New Glass Review issues 1-5

The Corning Museum of Glass

In 1979 I curated New Glass while at the Corning Museum of Glass. Following up on this exhibition, we decided to publish the New Glass Review. I edited and juried the first five years. The following are my essays from each year.

NGR 1. 1980

Introduction

Each year The Corning Museum of Glass publishes a review of significant new works in glass. J. Stewart Johnson, Department of Architecture and Design, The Museum of Modern Art; Dan Dailey, Head of the Glass Department, Massachusetts College of Art; Thomas S. Buechner, Director; and William Warmus, Assistant Curator, Twentieth-Century Glass, both of The Corning Museum of Glass, selected the objects made in 1979. The 100 images were chosen from slides submitted by 397 glassmakers in eighteen countries. Each entrant submitted a maximum of five slides.

The first of an annual series, New Glass Review 1, is a record of change and adaptation in contemporary glass. Works considered innovative from any of several points of view including content, aesthetics, craftsmanship and technique —were selected, as well as objects reflecting traditional themes or techniques which have been adapted to present-day needs. Within the work of a single individual or company, the Review intends to record the annual modifications indicative of growth and development.

Selection of objects from slides creates several problems that limit the scope of the program. The results of the survey, therefore, should not be interpreted as a guide to technical excellence, as the specific quality of a work cannot accurately be gauged by slide. Works that depend upon more than the information obvious in a slide may prove difficult to interpret and publish —for example, pieces that achieve their effect with motion or those expressing symbolism of a visually or intellectually complex character.

New Glass Review began in 1976 as Contemporary Glass 1976 and was published for three years in microfiche form. This new format has been adopted in order to make the publication more useful to everyone -glassmakers, museums, scholars, teachers, collectors, and dealers. Documentary in nature, the Review is intended to encourage communication. Rather than honoring specific individuals or companies, the Review presents an overview of the innovative in glassmaking on an annual basis.

William Warmus
The Corning Museum of Glass

Note: The initials of the jurors are listed with the objects they chose. Thomas Buechner abstained from selection of numbers 13, 21, 72, 73, and 81 because of his association with Steuben Glass. Dan Dailey abstained from selecting numbers 3, 8, 18, 36, 45, 51, and 62, which represent his own work or work by his students or associates.

NGR 2. 1981

Introduction

The New Glass Review is an annual survey published by The Corning Museum of Glass. Documentary in nature, the Review is intended to encourage communication among glassmakers and with their audience by presenting an overview of the innovative in glassmaking.

Several factors determine the scope of the program, including the number of
glassmakers participating and the criteria used by those on the selection panel. In 1980, 3,500 announcements were mailed to glassmakers worldwide. Each entrant submitted a maximum of four slides, and 2,601 slides, representing 722 individuals or companies in twenty-nine countries, were received.

The 100 images that follow were chosen by a panel consisting of William S. Lieberman, Chairman, Twentieth-Century Art, The Metropolitan Museum of Art; Andrew Magdanz, Assistant Professor, Rochester Institute of Technology; Thomas S. Buechner, Director, and William Warmus, Assistant Curator, Twentieth-Century Glass, both of The Corning Museum of Glass. Their initials are listed with the objects they chose.

Works considered innovative from any of several points of view —including subject matter, function, aesthetics, and technique —were selected, as well as objects reflecting traditional themes or techniques as they have been adapted to present-day needs. Within the work of a single individual or company, the Review records the annual modifications, sometimes very subtle, indicative of growth in the opinion of one or more jurors.

Selection from slides limits the program. Interesting pieces are often rejected because the slides representing them are not reproducible in the Review's format. The survey should not be interpreted as a guide to technical excellence; the quality of both glass and craftsmanship cannot always be gauged accurately from photographs. Pieces dependent upon more than the information obvious in a slide may prove difficult to interpret and publish —for example, objects that achieve their effect with motion or under changing conditions of light, or those expressing symbolism of a visually or intellectually complex character. Objectivity on the part of the judges is complicated by the fact that the work and the artists are known firsthand in some instances but not in others.

