GASnews FALL 2018

GASnews

FALL 2018 VOLUME 29 ISSUE 3

INSIDE

3 Letter from the President 3 Letter from the Editor 4 Early American Glass History and the Legacy of Tools

and Techniques

6 Interview with Shane Fero about the History Project 8 Finding the Final Sum of a Legacy 11 Leaving a Legacy: The Current Phenomena

in Studio Glass Collections

14 Pebbles in the Pond – Using Personal Experience

to Examine the Fringes of What Legacy Is in Service To

17 The Legacy of New Glass: An Interview with Susie Silbert 19 Behind the Scenes – Glass Technicians and

Equipment Builders

21 Turkish Studio Glass Movement 23 GAS Resource Links Cover: Iron molds and lipping tools at Wheaton Arts

GAS news

GASnews is published four times per year as a benefit to members.

Glass Art Society Board of Directors 2018-2019

Contributing Writers: Eddie Bernard, Patricia Gomes, Max Grossman, Dr. İlhan Hasdemir, Tess McShane, David Schnuckel, Jan Smith, and Hacer Yilikoglu Editor: Michael Hernandez Graphic Design: Ted Cotrotsos*

President: Natali Rodrigues Vice President: Tracy Kirchmann Vice President: Jessica Julius Treasurer: John Kiley Secretary: Kelly Conway

Staff Brandi Clark, Interim Executive Director Kristen W. Ferguson, Operations & Program Manager Tess McShane, Communication & Social Media Specialist Helen Cowart, Administrative Assistant Cathy Noble-Jackson, Part-time Bookkeeper *part time/contract

Matt Durran Glen Hardymon Mike Hernandez Nadania Idriss Jeff Lindsay Heather McElwee Lynn Read Debra Ruzinsky Masahiro Nick Sasaki Jan Smith Demetra Theofanous David Willis Caitlin Vitalo (Student Representative)

2208 NW Market St., #200, Seattle, WA 98107 USA Phone: 206.382.1305 Fax: 206.382.2630 E-mail: info@glassart.org

Web: www.glassart.org

©2018 The Glass Art Society, a non-profit organization. All rights reserved. Publication of articles in this newsletter prohibited without permission from the Glass Art Society Inc. The Glass Art Society reserves the right to deny applications for Tech Display, advertising participation, GAS membership or conference participation to anyone for any reason.

2

GASNEWS

FALL 2018

VOLUME 29, ISSUE 3

PRESIDENT’S LETTER

EDITOR’S LETTER

Dear Fellow GAS Members, After reading the articles in this edition of the GASnews, I was struck by the legacy that we’ve been given. It is founded in a strong history of volunteerism, curiosity, fearlessness and audacity within our community. GAS is an association made up of members who continuously put their hearts and soul into this material that we all love.

The DNA of our organization finds its roots in all of the hard work and clever thinking that shaped our organization over the years. It is this legacy that is at the forefront of the GAS Board’s mind as we work on updating and revising how we do things.

We are building a future that greets the challenges of the next 50 years with the same joy, grit and forthrightness of the last 50 years.

GAS’s legacy is also reflected in the level of information sharing between makers as we work on new applications of historic techniques, discoveries, and ways of thinking. A legacy that allows us to revel in the accomplishments of the past, while inventing and innovating. We hope to capture some of the spirit of this in the upcoming conference, Charting a Course: Visions in Glass, in St Petersburg, Florida.

We are grateful for the people and experiences that have shaped our organization’s past and are aware that our future will hold a legacy of its own. We hope that you will continue to be a part of this very important legacy.

As glass artists, many of us can trace, within a couple names, our descendants from Harvey Littleton (or Klaus Moje, Bob Snodgrass, et al). Many of us wear our lineage within glass history as a badge of honor. This might be, in part, because we have such a short history as studio glass artists. The development and broadening of our field, however, goes beyond the mapping our glass family trees. There are innumerous individuals and groups to whom we owe credit for the innovations and contributions in craft, technology, and ideas.

While giving credit to any one individual, any singular place or time is a slippery and often contentious slope, it is important for us to look back as a way to chart our past and provide focus for our future. So, GASnews writers have examined both our bygone and recent histories for signals to understand the current state of glass.

This issue is dedicated to exploring legacies that have brought us to where we are, while we look forward in anticipation and prospect of what is to come as the field of glass develops and morphs. In the pages of the fall issue, Max Grossman explains the development of tools and techniques in the Early American Glass industry, Shane Fero describes the GAS Oral History Project and its importance to mapping the formation of Studio Glass, Tess McShane gives credence to GAS leaders with applaud to the achievements of past Executive Director Pamela Koss, and Eddie Bernard calls to attention the achievements and importance of glass technicians, our unsung heroes!

Natali Rodrigues President, Board of Directors Glass Art Society

G A S N E W SS

Michael Hernandez

GASnews Editor

FWAILNLT 2E 0R1 82 0 1 4 V O L V UO MLEU 2M9 E, I2S5S, UI ES S3U E 4

3

EARLY AMERICAN GLASS HISTORY AND THE LEGACY OF TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES

by Max Grossman For our legacy issue, I wanted to take a look at the beginnings of glass in America and how techniques and tools from around the world shaped the practices we all know today. From the very first experiments at Jamestown to the modern automatic machine, glassmaking in America has been a melting pot of cultures and traditions, which have evolved into what we all know.

