I am wondering what is the definition of "contemporary glass".
Does contemporary means abstract only?
For example, if you have some work representing landscape or animals, can you knock at the door of galleries who call themselves contemporary?
What do you think?
Thanks,
Patricia
Contemporary glass
Moderator: Brad Walker
-
Patricia O'Neill
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 8:24 pm
- Location: Arizona
-
Bert Weiss
- Posts: 2339
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2003 12:06 am
- Location: Chatham NH
- Contact:
Re: Contemporary glass
I would take contemporary to mean recently made. Contemporary as opposed to antique. I see no synonym with abstract there.Patricia O'Neill wrote:I am wondering what is the definition of "contemporary glass".
Does contemporary means abstract only?
For example, if you have some work representing landscape or animals, can you knock at the door of galleries who call themselves contemporary?
What do you think?
Thanks,
Patricia
Bert
Bert Weiss Art Glass*
http://www.customartglass.com
Furniture Lighting Sculpture Tableware
Architectural Commissions
Bert Weiss Art Glass*
http://www.customartglass.com
Furniture Lighting Sculpture Tableware
Architectural Commissions
-
Barbara Cashman
- Posts: 151
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 5:42 pm
- Location: Greensboro NC
- Contact:
Well, in my field, "contemporary" usually means clean lines, crisp design, sleek, new...if you get my drift. Glass, in itself, is usually considered "contemporary", especially when used in unusual circumstances. When I first started making glass tile, few had ever heard of such a thing. So, a many-thousand year old process became "contemporary". 
Whatever definition you want to make it from there is up to you. - Barbara
Whatever definition you want to make it from there is up to you. - Barbara-
Cynthia
-
Patricia O'Neill
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 8:24 pm
- Location: Arizona
Thank you for your answers.
In fact, I just have been rejected (very nicely though) by a gallery who said that they do contemporary only. I guess, meaning my work is not.
I visited the gallery and thought that could be a fit, although what I do looks different of what they propose.
That's OK, but I am trying to understand what is contemporary... it gave me the feeling that contemporary is abstrat/geometric only. When the work represent something inspired by nature it is not. Am I right or wrong?
Patricia
In fact, I just have been rejected (very nicely though) by a gallery who said that they do contemporary only. I guess, meaning my work is not.
I visited the gallery and thought that could be a fit, although what I do looks different of what they propose.
That's OK, but I am trying to understand what is contemporary... it gave me the feeling that contemporary is abstrat/geometric only. When the work represent something inspired by nature it is not. Am I right or wrong?
Patricia
-
Brad Walker
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1489
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 9:33 pm
- Location: North Carolina, USA
- Contact:
Museums define "contemporary art" as art that was made recently. The definition of "recently" changes from museum to museum; for example, the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston recently changed its definition of "contemporary" to mean work made from 1955 to the present. Other museums use the word "contemporary" to refer to art in which the artist is still alive (or has been dead less than 20 years).
Some people have a narrower definition of contemporary and use the term to refer to art that is on the cutting edge; i.e., that isn't traditional. This often means art that is abstract/non-representational, but it doesn't have to. (There's a lot of abstract art that isn't contemporary, at least in the sense that it was made before 1955.)
People who hold this second, narrower, view of contemporary art often will say that works that are more traditional are not contemporary. When they do this, they are usually (but not always) putting the works down -- the art world frequently values the new over the traditional, even when the traditional is done well.
Some people have a narrower definition of contemporary and use the term to refer to art that is on the cutting edge; i.e., that isn't traditional. This often means art that is abstract/non-representational, but it doesn't have to. (There's a lot of abstract art that isn't contemporary, at least in the sense that it was made before 1955.)
People who hold this second, narrower, view of contemporary art often will say that works that are more traditional are not contemporary. When they do this, they are usually (but not always) putting the works down -- the art world frequently values the new over the traditional, even when the traditional is done well.
-
Linda Reed
- Posts: 54
- Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2003 6:27 pm
- Location: Santa Rosa, California, USA
- Contact:
Other fields use the same words...
