c. 1980

ANYTHIN
POSSIBLE W
I I WA W
YOUR STU
36 M: I think so.
S-A: I invited you down, you
came, and then after you saw
my work, which was the beginning
of the Xs, you asked me
to be your T.A. at Pilchuck.
And why did you do that?
M: I was impressed!
You were talented.
S-A: You didn’t think
those pieces were ugly?
M: Not at all, no! I thought they
were great. They’re still some
of my favorite of your work.
S-A: You know it’s funny
that work got me notoriety
but nobody ever bought
any of those pieces.
M: Yeah, well that’s not
unusual either.
S-A: Anyway…You liked my
work…Everybody around me
didn’t know what to think about
what I was doing. And then you
asked me to Pilchuck, which
I barely even had
I
heard
I of.
JUST THOU
And I stayed with you in Seattle
and I couldn’t believe all this
work, and your work and the
OH MY
–-STINSMUEHLEN-
jalapeno girl
Susan Stinsmuehlen-Amend, 1986-87

37
SEEING INTO IT
OUGHT
MY Y GOD
HING IS IS
E WHEN
WAS IN IN
STUDIO.
HLEN-AMEND
studio. I just thought, oh my
god, anything is possible when I was
in your studio. And you were
so supportive. And then we
went to Pilchuck and I was your
T.A. except that you did what
you did and I did what I did; I
don’t know what the class did.
You used to give these great talks,
slideshows called ‘The Good,
The Bad and The Ugly.’ And
people would send you slides
from all over the world [that] you
just put in a big old slideshow.
So it was really important that
you were spreading out the visual
information to the world about
what can be done with glass.
M: Yeah, we were trying to
make something happen.
S-A: And what was your thing
about the flat glass part of it?
Who was it you studied with
in Northern California?
M: Judy North. At the time she
was Judy Raffael, married to the
painter Joseph Raffael. She had
taught at Bennington; she was
trying to do something with flat
glass but not getting anywhere…
and she moved out to Northern
California when she married
Joseph…We had this connection
before we met [because they had
seen each others’ work]. But she
got me interested in glass. I was
making movies, at the time.
S-A: So when you first
went to Pilchuck were you
teaching flat glass?
M: Yeah. I met Chihuly a couple
of years before. He had come to
Oakland to do a workshop with
Marvin [Lipofsky] at California
College of Arts and Crafts.
And Chihuly and I immediately
latched onto each other. In
fact, he was supposed to give a
lecture and he and I went out
for a walk ‘cause we had started
talking to each other. We walked
and we got back forty-five
minutes late, and Marvin was

the queen
Paul Marioni, 1993
the glassblowers
Paul Marioni, 1995
really pissed. Dale and I were
instant friends. Dale had just
started Pilchuck the year before,
so then he asked me to come
out. And basically that whole
summer was just rich for me.
S-A: But were you originally
a spokesperson for ‘flat glass,’
which is what it was called at
that time?
M: Well, actually it wasn’t.
I adopted the term because it
was a derogatory term from
glassblowers, and I liked it so I
took it on. Prior to that I would
say I didn’t do stained glass, I
did ‘strange glass.’ I never did
anything traditional. That was the
beauty of Judy Raffael—she let me
come out to her studio for five
days, taught me how to cut glass,
how to cut the lead and solder,
and then she said, “go home
and do whatever you want to do.
Get out of here and don’t come
back.” And I had no preconceived
notions about what should
be done. So I started making
wall pieces and sculptural pieces
and weird imagery and laminating
photographs ‘cause I had no
idea what had been done or what
I was supposed to do. And they
asked me to teach at CCAC. So
I started blowing glass but then
Dale wanted me to introduce flat
glass to Pilchuck, back when it was
two tables around the hot shop.
S-A: I was not trained in stained
glass or glass at all. You were not
either. You found out what you
found out on your own, correct?
M: Yeah, that’s right. To me,
you were an artist. You were not
a glass artist. You were an artist.
That’s what interested me about
you. You’re a vivacious personality
and extraordinarily talented
and smart. And beautiful.
S-A: Woohoo!
M: And you were doing something
exciting. And at Pilchuck,
you were a hit. They asked
you to teach there before you
even finished being a T.A.
S-A: That’s the other thing
we were talking about, that
you and I seem to be sort
of natural teachers. I didn’t
set out to be a teacher and I
don’t know if you did but—
I I WOU
I I DID
STAINED
I I DID 'ST
GLASS.' I
M: Definitely not. For me it
was payback time. After all
DID
the
ANY
teachers I would have liked
to throttle. Once they asked
me to teach, it was revenge.
TRADIT
S-A: To the benefit of your
students. It just seems like we
just became natural friends and
we naturally respected what each
other was doing. I think you
inspired me…I would say more
about the approach, which is like,
fearless, most of the time…
I always felt better knowing you
were there and I always was inspired
by the way you would come
up with—one year you’re teaching
flat glass, the next year you’re
teaching cast glass and making
these incredible molds to press
and it seemed like you were always
coming up with new ways of
dealing with these old processes.
M: We were fast friends, no
question about that, a mutual
admiration society…So sometimes
it was cast glass, sometimes
painting, sometimes laminating