New Glass Review began as Contemporary Glass 1976 and was published for three years in microfiche form. This new format was adopted in 1980 to make the publication more useful. In order to encourage dialogue, the Review is sent free of charge to any glassmaker submitting slides and is available on a subscription basis to libraries, museums, scholars, collectors, and dealers.

Response in 1981 reflects an 80%increase over 1980 and attests to the continued interest in glass as a creative medium throughout the world. We wish to thank all the participants for their willingness to submit work.

William Warmus
The Corning Museum of Glass

NGR 3. 1982

Introduction

New Glass Review was begun by The Corning Museum of Glass in 1976 to survey new directions taken by individual glassmakers or factories. A major purpose of this annual Review is to provide a forum for the presentation of ideas, as well as to inform the general public, of trends in the world of glass. The Review consists of three parts: a section illustrating 100 objects chosen by a panel from the slides submitted, a commentary on the selections by The Corning Museum's Curator of Twentieth-Century Glass, and a 17-page check list of all publications (books and periodical articles) related to contemporary glass, acquired by the Library of The Corning Museum of Glass in 1981. Inasmuch as that Library attempts to be all-inclusive in its holdings, this annual check list should serve as a valuable tool to collectors, scholars, and others.

Each autumn the Museum mails more than 4,500 announcements and application blanks for the current competition to glassmakers throughout the world. Entrants are requested to submit no more than three slides apiece. In 1981, 848 individuals or companies in 28 countries submitted 2,348 slides, an increase of 17 per cent over the previous year.

The selection panel is composed of two resident and two visiting judges. Thomas
S. Buechner, President of Steuben Glass and former Director of The Corning Museum of Glass, and William Warmus, Assistant Curator of Twentieth-Century Glass at The Corning Museum of Glass, are two permanent members. In 1982 the visiting members were Dale Chihuly, Artist in Residence at the Rhode Island School of Design, and Henry Geldzahler, Commissioner of Cultural Affairs of The City of New York. The visiting members bring to the process an artistic or critical perception while the permanent members provide a knowledge of and continuity to glass history for the Review. Their initials are listed with the objects they chose.

The objects selected represent technical, functional, or aesthetic innovation.
Therefore, work which remains constant from year to year, even if of the highest quality, is unlikely to be included every year. One or more jurors, however, may add the work of an individual or company because a modification, at times very subtle, indicates development or growth. Certain difficulties, of course, are inherent in the judging of three-dimensional objects from slides: works whose effect depends upon scale, motion, or changing light conditions can cause problems of interpretation.

Some interesting pieces have been rejected because of poor photography or details which would disappear in publication. Of course, the number and quality of the entries as well as the composition of the jury can affect decisions in choosing the final 100 entries. Panelists abstain from selecting work by their students, associates, or family. The entries submitted this year were of particularly distinguished quality, and to narrow the choice to 100 objects meant, unfortunately, that many interesting selections had to be omitted.

Beginning with New Glass Review 4, the Museum will retain all slides submitted so that these may be added to the Library's permanent archives where they may be viewed by those interested in contemporary glass. The editors and judges of the third edition of this Review wish to thank all participants who submitted slides for judging. Appreciation is due as well to those who have worked so diligently to make this publication possible, particularly Phyllis Casterline, Charleen Edwards, and Louise Bush.

The following comments on various trends are made from the viewpoint of a curator of twentieth-century glass and are intended as an informal listing rather than as official pronouncements; the Review as survey should not be used as the basis for sweeping quality judgements and specialized interpretations. These are best left to single artist monographs and specialized journals.

The United States and Czechoslovakia are well represented in 1981, and submissions from the Pacific area are increasing, especially from Japan. Although no Australian entries made it through the finals, several were promising. Two countries traditionally associated with glassmaking, France and England, have shown a new vitality after a relatively dormant period. Sadly, Italy continues to be underrepresented-only a few slides were received from that major glass-producing nation.