If I look at architectural or interior design magazines, I like and have affinity with either Craftsman or 'Contemporary' looks - and in those venues, that means not necessarily geometric, but not frilly or ornate. Why? I don't know. 'Traditional' in interior design tends to mean the curly, ornate, dark, queen anne, ethan allen, well... traditional ... style of work. Contemporary tends to mean cleaner lines, lighter woods, but not necessarily angular lines... Scandanavian style furniture is often considered contemporary, but is roundy, but not ornate in the slightest... In furniture, I like (and make or buy, when the occasion demands) angular. In glass, I like many kinds, but am drawn to making very freeform, flowy, but not 'traditional' (representative) pieces. I'd call my style contemporary, for lack of a better definition, but it is not angular or geometric, so maybe I am wrong and it is "hippy, if you can't make it 'good' at least make it weird" style...?
I would guess that in glass, that most places could accept nature designs as contemporary, but only if they were pared down and minimalist... representative as opposed to realistic. Contemporary in my mind is more suggestive than actual.
Why is that? Any gallery owners or art collectors or recent art school grads out there with the current definitions?
I accept that definition (suggestive as opposed to realistic) in my brain when I read that someone represents contemporary, but I don't have the connotation that contemporary is 'better' than traditional. Sometimes realistic is a heck of a lot harder to create than suggestive. It's just a slant on the world. Do you see it as it is? Scientifically? And can you make art that others see that way? Or do you see it through whatever filters life has presented you? And can you make art that others can interpret the same? I think more people are likely to 'understand' a traditional representation in art, because we all have the common psyche to tell us what it SHOULD look like. Sometimes the interpretations are a little harder sell, as there are so many different ones out there. Some people are good at capturing common representations, some people only ever find a niche because their interpretation only meshes with a few others...
I think it's just a slant of the gallery and the customer of that gallery... ?? A lot of traditional artists embody a lot more skill than contemporary artists much of the time. Other times, not. As all else, it depends on th artist and the artwork and what you are looking for and the temperament of the buyer and the mood...
Some days, some art, some jury's... sometimes 'you're' better, sometimes 'I'm' better... depending on who 'you' and 'I' are. All good art has it's place and it's acceptance. Somewhere. By someone.
What do the rest of you think? Surely somewhere in the 'art' world contemporary is defined in a place people can look up (I am an eternal optimist. Some of the time) as more than 'recent'. 'Contemporary' brings a thought to my mind - is that just common usage or have we agreed to define terms somewhere?? Standards, controls.
Linda
If I look at architectural or interior design magazines, I like and have affinity with either Craftsman or 'Contemporary' looks - and in those venues, that means not necessarily geometric, but not frilly or ornate. Why? I don't know. 'Traditional' in interior design tends to mean the curly, ornate, dark, queen anne, ethan allen, well... traditional ... style of work. Contemporary tends to mean cleaner lines, lighter woods, but not necessarily angular lines... Scandanavian style furniture is often considered contemporary, but is roundy, but not ornate in the slightest... In furniture, I like (and make or buy, when the occasion demands) angular. In glass, I like many kinds, but am drawn to making very freeform, flowy, but not 'traditional' (representative) pieces. I'd call my style contemporary, for lack of a better definition, but it is not angular or geometric, so maybe I am wrong and it is "hippy, if you can't make it 'good' at least make it weird" style...?
I would guess that in glass, that most places could accept nature designs as contemporary, but only if they were pared down and minimalist... representative as opposed to realistic. Contemporary in my mind is more suggestive than actual.
Why is that? Any gallery owners or art collectors or recent art school grads out there with the current definitions?
I accept that definition (suggestive as opposed to realistic) in my brain when I read that someone represents contemporary, but I don't have the connotation that contemporary is 'better' than traditional. Sometimes realistic is a heck of a lot harder to create than suggestive. It's just a slant on the world. Do you see it as it is? Scientifically? And can you make art that others see that way? Or do you see it through whatever filters life has presented you? And can you make art that others can interpret the same? I think more people are likely to 'understand' a traditional representation in art, because we all have the common psyche to tell us what it SHOULD look like. Sometimes the interpretations are a little harder sell, as there are so many different ones out there. Some people are good at capturing common representations, some people only ever find a niche because their interpretation only meshes with a few others...
I think it's just a slant of the gallery and the customer of that gallery... ?? A lot of traditional artists embody a lot more skill than contemporary artists much of the time. Other times, not. As all else, it depends on th artist and the artwork and what you are looking for and the temperament of the buyer and the mood...
Some days, some art, some jury's... sometimes 'you're' better, sometimes 'I'm' better... depending on who 'you' and 'I' are. All good art has it's place and it's acceptance. Somewhere. By someone.