If we want to go way back, around the Renaissance times, the glass world existed in a few select areas – Italy, the Czech Republic, Northern Europe (Germany and Denmark), China, India, and the Middle East. While Rome, Venice, and the Islamic world (which includes what is now modern day Iran, Egypt, Syria, Israel and others) had mastered delicate glassblowing for centuries using available plant ash, Northern European glassblowers were beginning to start factories in the thick forests of Germany using the wood ash of the trees to melt the glass. It's important to note that before the factories switched to coal, and then natural gas, they were also powered by wood – England had already cut down its old growth forests by the Renaissance, but Germany still had dense woods to fuel early glass factories – as did North America. The glass was colored green by the iron impurities in the sand, and the forms were thick, covered in decorative prunts so greasy hands could hold onto the glass. It was these German glass traditions that were brought to America during the first settlement at Jamestown, which hoped to create a glass factory in the New World.

In 1608, the first English colony was established at Jamestown in Virginia by King James' London Company with the goal of establishing a new and profitable settlement in North America. With the settlers were craftspeople, soapmakers, lumber wrights, glassmakers and others who were brought along to produce salable goods and take advantage of the abundant

4

natural resources in the New World.

The German glassblowers built a wood fired furnace and were able to do some experiments but ultimately failed, mostly due to having the wrong sand but also the tough times of the early years of the settlement. Still, the glass they produced was not unlike the glass made in the forests of Europe.

A century later, the first successful glass factory in America was founded by Caspar Wistar in Alloway, New Jersey. Arriving in Philadelphia in 1717, Wistar and four other glassmakers he brought from his home country of Germany built the factory south of the city, where abundant natural sand and thick forests ensured for a successful glass operation. Wistar downplayed his profits due to the restrictions on exports from the colonies, and made utilitarian glass in the European style, which he sold at his retail store in Philadelphia. Looking at the aesthetics of early American and South Jersey glass, it is green and covered in applied bit decorations just like its Medieval ancestors, but shares unique features like the “lily pad” decoration unique to the time and place. Glassmaking continued in America using hand techniques brought over from Europe for the next hundred years, making simple items like bottles, glasses, lamps and carboys that would be useful in the New World. Teams of glassmakers would work around a beehive furnace using round blocks and hand operated blow molds as per the European traditions of hundreds of years past. Workers would make what we call “whimseys” today during lunch breaks, experimenting and playing with the material in an artistic way, but also one that involved a legacy of technique – forms like springs, canes, animals and instruments are seen over and over.

The next major change in technique came around 1825, when the side lever press was invented. European glass at GASNEWS

Early American hand tools: a crimp for making the “Millville Rose”, a pair of diamond and straight shears in the English / European style, and a bottle lipping tool – at the Museum of American Glass

FALL 2018

VOLUME 29, ISSUE 3

Early glass presses at Wheaton Arts

the time had experienced a shift, with thin Venetian forms falling out of style as thick-cut crystal ware started to become popular. The side lever pressed emulated the marks of the crystal ware, using molds to reproduce the intricate patterns seen in Europe. As machining and metalworking technology in America developed, iron molds were made to blow and press the glass into. They were cast in metal and finished by skilled craftspeople, who hand carved the metal molds much like the glassmakers of Europe cut the lead crystal. The glass workers still had to blow the molds and run the presses by hand, and while the tools were no longer the old wooden molds of yesterday, the process and team were essentially unchanged.

The biggest change to glassmaking in 2,000 years was in 1903 when Michael Owens invented the automatic bottle machine. Early attempts at automation had humans hand-delivering glass to machines, but Owens' machine used suction to pull molten glass from a rotating tank below the machine directly into the GASNEWS

molds. Previously, Owens had invented what we now call the “mold boy” in 1894, a device for opening and closing the molds, which put thousands of actual human boys out of a job. Now his fully automatic machine threatened the entire industry of skilled labor. In fact, some of America's first unions were created to help some of its first workers – glassblowers. They had split into two factions around that time: the Flint Glass Workers, who were more skilled, and worked with crystal making items for cutting, and the Glass Blower's League, who worked with green glass making bottles and other functional items. At the turn of the century when most full time workers made so little money they were considered destitute, glassblowers made 60-100% more as skilled laborers (even though some were paid in company scrip) and were invested in keeping their skilled trade alive. However, there was no stopping the progress fueled by the new technology; combined with a century of automatic glass production and a lesser demand for glass containers, today the skilled glass

W F AI N L LT E2 R0 1280 1 4 V O V LU OM LU E M2 E9 , 2I5S, S IUS ES U3 E 4

labor force is a shadow of its former self.

However, the conditions of the glass worker at the turn of the century (and the child labor that powered the factories) helped create our modern system of unions and worker's protections.

