What impresses you?

[Mira]

I am new to art glass - and this site. I have seen a few posts that refer to poor quality glass and design. I was wondering, as a newbie, if any of you might share your thoughts with me on what you look for in a quality project. In other words, when you walk into a new gallery and look at a piece you've never seen before, what characteristics are met before you say, "Wow, I'm impressed." I'm wondering what experienced artists look for.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!!

[DonMcClennen]

In short "Concept" and "Execution"
Don

[Brock]

In short "Concept" and "Execution"
Don

Okay, if "Concept" equals design sense, content, emotional impact, the ability to provoke and initiate a response, the "WOW" factor, and just the sheer beauty of the piece, and "Execution" means technical ability, problem solving, and what? . . . finesse? . . . the ability to SEE the piece prior to it's existence, then I totally agree. Brock

[Cynthia]

Content, and technical skill...Content is where most of us could use some help...myself included.

I remember seeing a cool miniature icecream shop with orange slices as stool seats and fabulous countertops and booths...all kiln formed or flame worked, all glass, and although the content was a bit too cute for my taste, the whole package was divine and well executed.

I don't really care what is acceptable to my taste. What floats my boat is that every detail is attended to...meaning there is strong design and artistic content as well as a piece that is very well crafted. With out all three, you have only parts, but not the whole. Most of us are only good at some of the parts, myself included.

There are some amazingly engineered boxes, fused boxes out there that are technical phenoms, but the design has been well thought out too. Without strong and literate design elements though, they would be just boxes. If the decorative, compositional elements aren't well executed the box is still just a box, so why work so hard to make it out of glass when cardboard will suffice?

This medium lends itself to the decorative arts for the most part. Decorative arts are less demanding of content than is an art piece. Any difference in value?... Who cares? I just know that the criteria is different. Regardless, both need good solid design basics to be successful.

If you are not well versed on the basic tenents of design principals check out Design Basics by David A. Lauer...doesn't matter what edition you can get your hands on. It's just a great and comprehensive book on the basics of design and composition from color theory, balance, line and line quality, focal point, unity and variety and so on.

There is a difinitive structure to this (design and composition) just like there is a structure to language, music, math and building up glass to fire...if you get one piece wrong...it can change the intent or success of the entire end result. I feel that you can't successfully break the rules either until you actually know what those rules are.

[Dani]

This medium lends itself to the decorative arts for the most part. Decorative arts are less demanding of content than is an art piece. Any difference in value?... Who cares? I just know that the criteria is different. Regardless, both need good solid design basics to be successful.

Interesting comment..... after years of doing contemporary artsy-fartsy mental gymnastics artwork, I now find myself much more stimulated and challenged by ornamental and decorative work. Okay, it's still head stuff in that I'm studying all the design elements that show up in every culture on earth through history. It's quite a job!

[Don Burt]

I recommend reading 'The Values Of Art - Pictures, poetry, and Music' by Malcom Budd. It confirmed to me something that I've always suspected: That publications by Oxford-educated academics are completely impenetrable by non-academic American readers. I labored paragraph by paragraph to read about a third of the book and then quit. I got it for 3.98 at Half Price Books. Not bad for a sleeping pill. I agree totally with Malcom Budds philosophy. I think.

[Cynthia]

... after years of doing contemporary artsy-fartsy mental gymnastics artwork, I now find myself much more stimulated and challenged by ornamental and decorative work. Okay, it's still head stuff in that I'm studying all the design elements that show up in every culture on earth through history. It's quite a job!

Yes. It is head stuff, just like learning how to write. Play music, do complicated math equations...and then there are those who compose music or write with the exquisite abilities of a Faulkner or Angelou...or mathemeticians who use their skills to write formulaes that explain the universe or dark holes or velocity. And there are decorative arts masters like Wright...Tiffany, Faberge. I doubt I'll be a Maya Angelou or Einstein, but the journey is in the trying. Maybe I can achieve Faberge...or at least I know I'll enjoy the ride.

[Jerry Barnett]

I look for a piece where I feel any change made in it would diminish the piece.

[Dani]

That's a pretty brilliant insight, Jerry. And, Cynthia.... Wright has nothing on Louis Sullivan IMPO! Now that man could decorate a building!

[Lynne Chappell]

I agree that Jerry's comments are bang on. When I think about it, that's how I decide which are my best pieces. There's almost always something that I feel would have been better if... If I'm totally satisfied, then I know it's a good one. Too bad that doesn't happen often.

