Conclusion
My purpose in undertaking this thesis is to situate my own work as a contemporary art practice, and I did this by using Romanticism as a key to our critical engagement with Australian studio glass. The first half of my thesis dealt with the narratives that can inform a study of studio glass and studio glasswork. My investigation confirmed that the diversity that makes up Australian studio glass accommodates meaningful practise across a wide range of approaches from traditional craft to contemporary art. Within this diversity our conceptual concerns within each project will point to a label that indicates an appropriate context for critical engagement with the glasswork. Such labels frame concepts, and these concepts form the contexts. As platforms of presentation these labels aid our making and assist or obstruct the engagement others have with our work. However, the level of skill demonstrated, the work’s design as the arrangement of visual forms, or the work’s resolution in function, are not criterion for identifying contemporary art. A work’s effectiveness as contemporary art, and as evidence of contemporary art practice, is evaluated by estimating the nature and level of the work’s aesthetic engagement with the viewer. In facilitating this engagement the process elements that lead to labels such craft can be the means to realising contemporary art practice as they are subsumed in the subjective experience that is the event of the viewer’s perception of the work.
The work’s adaptability to the context of the viewing is expanded by that work’s openness to interpretation. It follows that, although the object is a pillar of studio glass, it is not the object but our engagement with that object to which we should look if developing an argument that presents a studio glasswork as contemporary art. A comparison between studio glass and conceptual art (as a chronological counterpart of studio glass) established a useful dichotomy in developing this argument. This is because, although the values and methodology of conceptual art and studio glass appear diametrically opposed, this ceases to be the situation once the criterion is moved to the experience generated by engagement. Our means of evaluation shifts from, What does the work look like? to become, What does the work do to me?
Contemporary art requires more than admiration, and in studio glass that ‘more’ can be achieved through the glass object’s ability to expand beyond its physical entity to psychologically engage the viewer by transcending its medium and its physical form. Through glass methods are available aesthetically to engage the sensibility of the viewer as the object presents its potential as a poetic event. ‘Poetic event’ hints at Romanticism, and with romanticism as a bridge, aspects of the history of Australian studio glass and its current practice may be used position studio glass in the context of contemporary art. Although the practice of studio glass has, by definition, focused itself on that one material, Australian studio glass has always been characterised by experiment and innovation. In Australian studio glass, experimentation is directly aimed at delineating individual artist identities. Although strongly anchored in its forming methodology, Australian studio glass often aspires to be recognised as contemporary art practice, and this is the attitude nurtured within supporting tertiary programs.
These circumstances result in an evolution that is not a linear progression, but one of branching limbs, each one stemming from technical innovation, with many studio glassmakers working in many different ways to evolve forms that are identifiably their own. This reflects the high value this subculture places on individualised visual forms. However this also creates a tendency for Australian studio glass to be self-referential, in that new Australian glass pieces are assessed against the existing field of studio glassworks rather than the broader field of contemporary art practice. Although this tendency might narrow the vision of studio glass, the artist’s sensibility, as evident in the work, remains the marker of artistic merit.
Owning forms is part of a maker’s pride in his or her individual artistry, and again this aligns studio glass with the traditions of fine art rather than craft practice. Despite this, through much of its development, Australian studio glass remains a sophisticated craft narrative. It maintains a strong focus on material processes. Because both material and technical processes enable studio glass, the craft narrative remains ready to dominate the reading of a glasswork. As material process is central to our development as studio glass artists, the question arises: Where do we go now that we have developed our forming methodology to its current high level, and subsequently, now that our creative authenticity no longer rests with doing it well? Our community’s focus on skill and process problem solving does point to a strong future as designers for some practitioners. But, in terms of a contemporary art practice, artistic authenticity grows from artists doing what they feel the compulsion to do, and doing this in a way that reflects the uniqueness of their vision. This separates what is original from what is novelty and sensibility from the sentimental. As recent exhibitions demonstrate, if Australian studio glass artists wish to have a future as contemporary artists, options exist for the studio glass artist working creatively with glass. First, as studio glass artists, we can continue to benefit from the conceptual carrying capacity of glass, and use our highly developed material processes to articulate our investigations of culture through visual form. Second, as studio glass artists, we can use our skill with those processes to combine non-representational abstraction with the open ambiguity of glass in combination with the special relationship glass has with light, to meditatively engage the transcendental. Finally, as studio glass artists we can return to the roots of modernism, and in our struggle with the material, engage the aesthetics of pure form in a way that is distinguished by our individual sensibilities.