OULD SAY
SEEING INTO IT
DIDN'T DO
ED D GLASS,
'STRANGE
S.' I I NEVER
ANYTHING
DITIONAL.
-MARIONI

40
buoy
Susan Stinsmuehlen-Amend, 1993

41
photographs; it was all these
different ways of doing it.
I had to find a way to put my
vision into reality, same as
you. You were gluing stuff on
the lead lines and painting
stuff on the lead lines and
laminating and you were
breaking all the barriers, too.
S-A: We were both at the
Hauberg [Fellowship] together
and that seemed right. And
then we both were in Scotland
together. Other people have seen
us as natural or good together.
That wasn’t something that we
planned. I think others have
recognized us for the same
thing you just said, of breaking
the rules or moving out of the
predictable notions about where
you would go with the material.
M: Birds of a feather.
S-A: Birds of a feather,
there you go.
S-A: We might talk about when
we were painting in the room
together at the last Hauberg, and
you were painting Mean Man
and Mad Mountain. It was just
astounding to me that they
were so simple and you were
piling on this paint with such
urgency…I do get inspired by
watching you or seeing what you
come up with and imagining
where the ideas came from.
That still seems like a big mystery
space for me about your work,
although I think we both have
an attachment to Surrealism.
M: Figurative. We both like to
work figurative…We’re driven
by passion. And that’s a good
thing. Passion drives people to
do what they’re doing, whether
it’s mass murder or painting,
you know. Passion’s a good
thing. Many people don’t
have it. They just have drama.
Drama is a dead end street.
S-A: Sometimes I feel like I
don’t know what I want to
make next, and then I say,
oh, you don’t feel passionate about this.
It gets tricky sometimes in terms
of coming up with the idea.
fermat’s last theorem
Paul Marioni, 1998

42
[Do you see yourselves as rebels?]
M: I’m a saboteur. Not so much
rebel. I’m interested in what I
can learn, and that usually means
exploring new territory. But
provocateur is probably a better
word. I had a lifelong quest to
learn, which means, of course…
if you’re a provocateur you’re
trying to go to some place you
haven’t been before. I say you
could live three lifetimes of a
hundred years and not know
everything there is to know about
glass, because glass has a mind of
its own. And it’s extraordinarily
demanding material. It’s fragile
and, particularly hot glass,
unpredictable. Blowing glass,
which I never really did much,
is extraordinarily demanding.
You have to be there 100%
mentally and physically; you have
a hangover or a fight with your
frida
Paul Marioni, 1992
partner, you’re not going to be
very good at blowing glass. It
requires such intense focus. To
me, it’s addicting that it requires
that focus. I want to continue to
learn the rest of my life. In fact,
right now, I feel a little stagnant
so I’m going to start a new life.
It might be a life of crime.
S-A: I don’t think that’s one of
the craft categories. Or maybe it
is! The craft of crime…You’ve
always taken me to a place that
I don’t recognize, or don’t
know. So that intrigues me,
to try to wrap my head around
your work. I find it mystifying
and provocative and inspiring,
so that’s always been good…
Rebel? I think that I may operate
a little more spontaneously in
terms of not taking the time to
learn more, and just take action,
which I lament sometimes, but…

SEEING INTO IT
M: I do think your work is more
spontaneous than mine. I usually
have a clear vision of what
I want to make before I start.
Sometimes I make changes as I’m
going along, but I think you’re
more spontaneous than I am.
the something or other society
Paul Marioni, 2005
S-A: Yeah, it’d be hard to say.
I’ve been plotting things out
pretty well. But then if they don’t
work or they don’t look good I’m
pretty spontaneous in making
changes. But I think I was more
spontaneous in the early days.
M: Yeah. I think the new multilayered
imagery is really good…
you’re always good with color.

