WarmGlass.com

I think artists tend to fall into two groups: those you "see" the work complete in their mind's eye, and those who "discover" the work through grappling with the medium. (Actually, in most cases, I think it's a bit of both.)

I wrote a blog piece about this in reference to a large architectural piece I am working on for a hospital in Boston. You can read about the process on my website, http://www.glassproject.com/blog or on my facebook page, https://www.facebook.com/housberg . Would welcome your thoughts and comments

I have been thinking about this very subject, so thank you for bringing it up. Lately I am encouraging myself to develop the idea in my mind, and then think about how to do it. I find that if I become concerned, during the design process, with technique and issues related to the medium, it stunts my creativity, as in "oops, can't do that...what mold would I use??". instead, trying to stay free of "how" and enjoy the exploration and imagination of "what". then find a way to make it work. I do think there is a lot of joy and possibility that can be found in developing things as you go, but I am currently following the path of "seeing" the piece first inside. I am happy with the results in that when seeing it clearly in my mind I am able to make it happen.

I get the two-types idea...maybe its a bell curve along an axis with one end having people not visualizing anything before starting to break glass, and the other end people that lay it all out in detail. Most artists would enjoy just getting started and winging it, but depending on the work, some visualization must occur. And so many have to do considerable planning and design, even though its not fun.
I think visualization is a facility. Like aural memory. Like hand-eye coordination. Like physical energy to focus on details. You can be a genius at it. You can suck at it. You can make art either way. If you're good at it, you'll use it. If you work at it, it will be a foundation of a higher skill, like drawing, or composing music. I don't think you can write it off as being completely unimportant because of the way you work. I think its just one of those things that if you don't use it, you're missing a tool that could be of benefit. Pre-visualization doesn't prohibit organic process, but it certainly facilitates getting to end state efficiently. Any choice along the way involves some degree of visualization. I do stained glass and preplan as much as I have stomach for. It's tedious and not nearly as much fun as actually putting paint on the glass.

Nina Falk wrote:I have been thinking about this very subject, so thank you for bringing it up. Lately I am encouraging myself to develop the idea in my mind, and then think about how to do it. I find that if I become concerned, during the design process, with technique and issues related to the medium, it stunts my creativity, as in "oops, can't do that...what mold would I use??". instead, trying to stay free of "how" and enjoy the exploration and imagination of "what". then find a way to make it work. I do think there is a lot of joy and possibility that can be found in developing things as you go, but I am currently following the path of "seeing" the piece first inside. I am happy with the results in that when seeing it clearly in my mind I am able to make it happen.

Let’s draw a distinction between conceptualization and execution. In practice, they are not discrete activities, but I agree that developing the design without worrying about technique makes for stronger work. Invariably, there are any number of techniques (and mediums) to express an idea. And, it may be that to express the idea, one develops a new technique.

When it comes to execution some mediums are more responsive than others. Paint, for example, is very immediate, fused or cast glass is very process oriented. One might develop/discover the idea working directly in paint. Glass typically requires a lot of steps once one has arrived at the idea.

The idea may have “content” in a traditional sense—a message or narrative, for example—or it may simply be about form and composition. The challenge of working in glass is that it is both seductive and unforgiving. It requires a lot of “technique” to make any sort of statement. (One might argue that this is true of any medium. Even the act of dripping paint requires technique.)

Don Burt wrote:I get the two-types idea...maybe its a bell curve along an axis with one end having people not visualizing anything before starting to break glass, and the other end people that lay it all out in detail. Most artists would enjoy just getting started and winging it, but depending on the work, some visualization must occur. And so many have to do considerable planning and design, even though its not fun.
I think visualization is a facility. Like aural memory. Like hand-eye coordination. Like physical energy to focus on details. You can be a genius at it. You can suck at it. You can make art either way. If you're good at it, you'll use it. If you work at it, it will be a foundation of a higher skill, like drawing, or composing music. I don't think you can write it off as being completely unimportant because of the way you work. I think its just one of those things that if you don't use it, you're missing a tool that could be of benefit. Pre-visualization doesn't prohibit organic process, but it certainly facilitates getting to end state efficiently. Any choice along the way involves some degree of visualization. I do stained glass and preplan as much as I have stomach for. It's tedious and not nearly as much fun as actually putting paint on the glass.

I don’t mean to suggest that one method of working is better than the other. I was simply observing that artists tend to favor one or the other approach. And, my comments are not in reference to glass exclusively - or, even primarily.

As I noted in my response to Nina, glass is very process oriented. Stained glass (as I don’t have to tell you!) requires a lot of planning and a lot of steps to create a well-crafted and structural sound window. But, this is once the design has been developed, cartoon created, glass selected, etc.

You might be surprised how much planning and experimentation actually goes into my “poured paint” projects. And, how many iterations it goes through before we ever touch the glass, much less show a design to the client.

It is true that their execution requires certain random operations, but, in fact, each of the hundreds (sometimes thousands) of tiles are “designed” and occupy a specific position in the wall. If it appears that it is all spontaneous or accidental, I consider that a measure of success.

Paul Housberg wrote:

Don Burt wrote:clip
I don't think you can write it off as being completely unimportant because of the way you work. I think its just one of those things that if you don't use it, you're missing a tool that could be of benefit. Pre-visualization doesn't prohibit organic process, but it certainly facilitates getting to end state efficiently. clip'

I'm having trouble making this statement fit music performance, and particularly jazz music. Thinking through the fundamental differences between making a static artifact and making a performance.

Paul Housberg wrote:clip
If it appears that it is all spontaneous or accidental, I consider that a measure of success.

good point

I tend to be the type of artist who sees the idea, then creates a piece. However, I keep an open mind and allow the piece to flow. If it goes toward my vision, fine. If it becomes something different, fine again. I keep journals. I get an idea; I draw/scribble it down. I never face a blank canvas without an idea in mind.

Kathryn Tickell: "tunes sometimes have a habit of having their own mind about where they want to go or want to be".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zig7QP0LkmU

I enjoyed that video Don. TY for sharing!

I go to the work table with an idea in mind, but not a final product. I make multiple components so that I can then experiment with the best way to express that idea. Some components make it into the piece, some do not, and I often am prompted to create more components in the middle of working.