The majority of pieces that follow were made in studios by individuals working alone or with a small team of helpers. In some instances the services of a factory may have been used to fabricate parts, blanks, or whole objects [as is done frequently in Czechoslovakia and occasionally elsewhere (see MacNeil, U.S.A., 54; Steuben, U.S.A., 24, 74, 80). Parts may be cold-worked in the studio: engraved, sandblasted, cemented. While this system has produced several generations of brilliant glass artist/ designers in Czechoslovakia, the lack of synergy between artists and factories has had a negative effect elsewhere. In England, skilled engravers often cannot obtain ideal blanks for their work.

Despite much discussion about "High Tech" innovation such as polychromatic glasses (full color photosensitive glass), the materials and processes of present day studios are mainly traditional. For example, the most commonly employed forming techniques-blowing, molding, casting, cutting-existed in ancient times. Among notable innovations are high-strength cements used for fabrication (Marquis, 55; Watkins, 92) electroplating processes (Glancy, 32), precision machining (Aldridge, 80), and the hot lamination of flat glass prior to blowing (Patti, 65). All of these, however, have been in use for a number of years.

Pâte-de-verre was revived by Henri Cros in France in 1882, and the process was kept alive for many years by the Daum factory in France (12, 96). Today individuals are again experimenting with the medium (Anderson, 4; Aufiero, 8; Antoine and Etienne Leperlier, S1 and 52; and Trinkley, 84 among others), which is made by grinding colored glass into powder, adding a liquid binder to make a paste, shaping and firing in a mold.

Art Deco motifs have inspired several works. One variation (the Techno-Decos?) uses technology in the service of art to create objects resembling outmoded industrial components (Ben Tré, I1; Cohen, 18; Trinkley, 84). Another interpretation (the Electro-Decos?) employs the style as a "religion of electricity"; these pieces are allied to printed circuits (Glancy, 32) or electrostatic generators (Aldridge, for Steu-ben, 80). When Punk Art and "new" Deco styles meet, they share a mutual "under-current of anxiety,"? bridging the gap between the Depression years and the violent seventies and eighties; a Martini Bowl combines the quintessential cocktail from that earlier time with the overwrought, neurotic, mindless decoration associated with Punk (Arber, 5). One flat glass panel (Stinsmuehlen, 81) uses fragments of glass and other media to update assemblage or collage (notably used between World Wars I and Il by Picasso, Braque, and others3) and make it "new wave" in color (electric) and personality (schizoid).

Couture Glass, a phrase coined by Henry Geldzahler to describe pieces such as the vase resembling a woman's jacket with constructed shoulders (Buechner for Vitrix, I4), catches the look of many of these objects: they seem to echo the jazzy, brash attitudes of the thirties and forties.

There has been less concern with subtleties of surface decoration and form among glassmakers working after World War II, but today such embellishment is appearing again. Some of these works (Dailey, 23; Hoeller, 37) evoke primitive totems or ritual vessels. Surface modeling blurs into the glassy understructure so that the texture of the glass becomes as important a part of the content of the piece as the symbols inscribed on its surface (see also Reed, 70). An ongoing difficulty—how to create shapes for blown vessels that are interesting and new and appropriate to the surface decoration-is solved in one instance (Hodder, 36) by completing a bulbous vase form with a thick, sensuous, decorated lip. Another glassmaker (Vachtová, 85) deals with the problem of displaying sculpture on an appropriate base with a metal component that is at once both an integral part of the work and a pedestal for it.

Glassblowing requires constraint if a controlled shape is desired; this leads to interesting results. Constraint may appear as molding (Williams, 95), and may be used symbolically as in Laced Pair (Verberne, 89)—Bondage glass. Bondage is a theme in several entries (Cohen, 18; Nelson, 62). It surfaces as bandage in Aschenbrenner's work (7) evoking the wounds of war and urban violence. In Sellner's 2oth Century Man (75), a helpless doll-like figure trapped in a beaker implies sterility, mindlessness, suffocation-bondage as subjugation.

Perennial connections between art works and toys, artists and their childhood, are explored by Shapiro (76), Mace/Kirkpatrick (47), and, in a more monumental fashion, Klepsch (48). Art and politics are an implied interest in a few objects that seem influenced by the color schemes and dynamic images of Poland's Solidarity movement (Schlotzhauer, 73; Kiriazopoulos, 46).
Vastly improved photographic quality was notable in 1981. Increasingly, artists use the photograph as a tool to interpret their work and market it to the public. In some cases, such as The Dishes of Oz (Stenger, 79), the presentation may depend more on the photograph than the work it depicts. On the other hand a good photograph may conceal work that is little less than a stage prop.