In these approaches, narratives are available to expand our works, but they are more than the telling of an extrinsic story through the work, they are intrinsic to the material, to the object’s form, to its maker and to its making. These narratives are multitudinous, and as experiences we bind them to the object as flesh to bone. Narratives feed the meaning we connote when confronted with an object; and glass, in its multitudinous forms throughout history, is fecund in reference. This fecundity continues to offer a rich field for metaphor, which is one trigger the artist can place in a work. If the triggers implanted by the artist in his or her work are open, the work as a generator of systems has the on-going poetic potential for multiple readings, which are now dependent on viewer and context.
In the portrait component of this project, I exemplify the power of narratives to engage, if unhampered by clichés or inhibitions. I utilize examples of narratives based in genre, artist and identity with mixed success. This is because the exercise again illustrates the power the craft narrative has in engaging the viewer. In this case the craft narrative is generated by a general intrigue with the proficiency I demonstrate with my handling of glass enamels against the perceived difficulty of reverse painting as a technique. This leads me to conclude that we should not deny our material, or the process skills with which we have to work, whatever it is we choose to do. They are facilitators, and if they facilitate a connection with the viewer, then we should utilize that strength and build upon it as we guide the work to the point where means are subsumed by conceptual intent.
A critical concern with the portrait segment of my practical presentation was to explore one of the richer narratives inherent in the glass object, and that narrative is revealed in the gesture of the artist. Creative makers evolve their gesture through a struggle with their chosen material as they engage the world through visual form. At its best our means are transparent. The work is a tangible experience: a field of energy consisting of merged ideas and emotions, where material is medium and object is event. Means transform into possibility through our gesture. Through this gesture it is possible for the maker’s deepest narrative to be intrinsic to the creatively made object, to lie within, ready to engage the viewer.
Two questions opened this paper: How do we engage with Australian studio glass and Why glass? My conclusion is that romanticism is a viable answer to both. In a field that is strongly process-driven, the need to articulate a material-based aesthetic is always in evidence. In studio glass, material and technical process may strongly advance the craft narrative, however both material and technical processes also provide artists with the means by which they make their glasswork transcendent. Glass, the material central to studio glass practice, has the potential to expand, mutate, or transcend its object through its conceptual and poetic capacity to carry narratives at multiple levels. In this way glass facilitates emotional engagement. This facility is also derived from paradox and ambiguity, compounded by the ability of glass to play with the metaphysics of light, which is suited to the romantic desire for both intimacy and the infinite. The glass object, in its openness to subjective engagement, becomes a landscape into which we can project our individual desires. If I, the person encountering the glass, am available to that engagement, then that engagement is available to me for my transformation. This is because the transcendental quality of light can act upon the transparent ambiguity inherent in glass to introduce a flowing response that is continually reforming. This is a paradox within the tangible stability of the glass object that makes the glasswork powerfully engaging.
The event of aesthetic response is an open and evolving feedback loop between the viewer and the glass object. This loop transcends object to become process – not a technical process, but a psychological process born of engagement – and that process is made possible by the work’s potential for a poetic reading. This reading arises from the projection of the viewer’s aesthetic sensitivity, triggered by the artistic sensibilities of the maker in synthesis with the material as visual form. As material form executed with exquisite skill, the object can be assessed within the critical framework of formalism and be appreciated as idea(s) realised in visual form. However, as contemporary practice, a work’s validity lies not in the object, but in the emotional response it stimulates. Validity as contemporary art practice is therefore evident in the expansive and divergent nature of the object’s engagement – the event that is its perception by the viewer. This can be powerfully achieved by removing the anchor of fixed representation; that is, when the creation of form remains open to the forces of the viewer’s desire.
Romanticism lies in the historic propensity that Australian studio glass practitioners demonstrate for experimentation, and in their drive toward individual expression with its corresponding emphasis on the individual gesture. However, it is the nature of the material, with its poetic potential for ambiguity and its capacity for metaphor that provides the obvious push into romanticism. Romanticism flows through the processes of glassmaking giving us a creative visual language through forces that take us beyond our everyday expectations. We are delivered into areas some call magic, but by means which I rationally explain in this thesis. Contemporary practice is diverse, and it is open to any medium appropriate to a project’s conceptual intent. A major intent of contemporary practice is to emotively engage the maker and the viewer to effect shifts in understanding. Glass, for all the demand for science in its considered process, is a powerful and versatile material of the affective domain. It follows that the aesthetics of Romanticism provide a critical base for evaluating contemporary Australian studio glass as contemporary art practice.