44
barren would
Paul Marioni and Susan Stinsmuehlen-
Amend collaboration, 1982
S-A: Thanks, thanks. Is there
anything else? We just like each
other and just inspire each other.
M: Mutual inspiration society.
[Can you discuss sexuality
in your work?]
M: Well, sometimes I address
it…I address human sexuality
because…after the AIDs epidemic,
I lost a lot of friends,
having lived in the Bay Area for
eighteen years. Our sexuality is
a big part of our existence…I try
and make the work about our
sexuality humorous so people
can come back to realizing it’s
so important and pleasurable as
part of our whole existence. It
kind of goes back to recognizing
it, not mourning our sexuality.
S-A: I’ve dealt with sexuality
in my work, off and on all
through it. And sometimes I
IN IN A DREAM
I I COULD A
MY FEARS AN A
GROUNDLES
like the ambiguous nature of
not knowing what it is, that
it could be something sexual,
REALLY
but you could just go to that
place. The more meaning that
I can elicit from the work I do
the better. Being a woman and
sexuality has been part of the
work forever. How much do you
rely on your subconscious, or
unconscious? I think some of
that information comes from
that area, from that territory
of dreaming or imagining.
M: Early in my work a lot of
it came from dreams. I still
have quite weird dreams…
the dreams never really make
much sense. I never really try
to analyze them. The strange
thing is that I never have nightmares.
I haven’t had a nightmare
in probably forty years.

45
AM M STATE
D ADDRESS
S AND HOW
LESS THEY
LLY LY WERE.
-MARIONI
S-A: That means you’re
really open-minded.
M: No, it means—around 1970
we did a lot of dream study work.
A group of us got together years
before it was a thing…but once a
month we would hire a speaker,
whether it was a Hopi shaman
or a psychologist, whatever, a
Freudian, a Jungian. It was a
mixed group, all art people, but
not all artists. Everyone else was
interested in interpreting their
dreams and I wasn’t because to
me, dreams are just misfiring
neurons. I’m not interested in
interpreting them. It’s like if you
dropped one of your pieces and
it broke, you likely would have
a dream about breaking glass. It
doesn’t mean that you’re anxietyridden
or whatever: you broke
a piece that day so you dreamed
about breaking glass that night.
I wasn’t interested in being a
Jungian or a Freudian. I was
interested in what I could see.
One of the things that particularly
interested me was getting
over my fears because I had a
number of fears when I was
young. And in a dream state I
could address my fears and how
groundless they really were. It
did a lot for my self-confidence.
It’s one of the reasons I started
teaching and started speaking
in public. And so dreams were
important in my early work,
in the imagery. I used a dream
in my work as a way of expressing
an emotion. And still do.
S-A: We both were doing leaded
glass when we first met, before
and after. Why did you evolve out
of doing the leaded glass panel?
M: Uhh. You’re not going to
like this! For years I thought that
stained glass was being reborn.
But around 1984, I realized
it was still boring. I couldn’t
sell it, so I stopped doing it.
SEEING INTO IT

46
a man’s chair
Susan Stinsmuehlen-Amend, 2003
S-A: I was doing these panels
that were leaded glass on the
wall, ‘cause I thought maybe
if I put it on the wall it will
be considered more as art.
But I was still using the lead
lines and putting these things
together, and I think about
that same time, I also went, I
think this is ridiculous for me to be
using lead lines —I don’t know
what it is about that process!
M: I still love the process, I see
enormous potential, but I haven’t
made a leaded glass window since
about ‘85, I think, was the last
one. I actually remade one last
year for Dante, a very early one.
I had the original drawing…it was
Mt. Tamalpais blowing a smoke
ring. Mt. Tamalapais has like a
sleeping woman, and out of the
top blows a smoke ring in the sky.
I remade it but actually I cut all
the glass and leaded it and then
I had to pay Ed Koury to solder
it. I hadn’t done one since about
’85 and I wanted it done right, so
I paid Ed to finish it for me after
I cut all the glass and the lead.
S-A: I’m teaching at RISD and
typically they introduce people
to everything and leaded or
copper foil glass is on the list,
and I’m really having trouble
coming up with an assignment
for that process.
M: It’s limiting. It’s a limiting
process! I used to take fake lead
lines and run a lead line out in
the middle of a shape and glue it
on, because you can’t cut halfway
through a piece of glass, you’ve
got to connect every line. It’s
very limiting in the design.

