I am not a Glass Secessionist!
Well, what a world we live in that I am making such a post. But there you go. I really feel compelled to make some sort of
a statement as my name has gotten tied in with the group known as Glass
Secessionism, hopefully not anywhere but Facebook but I know GS is making headway
publicity-wise into print, conferences, etc (and my name has come up, apparently)
so I wish to be crystal clear. Although I thought I was clear enough here.
I am not a Glass
Secessionist!
I was really enjoying the conversation in the Facebook
Group, which is why I stayed a member of the page. But since that is confusing to some, I have
since left the group. I did not intend
my participating in debates on FB pages to constitute some sort of
philosophical allegiance.
I didn’t want to say anything one way or the other because:
1.
Tim Tate is a personal friend and I didn’t want
to hurt his feelings. GS is his baby and
I didn’t want him to feel slighted or disrespected. I am glad he is ambitious enough to really
create some waves.
2.
Why would anyone possibly care what my alliances
is in terms of labeling myself? Surely
it doesn’t really matter. If I get to
pick, then I am a Militant Ornamentalist.
At least for now.
So here’s why I am emphatically not a Glass Secessionist
1.
I fundamentally disagree with their stance on “concept”.
To me concept cannot ever be separated from process and material. NEVER EVER EVER.
So a sentence like “concept is more important than material” is not only
utterly wrongheaded, but close to impossible from my POV. (Or at the very least
leads to art works that are as bereft and disappointing as work that is
entirely technical.)
2.
The point that historically speaking studio
glass has favored the technical is wrong.
Any movement predicated on an historical misunderstanding is a problem
for me. My experience…and I was there (working
in glass since 1980) is that ever since I have known it, glass artists have
been SCREAMING and YELLING about how important concept was. To hear glass artists talk you would think close
to every last one of them was a dyed in the wool conceptualist. (Not that they were, but they sure talked a
good game.)
 |
| Paul Marioni, "Nerve", 197? |
Thank you for your attention. And now back to our regularly scheduled
programming. (I will be posting
something soon of a stained glass nature… also my revised skill paper)