When I look at glass in galleries (not that I see much around here), I'm looking at several things. One is technical interest - that is, "that's an interesting use of ...", or "how exactly did they get that effect". And then there's the "WOW" factor as Brock suggested. It could be a wonderful use of color, an elegant and uplifting shape, or depth that you can get lost in. Of course as a glass artist, I also notice flaws and poor craftsmanship. As much as I wish it was all about the design and "content", flaws certainly detract from my enjoyment. Of course many who see a piece wouldn't see those flaws, and maybe they aren't as important as I think. I have to admit that I couldn't care less about "meaning". And that goes for paintings, etc. as well. If I want social commentary, I'll read a book.

[David Williams]

To me meaning isn't usually a profound statement or social commentary. It can be as simple as emphasizing one element of the design. For example often you'll see work that has a repeating pattern but which pattern the maker has altered in one small area. That's become a sort of cutesy device but its a good example of what I think "meaning" can be. Our eyes and brains see the lone alteration in the pattern as obviously a metaphor for some experience we can identify with. We might not recognize it as that consciously, but our brains do, and we find it interesting. That's meaning to me. An intellectual interest in the work that goes beyond the visceral experience of color and texture, etc. But for me it also has to be just plain visually exciting. That's what impresses me, when an artist is able to push those buttons simultaneously and the two, visceral and intellectual, body and soul, yin and yang pick your dichotomy, work off each other. Like, that czech stuff. Clearly the guy wants to say something and I get that and I see why people would like it, but for me its way boring. Theres not enough flash, not enough action not enough going on. Notwithstanding the humping.

[Don Burt]

Clip

We might not recognize it as that consciously, but our brains do, and we find it interesting. That's meaning to me.

clip

Yeah: what he said.

[Catharine Newell]

I veer away from slick and obvious solutions. Pieces demonstrating originality, strong design and thoughtful execution catch my eye... I'm particularly drawn to coloration, texture and line.

Catharine

[John Kurman]

My two cents (take it for what it’s worth).

Hopefully without sending this thread Off Topic, I’ve come to that point in my life where I realize that the question “What is Art?â€

[Dani]

An essay worthy of a college text! Thank you. And isn't it true about glass.... it's so yummy that to the untrained eye, a lousy piece of work is seductive.

[rodney]

i prefer a piece done with imagination and poor excution,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,to the perfectly excecuted piece with the eye only on technique,,,,,,but then again, if its for sale,,,then the perfect technique is very important, you know, for the decor and all

[Cynthia]

I'll take what John Kurman, Catherine Newell and David Williams said and second it. Nicely said all....Thanks!

[Linda Reed]

My two cents (take it for what it’s worth).
...And colored glass, with all those retina-popping photons zipping around and begging to seduce your visual cortex, is the most dangerous material of all. It should be treated in the same manner that Australian aborigines treat, say, ochre. It is a powerful and dangerous material - not because of the material itself, but by what can be made with that material.

...Like any creative endeavor, it requires a great deal of effort to seem effortless. On the one hand, there is the risk that the piece will be solidly in the regime of Order (boring, but pleasant), and, on the other, placed within Chaos (not boring, but in a messy and irritating manner). To find that balance just on the orderly frozen edge of chaos is a difficult act to do.

...Execution is important, but certainly not the end-all and be-all. I’ve seen very well executed pieces which were utter crap. Then again, I’ve seen what were, IMO, very well designed pieces that were quite tragic – in that they were so clumsily done. On extremely rare occasions, I've seen clumsily done pieces that, paradoxically, were enhanced by the bad workmanship. And I've seen it in my own work. The nice thing in this area is, heh, stuff can always be recycled. That ugly fused tile can be turned into a pot melt. Or maybe not.

Design and execution are what it’s all about, but the combination is a strange one, and ends up, in my book, as something called “engagement”.

...Bottom line, (and here I should take my own advice BIG TIME), practice, practice, practice. Do multiples in the design phase, Do multiples in the execution phase. And don't be afraid to trash stuff... after you have studied it for awhile, because 90% of it is crap.

Hey John, I like your way with words! "...seduce your visual cortex"... Your words become visual to me. Which is what I look for in 'good words'. Same as with 'good glass,' it transports you to another plane. Like your Chinese brush strokes. I guess that's engagement. I think that in addition to practice, practice, that paying attention to WHAT does that to you is paramount. Be it leaves on the ground, artwork of any media, when you find something in life that 'engages' you, stop and pay attention to what it is about the event. How can that be translated to something you can convey with your own work... I have to remind myself to do that.

Thanks, Linda