Corning Curator Counsels Collectors
An interview with William Warmus
In November,1983 I was interviewed by Mindscape gallery in Chicago, and the interview was published (in late 1983 or early 1984) in their Newsletter. The Mindscape Collection was at 300 West Superior in Chicago, Illinois 60610.
William Warmus is the Associate Curator of 20th Century Glass at The Corning Museum of Glass in Corning, New York. He's responsible for acquisitions and exhibitions, but he devotes time as well to writing criticisms of glass.
In mid-November (1983), Warmus traveled to Chicago to speak to the Mindscape Glass Group. He took a few moments to answer some questions for us.
THE MINDSCAPE COLLECTION:
Some observers have said that this is a unique time in glass history in America.
Do you agree?
WILLIAM WARMUS:
Yes. Within the last four to five years, the studio glass movement -- the glass that started in the 1960's -- has reached a mature level. In fact, the work in the Corning "New Glass" show of 1979 is, in retrospect showing itself to be somewhat immature compared to what we see now. The next step, I think, will come when we see how well particular artists become known in the art world overall.
Also, I feel it's a unique time for glass because of the wonderful things happening in a number of small production studios. These small studios can adapt quickly to reflect different trends or styles in a way that larger factories can't. This is a trend that may have a much larger impact historically than one would expect.
TMC :
Do you use the term "the glass movement?"
WW:
It's really an easy catch phrase, like "abstract expressionism." No one likes those phrases -- or at least no one admits they do! I think it's part of the jargon that comes from being involved with glass. If you don't use it, you find yourself using ridiculously long phrases to describe what you mean. I don't particularly like it, but it's a workable shorthand notation that's useful when talking with other glass people. do avoid using it with the general public, however.
TMC:
Would you comment on the degree of influence that galleries have had in the acceptance of glass as an art medium?
WW:
This is a difficult question for me to answer because of my perspective as a museum curator. But I feel sure that galleries have been the major influence in attracting collectors to glass. Yet as important as the galleries have been, I feel they must now be willing to adapt and grow, and I worry that some of them are not growing into maturity as quickly as some collectors. They have to be willing to help the collectors learn more.
TMC:
We've sponsored a series of lectures and seminars during the past few years to accomplish just that!
And that brings me to our next area of discussion: The role of the collector. First, do you see an increasing number of people approaching glass from a collecting standpoint?
WW:
Quite definitely. I notice it in two areas in particular.
The first is in the Glass Art Society. l've been on the Board of GAS for almost four years now, and in the beginning, we were aware of only a very few collectors. Now, collectors are much more noticeable; they are greater in number, and more mature in their approach. The second place I notice more and more collectors is when they come through the Museum.
TMC:
Would you offer some advice to the newer collectors of glass?
WW:
Well, to simplify, it seems there are two approaches to collecting. The first is what I call "boundless enthusiasm," which is a good and valuable trait. But the second is better, for it's the same enthusiasm but tempered over time with lots of investigation and more maturity.
TMC:
Would you elaborate?
WW:
Reaching this second level comes from reading, asking questions of gallery owners, researching. All the while a person is collecting work, he or she should be learning. And the more you question and discuss work, the better you will understand there is no single right answer.
Too often, collectors of contemporary glass don't realize how important it is to understand glass from a historical perspective --to see today's work in a historical context. If you can visit museums, such as Corning, you'll see the precedents and connections between earlier glass and today's glass.
Also, I sometimes suggest that if you can't learn everything, you should at least pick out one area to learn thoroughly. Perhaps you might choose a historical time (such as Roman glass), an artist (such as Gallé, one of my areas of specialty) or possibly a specific form (such as paperweights). The key is to keep learning.
TMC:
How can a collector interface with a museum? Many glass collectors would like to bring to a museum's attention some of the work being done today in glass.
Any suggestions?
WW:
A good curator will make him or herself open to new things. As a first step,
give the curator lots of information -- possibly put together a slide presentation -- but in a low key, "no obligation" manner. I suspect museum people can be turned off by "boundless enthusiasm," so that approach should be avoided. Also,
I think it's better to approach smaller public museums, university art galleries and so on rather than the really large museums. You're likely to have better luck, because they have less at stake and they are less in the public eye. The bigger museums tend to be slow in catching on.
TMC:
Any other ways you can suggest for collectors to participate in glass' growing acceptance?
WW:
Collecting involves giving of yourself. If you feel you can contribute by giving lectures, for instance, make yourself available. If you can write well -- that's another way. There are scholarships that always need funds, for instance. But I think the major
Support collectors can give is to the artist, by buying his or her work over time. This psychological support is very important.
TMC :
Let's focus on decision making. How do you, as a museum
curator, go about selecting a piece?
WW:
The first thing to consider, of course, is your immediate response to the piece. When you first see a new show, walk through it, trying to be kind of blank, just absorbing the work. But mentally note what stands out right away. Then, add to your first immediate response lots of information.
As a curator, I have to consider the piece's place in our collection, historically and in terms of representation. I also consider technique, but that doesn't necessarily mean how well the piece is made - but rather how interestingly it is made. For instance, some people may glue in a sloppy way, but that can become interest-depending on how appropriate it is to what they want to do.
I also ask myself what sort of tension the piece sets up. By this I mean tension between the medium (glass) or the technique and the idea of what it is supposed to represent. There may also be tension between what we know and are familiar with (like glass in utilitarian forms) and what is unexpected (like glass as sculpture).
TMC:
Does your evaluation or decision-making process differ any from that of a private collector?
WW:
Yes and no. The "no" is probably because we do things as a committee at the Museum. We all have to agree as a small group and then formally present our idea the director.
TMC :
But collectors frequently come in pairs -- husbands and wives!
WW:
I never thought of that. guess that's a committee, too! But it's unfortunate that an "institutional mystique" gets built about museums. People may think: "Oh, this museum has shown such wonderful judgement!" And yet, we're really just individuals using our personal taste. We probably are exposed to more than the average person, so theoretically our tastes should be better, but they don't have to be. I'm sure there are private collectors around whose taste is as good as mine...or better.
TMC:
Is one difference that private collectors can take risks on new artists, new work, while museums cannot as easily because of their formal structure, red tape, and so on?
WW:
I think we at Corning do take risks. That's why I mentioned small museums earlier, because they can take risks more readily and have a much less formidable
Committee structure. But nevertheless I believe the collector should be the primary risk-taker. This willingness to take risks is the most positive legacy of that first burst of "boundless enthusiasm. The major attribute of the private collector, from the museum's view, is that the collector mediates. Museums don't have the means to be as comprehensive collectors. And at some future point, the private collector will make work available to the public -- either via resale to another collector or eventually into museums. The collector and the gallery are vital links between artist and museums.