What do the rest of you think? Surely somewhere in the 'art' world contemporary is defined in a place people can look up (I am an eternal optimist. Some of the time) as more than 'recent'. 'Contemporary' brings a thought to my mind - is that just common usage or have we agreed to define terms somewhere?? Standards, controls.
Linda
"Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark, in the hopeless swamps of the approximate, the not-quite, the not-yet, the not-at-all. ...The world you desired can be won. It exists, it is real, it is possible, it is yours." ~ Ayn Rand
-
ellen abbott
- Posts: 148
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2003 12:04 pm
- Location: Houston Tx
- Contact:
-
charlie holden
- Posts: 260
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2003 8:26 pm
- Location: Atlanta
I think contemporary art is defined more by the idea or the concept behind, or visible in, the work. By this I mean that there is an idea central to the work that is being explored by the artist that fits, somehow, into the broad landscape of contemporary art, not just the particular medium the artist is working in. I look for this when I go into galleries, whether I'm looking at glass or any other type of art. Can I see a mind at work across the range of pieces in the show? Are the ideas, and the exploration of them consistent throughout the work? Does this artist have a grounding in the historical movement of her medium as well as the art world in general?
It has little to do with whether you are working with modern techniques or materials, although a medium like video in a gallery setting pretty much has to be contemporary. You may be blowing glass using the same techniques that the Romans used but reinterpreting the forms to bring a new idea to the place of blown glass in the world of art or craft. You may be doing representational work that breaks the rules of traditional picture making.
Most often, it seems to me, an artist can't really get this type of idea across until they have done, and can show, a body of work. A single pretty picture or nice, colorful design is just that. It might take a room full of those pictures to carry a subtle shift in an idea or dilineate how a new technique is being used to propagate a new idea. This ties back to the old, "Technique is cheap", quote. New or polished technique is not enough, you have to say something with your technique and you have to be consistent with what you are saying.
One of the best parts of attending Pilchuck is the presence each session of two Artists In Residence. These are successful contemporary artitsts from outside the glass world, that are free to use the facilities to learn about glass and incorporate it into their work. They each are providided with full time assistants in addition to access to two gaffers, all of whom are glass artists in their own rights. The AIR's are asked to do slide shows on their work, critique classes when possible, lead a discussion with the faculty for the entire school population and show the work accomplished during the session on the last day.
The one consistent thing I have found about the AIR's, and the great distinction between them and most of the students, is that their work is based on strong conceptual frameworks. The students mostly want to learn technique. It is very interesting to watch the AIR's go through the process of being introduced to all the possibilities of glass, made for them by experts, then editing out the extraneous stuff and working glass back into the same conceptual place that their other work fits into. It is a very humbling experience and reinforces my feeling that I've got a long way to go and a great deal of focus to bring to my work.
It has little to do with whether you are working with modern techniques or materials, although a medium like video in a gallery setting pretty much has to be contemporary. You may be blowing glass using the same techniques that the Romans used but reinterpreting the forms to bring a new idea to the place of blown glass in the world of art or craft. You may be doing representational work that breaks the rules of traditional picture making.
Most often, it seems to me, an artist can't really get this type of idea across until they have done, and can show, a body of work. A single pretty picture or nice, colorful design is just that. It might take a room full of those pictures to carry a subtle shift in an idea or dilineate how a new technique is being used to propagate a new idea. This ties back to the old, "Technique is cheap", quote. New or polished technique is not enough, you have to say something with your technique and you have to be consistent with what you are saying.
One of the best parts of attending Pilchuck is the presence each session of two Artists In Residence. These are successful contemporary artitsts from outside the glass world, that are free to use the facilities to learn about glass and incorporate it into their work. They each are providided with full time assistants in addition to access to two gaffers, all of whom are glass artists in their own rights. The AIR's are asked to do slide shows on their work, critique classes when possible, lead a discussion with the faculty for the entire school population and show the work accomplished during the session on the last day.
The one consistent thing I have found about the AIR's, and the great distinction between them and most of the students, is that their work is based on strong conceptual frameworks. The students mostly want to learn technique. It is very interesting to watch the AIR's go through the process of being introduced to all the possibilities of glass, made for them by experts, then editing out the extraneous stuff and working glass back into the same conceptual place that their other work fits into. It is a very humbling experience and reinforces my feeling that I've got a long way to go and a great deal of focus to bring to my work.