Return to contents page
My purpose in undertaking this thesis is to situate my own work as a contemporary art practice, and I did this by using Romanticism as a key to our critical engagement with Australian studio glass. The first half of my thesis dealt with the narratives that can inform a study of studio glass and studio glasswork. My investigation confirmed that the diversity that makes up Australian studio glass accommodates meaningful practise across a wide range of approaches from traditional craft to contemporary art. Within this diversity our conceptual concerns within each project will point to a label that indicates an appropriate context for critical engagement with the glasswork. Such labels frame concepts, and these concepts form the contexts. As platforms of presentation these labels aid our making and assist or obstruct the engagement others have with our work. However, the level of skill demonstrated, the work’s design as the arrangement of visual forms, or the work’s resolution in function, are not criterion for identifying contemporary art. A work’s effectiveness as contemporary art, and as evidence of contemporary art practice, is evaluated by estimating the nature and level of the work’s aesthetic engagement with the viewer. In facilitating this engagement the process elements that lead to labels such craft can be the means to realising contemporary art practice as they are subsumed in the subjective experience that is the event of the viewer’s perception of the work.
The work’s adaptability to the context of the viewing is expanded by that work’s openness to interpretation. It follows that, although the object is a pillar of studio glass, it is not the object but our engagement with that object to which we should look if developing an argument that presents a studio glasswork as contemporary art. A comparison between studio glass and conceptual art (as a chronological counterpart of studio glass) established a useful dichotomy in developing this argument. This is because, although the values and methodology of conceptual art and studio glass appear diametrically opposed, this ceases to be the situation once the criterion is moved to the experience generated by engagement. Our means of evaluation shifts from, What does the work look like? to become, What does the work do to me?
Contemporary art requires more than admiration, and in studio glass that ‘more’ can be achieved through the glass object’s ability to expand beyond its physical entity to psychologically engage the viewer by transcending its medium and its physical form. Through glass methods are available aesthetically to engage the sensibility of the viewer as the object presents its potential as a poetic event. ‘Poetic event’ hints at Romanticism, and with romanticism as a bridge, aspects of the history of Australian studio glass and its current practice may be used position studio glass in the context of contemporary art. Although the practice of studio glass has, by definition, focused itself on that one material, Australian studio glass has always been characterised by experiment and innovation. In Australian studio glass, experimentation is directly aimed at delineating individual artist identities. Although strongly anchored in its forming methodology, Australian studio glass often aspires to be recognised as contemporary art practice, and this is the attitude nurtured within supporting tertiary programs.
These circumstances result in an evolution that is not a linear progression, but one of branching limbs, each one stemming from technical innovation, with many studio glassmakers working in many different ways to evolve forms that are identifiably their own. This reflects the high value this subculture places on individualised visual forms. However this also creates a tendency for Australian studio glass to be self-referential, in that new Australian glass pieces are assessed against the existing field of studio glassworks rather than the broader field of contemporary art practice. Although this tendency might narrow the vision of studio glass, the artist’s sensibility, as evident in the work, remains the marker of artistic merit.
Owning forms is part of a maker’s pride in his or her individual artistry, and again this aligns studio glass with the traditions of fine art rather than craft practice. Despite this, through much of its development, Australian studio glass remains a sophisticated craft narrative. It maintains a strong focus on material processes. Because both material and technical processes enable studio glass, the craft narrative remains ready to dominate the reading of a glasswork. As material process is central to our development as studio glass artists, the question arises: Where do we go now that we have developed our forming methodology to its current high level, and subsequently, now that our creative authenticity no longer rests with doing it well? Our community’s focus on skill and process problem solving does point to a strong future as designers for some practitioners. But, in terms of a contemporary art practice, artistic authenticity grows from artists doing what they feel the compulsion to do, and doing this in a way that reflects the uniqueness of their vision. This separates what is original from what is novelty and sensibility from the sentimental. As recent exhibitions demonstrate, if Australian studio glass artists wish to have a future as contemporary artists, options exist for the studio glass artist working creatively with glass. First, as studio glass artists, we can continue to benefit from the conceptual carrying capacity of glass, and use our highly developed material processes to articulate our investigations of culture through visual form. Second, as studio glass artists, we can use our skill with those processes to combine non-representational abstraction with the open ambiguity of glass in combination with the special relationship glass has with light, to meditatively engage the transcendental. Finally, as studio glass artists we can return to the roots of modernism, and in our struggle with the material, engage the aesthetics of pure form in a way that is distinguished by our individual sensibilities.