The composition of the Review changes each year. In 1979 and 1980 there were more optical sculptures (represented this year by works such as Cho, 17 and Plíva, 68) and more pieces dealing with whimsey (Pennell, 66) or themes derived from Art Nouveau. Constructed or assembled works (such as Robbins, 72 or Watkins, 92) are now less popular. While entries representing all of the above were submitted this year, the selection panel's interest in them was less.

One conclusion might be that glassmaking is dominated by fashion. In 1981, fashion meant Art Deco and Punk art (although Punk itself is "out of style"). The great disappointment is a compulsion to make "gallery glass": stylish, uniform, marketable art products. Such work has a bland, pasteurized look when seen in quantity, especially if contrasted with work of serious content (Aschenbrenner, 7; Eisch, 29; Sellner, 75). But the attention that glassmakers pay to details and presentation is encouraging; workmanship is better. If one is looking for craft, many pieces in Review 3 are exciting and excellent. Perhaps next year's entrants will build on this expertise and concern themselves less with what is fashionable.
WILLIAM WARMUS
The Corning Museum of Glass

Notes:

1. A style established in the decorative arts in Europe and America between World Wars I and II, sometimes characterized by geometric motifs, and influenced by Egyptian and Pre-Columbian cultures, and Cubism.
2. Peg Weiss, The Art Deco Environment, Syracuse: Everson Museum of Art, 1976, Intro. n. pag.
4 3. William C. Seitz, The Art of Assemblage, New York: MOMA, 1961, pp. 6, 22.

NGR 4. 1983

Introduction

New Glass Review, begun by The Corning Museum of Glass in 1976, surveys glassmaking around the world. A major purpose of this annual review is to provide a forum for the presentation of new work as well as to inform the general public of glassmaking activity. The Review consists of four parts: illustrations of 100 objects chosen by a panel, an overview of the selection process, a bibliography of all publications related to contemporary glass acquired by the Museum's library in the preceding year, and, new this year, a list of galleries which exhibit contemporary glass.
In the autumn of 1982 the Museum mailed more than 5,000 announcements for the current competition. Each entrant submitted a maximum of three slides. Eight hundred seventy-two individuals or companies in twenty-four countries submitted 2,414 slides, an increase over the previous year.

The selection panel is composed of two permanent and two visiting members. Thomas S. Buechner, Chairman of Steuben Glass and President of The Corning Museum of Glass, and William Warmus, Assistant Curator of Twentieth-Century Glass, are the two permanent representatives. In 1982, the visiting members were Clement Greenberg, art critic and author of Art and Culture, and Robert Kehlmann, artist, critic, and editor of The Glass Art Society Journal.

Certain difficulties are always inherent in the judging of objects, especially from slides: works whose effect depends upon subtle surface texture, scale, motion, or changing light conditions may cause problems of interpretation. Some interesting pieces have been omitted because of poor photography or details which would not be apparent in publication. The number and quality of entries as well as the composition of the jury can affect the final choices for the Review. Panelists abstain from judging work by their students, associates, or family.
Beginning this year, all slides submitted for judging will be retained for the Museum's permanent slide archive where they may be viewed by those interested in contemporary glass. Perhaps the most significant change in this Review, however, is that the size of each image has been greatly increased.

We hope this will make the record more useful to glassmakers, scholars, collectors, curators, and others. The editors and judges of the fourth Review wish to thank all participants who submitted slides. Appreciation is due as well to those who helped to make this publication possible, particularly Phyllis Casterline, Charleen Edwards, Louise Bush, Donna Yeman, Charlene Holland, and Barbara Miller.

The following brief comments on New Glass Review 4 are intended to offer some insight into the selection process and the nature of the works chosen from the viewpoint of one member of the selection panel.