47
SEEING INTO IT
common vessels/spray bottle
Susan Stinsmuehlen-Amend, 2006

48
I find painting on glass does away
with all those limitations…[and]
limitations of color. You want
red but you want a real cherry
red but all they’ve got is tomato
red and so you use it because
it’s red but it’s not exactly the
red you want. And your design’s
limited by the lead lines.
And painting on glass opens
up all of those parameters.
But like I said, I always saw you
as an artist, not a glass artist.
You’re an artist. You use glass
sometimes. A lot of people,
because of their popularity
in glass, they brand themselves
as glass artists. I never did
because I’ve made movies and
worked in plastic and wood,
performances pieces and
PEOPLE WORKED
WITH GLASS
AND THEY
WEREN'T GLASS
ARTISTS. THEY
USED GLASS
WHEN IT FIT
everything. I always thought of
myself as an artist, just that I’m
THEIR IDEA.
known for the work I make out
of glass. Doesn’t make me a glass
artist. It’s like Marcel Duchamp.
People worked with glass and
they weren’t glass artists. They
used glass when it fit their idea.
[We are looking forward to
the show.]
M: We’ll have fun and we’ll
accomplish something. That’s
as good as it gets. Doesn’t get any
better than that. We will enjoy it.
S-A: Yes we will!
*This conversation took place via
Skype on November 30, 2013
and was transcribed by Alexandra
Romanoff and edited for clarity.
-MARIONI

49
man view ii
Susan Stinsmuehlen-Amend, 2013
susan stinsmuehlen-amend
and paul marioni
teaching at North Lands Creative
Glass in Scotland, 2012

50
OBJECTS IN
EXHIBITION
*Unless noted,
loans and photos are
courtesy of the artists.
paul
marioni
Black Jaguar, 1987, painted and
blown glass, 14 x 8 x 5, Russell
Johnson photograph (pg 13)
Fallen Hero, 1978, painted
and blown glass, 9 x 5 x 5,
Collection of the artist, Roger
Schreiber photograph (pg 23)
Fermat’s Last Theorem, 1998,
enamel fired on glass, 26 x 26,
Russell Johnson photograph
(pg 40)
Frida, 1992, painted and blown
glass, 21 x 7 x 7, Collection of
Susan Stinsmuehlen-Amend,
Russell Johnson photograph
(pg 43)
Ghost, 2001, kinetic blown and
frosted glass, 19 x 10 x 6, Russell
Johnson photograph (pg 24)
The Glassblowers, 1995, enamel
fired on glass, 24 x 24, Russell
Johnson photograph (pg 39)
Gossip, 2011, enamel fired on
glass, 27 x 24, Courtesy of
William Traver Gallery, Seattle,
Washington, Russell Johnson
photograph (pg 3)
Lickin’, c. 2005, kinetic cast
glass, 16 x 10 x 4, Collection of
Susan Steinhauser and Daniel
Greenberg, Russell Johnson
photograph (pg 25)
Looking Back, 2001, enamel fired
on glass, 23 x 25, Russell
Johnson photograph (pg 22)
Mad Man, 2012, enamel fired on
glass, 25 x 19, Russell Johnson
photograph (pg 54)
Mean Mountain, 2012, enamel
fired on glass, 25 x 22, Russell
Johnson photograph (pg 16)
The Queen, 1993, painted and
blown glass, 16 x 9 x 9, Russell
Johnson photograph (pg 39)
The Something or Other Society,
2005, painted and blown glass,
10 x 7 x 7, Russell Johnson
photograph (pg 43)
Spirits Lifting, 2008, painted and
blown glass, 11 x 12 x 3, Russell
Johnson photograph (pg 11)
The Visitor, 1984, painted and
blown glass, 9 x 6 x 6, Roger
Schreiber photograph (pg 19)
X Oohaha, c. 1980, painted and
blown glass, 8 x 5 x 5, Collection
of Susan Stinsmuehlen-Amend,
Russell Johnson photograph
(pg 35)
Yew, 2003, kinetic cast glass,
21 x 14.5 x 5.5, Collection of
Susan Steinhauser and Daniel
Greenberg, Russell Johnson
photograph (pg 15)
Photos on pg 4, 9, 23
Russell Johnson photograph