In these approaches, narratives are available to expand our works, but they are more than the telling of an extrinsic story through the work, they are intrinsic to the material, to the object’s form, to its maker and to its making. These narratives are multitudinous, and as experiences we bind them to the object as flesh to bone. Narratives feed the meaning we connote when confronted with an object; and glass, in its multitudinous forms throughout history, is fecund in reference. This fecundity continues to offer a rich field for metaphor, which is one trigger the artist can place in a work. If the triggers implanted by the artist in his or her work are open, the work as a generator of systems has the on-going poetic potential for multiple readings, which are now dependent on viewer and context.
In the portrait component of this project, I exemplify the power of narratives to engage, if unhampered by clichés or inhibitions. I utilize examples of narratives based in genre, artist and identity with mixed success. This is because the exercise again illustrates the power the craft narrative has in engaging the viewer. In this case the craft narrative is generated by a general intrigue with the proficiency I demonstrate with my handling of glass enamels against the perceived difficulty of reverse painting as a technique. This leads me to conclude that we should not deny our material, or the process skills with which we have to work, whatever it is we choose to do. They are facilitators, and if they facilitate a connection with the viewer, then we should utilize that strength and build upon it as we guide the work to the point where means are subsumed by conceptual intent.
A critical concern with the portrait segment of my practical presentation was to explore one of the richer narratives inherent in the glass object, and that narrative is revealed in the gesture of the artist. Creative makers evolve their gesture through a struggle with their chosen material as they engage the world through visual form. At its best our means are transparent. The work is a tangible experience: a field of energy consisting of merged ideas and emotions, where material is medium and object is event. Means transform into possibility through our gesture. Through this gesture it is possible for the maker’s deepest narrative to be intrinsic to the creatively made object, to lie within, ready to engage the viewer.
Two questions opened this paper: How do we engage with Australian studio glass and Why glass? My conclusion is that romanticism is a viable answer to both. In a field that is strongly process-driven, the need to articulate a material-based aesthetic is always in evidence. In studio glass, material and technical process may strongly advance the craft narrative, however both material and technical processes also provide artists with the means by which they make their glasswork transcendent. Glass, the material central to studio glass practice, has the potential to expand, mutate, or transcend its object through its conceptual and poetic capacity to carry narratives at multiple levels. In this way glass facilitates emotional engagement. This facility is also derived from paradox and ambiguity, compounded by the ability of glass to play with the metaphysics of light, which is suited to the romantic desire for both intimacy and the infinite. The glass object, in its openness to subjective engagement, becomes a landscape into which we can project our individual desires. If I, the person encountering the glass, am available to that engagement, then that engagement is available to me for my transformation. This is because the transcendental quality of light can act upon the transparent ambiguity inherent in glass to introduce a flowing response that is continually reforming. This is a paradox within the tangible stability of the glass object that makes the glasswork powerfully engaging.
The event of aesthetic response is an open and evolving feedback loop between the viewer and the glass object. This loop transcends object to become process – not a technical process, but a psychological process born of engagement – and that process is made possible by the work’s potential for a poetic reading. This reading arises from the projection of the viewer’s aesthetic sensitivity, triggered by the artistic sensibilities of the maker in synthesis with the material as visual form. As material form executed with exquisite skill, the object can be assessed within the critical framework of formalism and be appreciated as idea(s) realised in visual form. However, as contemporary practice, a work’s validity lies not in the object, but in the emotional response it stimulates. Validity as contemporary art practice is therefore evident in the expansive and divergent nature of the object’s engagement – the event that is its perception by the viewer. This can be powerfully achieved by removing the anchor of fixed representation; that is, when the creation of form remains open to the forces of the viewer’s desire.
Romanticism lies in the historic propensity that Australian studio glass practitioners demonstrate for experimentation, and in their drive toward individual expression with its corresponding emphasis on the individual gesture. However, it is the nature of the material, with its poetic potential for ambiguity and its capacity for metaphor that provides the obvious push into romanticism. Romanticism flows through the processes of glassmaking giving us a creative visual language through forces that take us beyond our everyday expectations. We are delivered into areas some call magic, but by means which I rationally explain in this thesis. Contemporary practice is diverse, and it is open to any medium appropriate to a project’s conceptual intent. A major intent of contemporary practice is to emotively engage the maker and the viewer to effect shifts in understanding. Glass, for all the demand for science in its considered process, is a powerful and versatile material of the affective domain. It follows that the aesthetics of Romanticism provide a critical base for evaluating contemporary Australian studio glass as contemporary art practice.
Return to contents page