One mandate for the Review is that it consider work in glass, as in the charter of The Corning Museum, "An educational institution dedicated to the history, art and science of glass." The fact that this publication reviews new glass indicates a concern for documenting innovation, whether it be functional, technical, or aesthetic. Recently, this criterion has been refined to include subtle modifications which reveal growth or development in the work of a single glassmaker.

Continuity comes from the Review's two permanent jurors; two guest jurors assure fresh viewpoints each year. One might say that the selection panel is united in its curiosity, in its willingness to consider works representing many different approaches and levels of quality, and by an overall desire to accept rather than reject works. We hope our readers will remember this last point if they wonder how certain objects which may seem bizarre, naïve, immature, etc., were chosen.

For this juror, the variety of the material submitted to the Review is the greatest source of difficulty in selecting work for publication or discussing the Review as a whole. One must constantly adjust criteria to encompass factory productions, hobbyist work, fine arts, architectural projects, jewelry, and so on. As Robert Kehlmann has said.
"There are many beneficial aspects to the glass community, yet ... it often brings together very strange bedfellows (Glass Art Society Journal, 1982-1983, p. 61).
Each juror naturally brings his own constellation of criteria to bear on the selection of every piece. Some guidelines may be clearly articulated, some are formed during the judging process, and some are so personal as to defy expression.

Perhaps the most personal choices are intuitive, made immediately: "That's good, that's not." This responds directly to a work's integrity, but it is certainly not absolute. Intuition is often subject to correction based upon information gained later. Clement Greenberg described another criterion in an essay: "The quality of art depends on inspired, felt relations or proportions as on nothing else.... A simple, unadorned box can succeed as art by virtue of these things; and when it fails as art it is not because it is merely a plain box, but because its pro-portions, or even its size, are uninspired, unfelt" (Avant-Garde Attitudes, New Art in the Sixties).

Yet another set of criteria depends upon how a work fits within a given style. Is it abstract? If so, does it do anything to further the exploration of that style, or is it merely a slavish copy? Within the particular medium of glass, certain approaches seem especially appropriate in works that deal with optics, the frozen flow of liquids, or the imitation of other substances (an ancient role for glass), or in such works as windows and containers. Selection here is influenced by a long tradition of such usage. Other factors affecting selection include a desire to be internationally comprehensive, to encourage promising new individuals or countries. At times, work will be included because it comes from a hitherto inactive country, or because a given individual seems to have had serious intentions even though the work may be incompletely realized.

There are two conclusions in particular to be drawn from the experience of putting together this year's Review. The first is that glass which is assembled while cold, a technique which has been used increasingly over the past few years, may be striking a course quite different from "hot" glass-glass which is blown, cast, molded, etc. Cold glass, including flat glass, has fewer technical restrictions and may be proving itself, within the medium, to be the ideal format for pictorial or sculptural work. On the other hand, there is a renewal in hot glass of interest in the vessel form, and some small production studios are producing excellent utilitarian pieces.
The second conclusion is that, as glass is more and more regarded as fine art, it must be evaluated by the same standards applied to other media. We hope this process will result in the generation of critical commentary which, sadly, has been lacking from within the glass community itself. To this end recent Review jurors, such as William S. Lieberman, Chairman,
Twentieth-Century Art, The Metropolitan Museum of Art; Henry Geldzahler, former Commissioner of Cultural Affairs of the City of New York; and Clement Greenberg were chosen for their fine arts and art criticism backgrounds.

WILLIAM WARMUS
Assistant Curator
Twentieth-Century Glass
The Corning Museum of Glass
2/20/83

NGR 5. 1984

Juror statemt by William Warmus

Was it last year I wrote that the most personal decisions are intuitive? This year, I will try to explain two particular intuitive selections, objects still vivid in my memory from all the slides viewed. I know them only from slides, and my reaction is an instinctive, almost involuntary response to the power of the projected image. The image is so strong that it instantly conveys an entire world to me.