51
SEEING INTO IT
Hexaplex, 1978-79, handblown
and rolled glass, ead, zinc, paint,
glitter, 36.5 x 28.5, Will van
Overbeek photograph(pg 9)
susan
stinsmuehlen-amend
A Man’s Chair, 2003, enamel
fired on glass, mixed media
on wood panels, 24 x 32, Tom
Kelley photograph (pg 46)
Buoy, 1993, blown glass,
knotted twine, brass, fabric,
7 x 12 x 3.5, Collection of Anne
Cohen Ruderman, Richard
Todd photograph (pg 40)
Chernobyl Cocktail, 1986, painted
and fused glass, modeling
paste, metals, wood, 38 x 35,
Collection of Susan Steinhauser
and Daniel Greenberg, Lone Star
Silver Studio photograph (pg 29)
Common Vessels/Spray Bottle, 2006,
off hand sculpted solid glass,
painted pickups, 16 x 7 x 5
(pg 47)
Garden of Eden/Paradise I, 2004,
enamel fired on glass, found
metal, mixed media on wood
panels, 24 x 24, Kim Stephenson
photograph (pg 10)
Grocery Nude To-Do (Calendar
Girl), 2013, enamel fired on
glass, 32 x 21 (pg 13)
Happy Face, 2001, fired enamel
and decals on glass, mixed
media on wood panel, 16 x 24,
Collection of Jo Lauria, Tom
Kelley photograph (pg 31)
Jalapeno Girl, 1986-87, off hand
sculpted solid glass, 17 x 7 x 3
(pg 36)
Luxury Glass (Sugar Bowl), 2013,
enamel fired on glass, mirror,
metal frame, 20 x 29 (pg 16-17)
Man View II, 2013, fired enamel
and photo decals on glass, wood
and metal support,32 x 21 x 1.5
(pg 49)
T.G.I.F./April, Calendar Notations,
2005, enamel fired on glass,
wood support, 30 x 19 x 4
(pg 33)
Tower of Multiple Nonfunctions, 1985,
glass, paint, modeling paste,
jewels, brass, copper, zinc, lead,
wood, 38 x 17, Lone Star Silver
Studio photograph (pg 29)
Weight, 1993, blown glass, knotted
twine, brass, fabric, 17 x 12 x 3.5,
Richard Todd photograph
(pg 28)
Who’s the Lead, Rex, 1989, glass,
wood, paint, hard foam,
46 x 42 x 6, Collection of
Susan Steinhauser and Daniel
Greenberg, Rob Brown
photograph (pg 27)
Xtinxion, 1980-81, etched,
painted and hot-worked glass,
laminated fabrics and plastic,
found plastic, copper, brass,
steel, zinc, wire, 50 x 30, Will
van Overbeek photograph
(pg 27)

52
ACKNOWL-
EDGEMENTS
This show came about because we
wanted to celebrate the visionary
work of these two artists.
Without the willingness,
flexibility and dedication of
Paul Marioni and Susan
Stinsmuehlen-Amend,
content aside, this exhibition
and catalog would not have
been possible. They assisted
in innumerable ways from
inception through fruition
and having their passionate
involvement brought
the project to life.
Familial ties lead Richard
Amend to lend his impeccable
eye and gifted hand to the
exhibition design. His
resourcefulness and
inherent understanding
of the objects was invaluable.
John Maeda was able to
capture the essence of the
objects and translate that spirit
into the design of the catalog.
With grace and total efficiency,
Denise Kang provided the
organizational skills and attention
to detail that were essential
to producing every aspect of
the exhibition and catalog.
Alexandra Romanoff and Judy
Hing provided precise and
insightful editorial assistance
to the text. Beverly Feldman
creatively helped generate publicity
and interest in the exhibition.
We are deeply grateful to Jo
Lauria, who graciously worked to
create and moderate a program
in conjunction with the show.

53
SEEING INTO IT
Patricia Bischetti, Rosey Guthrie
and the staff at Freehand, Terry
de Castro, Madison Metro, Mary
Oligny, Ruth Oglesby, and
Argenta Walther were critical to
this endeavor on every level.
In addition, Craft in America
wishes to thank the following
individuals and organizations
for their generous support of
the exhibition and catalog;
Anonymous, Glass Alliance of
Los Angeles, Daniel Greenberg
and Susan Steinhauser, and
Gloria and Sonny Kamm.
We would also like to thank
Daniel Greenberg and Susan
Steinhauser, Jo Lauria and
Anne Cohen Ruderman for
lending artwork to the show.
emily zaiden
Craft in America
Center Director
carol sauvion
Craft in America
Executive Director

mad man
Paul Marioni, 2012

COPYRIGHT © 2014
WWW.CRAFTINAMERICA.ORG
ISBN: 978-0-615-96305-1