The first object is Transition by Patrick Collentine (#23). We are all aware of the impending demise of the old hard-edged, steel-based industrialism-Howard Ben-Tré, for example, captures the essence of this decline in cast glass monoliths with corroded metal surfaces. We anticipate the changes of high technology and the rise of artificial intelligence. A certain style of fashionable clothing even attempts to mimic the aesthetic of high tech, but it does so by envisioning the human body as a fabulous "soft machine." Eventually, perhaps, computers will be soft and supple enough to wear as jackets.

The image presented by Transition is so compelling because for me it is the first tentative glimmer of this fusion of the solid state (the copper laminate on glass) and the soft machine (the fragile paper that looks like an egg crate). I don't know if this was the artist's intent. I do know my immediate response. A strong visual image caught my attention in the midst of thousands of slides. I made an intuitive selection. Only after my choice did I articulate my reason. Will Transition survive for me as a compelling image now that I can write about it? The answer will require repeated viewings.

Buddha Door Listening with Open Mind by Kari Carter (#20) is an "open" door, but reduced to a caricature-the "doorness" existing only as a pedestal for the glass head. The implied violence of a smashed door and the casual painted surface seem to relate to punk or new wave art, while the mixing of "found" elements is in the style of the surrealists or cubists. None of that came to mind when I first saw and chose this, though-only later. Something in that sad door—a mere shadow of itself surmounted by a redeeming human head—made me choose it. Doors spirits within. will never again be the same: I will always look for the spirits within.

Both of these objects surprised me, neither was expected. Is that the meaning of intuition AND of innovation? beside them. Yes or no, both compelled me to write my initials beside them.

William Warmus

COMMENTARY

CONTEMPORARY glass has been an important focus at The Corning Museum of Glass since its opening in 1951. Two great exhibitions have surveyed the field worldwide.
Glass 1959 and New Glass in 1979. In 1976 we also began to publish a survey compiled from slides submitted by contemporary glassmakers and selected by a jury of curators, artists, museum directors, critics and others. This survey became the New Glass Review in 1980 with color illustrations, a bibliography of recently published literature, and a gallery listing.
The Review, meant to serve as a forum for the presentation of new work, provides all those interested in contemporary glass with a useful overview of each year's activity; jurors are urged to look for the unusual and the innovative in aesthetics, function, and technique. Certain difficulties, of course, are inherent in judging from slides: quality and workmanship of individual pieces are hard to gauge; poor photography may mean that interesting works cannot be published; objects dependent upon motion, lighting effects, etc., will always pose problems of interpretation.

In 1983, more than 5,000 announcements were mailed. Each entrant submitted a maximum of three slides; a total of 790 individuals or companies representing twenty-seven countries submitted 2,198 slides, a slight decrease from last year. All slides submitted to New Glass Review 3 and 4 have been retained for the Museum's archives where they may be viewed by those interested in contemporary glass. In addition, copies of slides published in any of the past Reviews may be purchased by special order from the Sales Department of the Museum.

The selection panel consists of four members. Thomas S. Buechner, Chairman of Steuben Glass and President of The Corning Museum of Glass, and William Warmus, Associate Curator of Twentieth-Century Glass, are the two permanent members. The 1983 visiting members were Susan Stinsmuehlen, artist, and Ronald D. Abran-son, collector. This year each juror has contributed a brief personal statement about the Review and the objects se-lected. The initials of the jurors follow the bies they chose (jurors abstained from selecting the work of their students or associates, or work in their collections).

The judges and editors of the Review wish to thank all those who generously submitted their slides. Special thanks are due to those who made the publication pos-sible: Louise Bush, Charleen Edwards, Phyllis Casterline, Barbara Miller and Charlene Holland.

Note: Thomas Buechner, the founding Director of the Corning Museum of Glass, wrote in a book surveying the first 25 years of the New Glass Review:

“Stewart Johnson was our first curator of contemporary glass, leaving us for The Museum of Modern Art and then The Metropolitan Museum of Art. David Donaldson followed him, with a firsthand knowledge of studio glassmaking, and then came Bill Warmus, who oversaw the birth of the Review.”

ISBN numbers for NGR 1-5

Copyright 0 1983
The Corning Museum of Glass Corning, New York 1483 1
Printed in U.S.A.
Standard Book Number 0-87290-108-4
ISSN: 0275-469X
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 81-641214