Today, the early legacy of glass lives on with the art glass world. Starting at the turn of the century with Rousseau and Galle in France, Tiffany in America, and later Venini in Italy, the artist and the designer became part of the glass studio, working with craftspeople who had themselves been developing a language with the material during off hours. In today’s model, artists, designers and craftspeople all work together (or are the same person) in the glass shop. The modern Studio Glass movement bridged the gap between artists and larger factories in the 1960s, looking to the Italian and Middle Eastern traditions in the utilization of traditional skills and small-scale furnace building. Modern glass artists around the world share in a large mix of new and old techniques and ideas, looking to the technologies of the dying hand glass industry in America and abroad. While a majority of the techniques used today in art shops can be traced back to origins in Italy, there are still many instances of America's early glass legacy we can find today, as well as influence from Bohemia and Islam.

Our large surviving factories still press or blow glass into iron and wooden molds, setting up the glass with round blocks and using large annealing ovens just as they did for hundreds of years. And, our new and old generations of Studio Glass artists continue to preserve traditional hand techniques from all around the world, which are for the most part passed down in person as part of an ever-expanding legacy of craft.

Max Grossman is a glass artist, toolmaker, and guerilla educator. He lives and works in Venice, California.

5

INTERVIEW WITH SHANE FERO ABOUT THE HISTORY PROJECT

In studio interview with Gianni Toso (right). Photo: Joe Upham

GASnews: Please explain the History Project and its significance to the glass art community.

Shane Fero: The History Project was mandated at a five-year planning session of the GAS Board in 2005. It was noted that interviews and video tapes were in GAS possession from almost its inception with varying degrees of quality and formality because of the technology of the times as well as the situations where they were recorded. Though they were obviously valuable, we called for better quality and a more formalized format for interviews and of course other ways to document conferences. We also wanted a more formalized set of questions, which we loosely based on the Smithsonian Oral History Project.

The committee was formed with no money initially, though Audrey Handler donated two video cameras early on and later the Birkhill Foundation gave significant support.

We started interviewing people at the Portland Conference in 2008 and have continued to do so since. So, it has been in operation for 11 years. All of its participants are volunteers and use their time to complete the mission of the History Project at conferences.

6

Behind the camera of the Oral History Project with Shane Fero and Richard Meitner (right).

Photo: Joe Upham

We primarily target Lifetime Achievement and Lifetime Membership Award Recipients as well as others who have contributed significantly to GAS and to the glass arts community worldwide.

The age of the interviewees is a major factor in determining our choices, which is significant as many that we have interviewed have passed on.

The interviews belong to GAS, but are directly deposited at the Rakow Library at Corning for archival purposes. It has only been in the last few years that GAS has been able to budget some funds to have them edited and then released on social media and available on the GAS website along with demonstrations and other highlights from the conferences.

I have a true passion for getting this project done and devote much of my time organizing the interviews, which involves the interviewer, the interviewee and the videographer, for the most part Joe Upham, which can be tricky. Fred Birkhill has videotaped other activities at GAS conferences in a guerilla style format.

I find what people have said is fascinating about their own legacy and their participation in GAS.

GASNEWS

GN: The History Project interviews are filled with personal stories and accounts of the formation of Studio Glass and its evolution. Are there any standout moments or comments that you’ve found to be especially noteworthy?

SF: There are so many enlightening moments when you hear something that strikes you and gives you an inside view of the history or insights into the person being interviewed.

I, personally, have enjoyed and learned many things from each and every interview.

It is difficult to single out any of them as I feel there is so much unique information in each one. So, I will focus on some highlights from a few of the recent ones.

Interviewing Lino Tagliapietra in Corning was very fascinating as he spoke about the status of Murano, especially since the documentary “Murano” debuted there and was so relevant to the discussion. We also talked about creativity and the nervous system/body and its role in making art.

When I interviewed Livio Seguso in Murano in May, it was based on the “aha” moment – an epiphany of sorts. Livio, although initiated in the Murano glass tradition because of his upbringing and

FALL 2018

VOLUME 29, ISSUE 3

Livio Seguso (center) discusses Muranese glass history with Shane Fero (right) at his showroom.

Lucia Santini, interpreter (left) is also pictured. Photo: Eddie Bernard

proximity to it, chose to go into a sculptural realm that did not symbolize anything of an objective nature. He rejected the Murano model of sculpting objects. Using glass with its own molten inherent nature and following what ”it” wanted to do with heat and gravity, instead of the other way around – this is truly unique and creative.

Of course, it is more complicated than that, but isn't that what pioneers do?

Also, I so enjoyed talking with Richard Meitner in Venice this year as he talked about producing forms from an idea or feeling he had versus depicting a known objective form. We also talked about quantum physics, university programs and other subjects which had major relevance to him.

There are many more examples to discover when you go to the GAS website: www.glassart.org/gashistoryproject.html The Oral History Interviews are so important to understanding the pioneering individuals that influenced the development of Studio Glass and their relationships to art and our community.

GN: What are you looking forward to as this project develops?

SF: In terms of developing the project, it would be even better if we could find a format for interviewing more people from around the world. Ideally, our process

GASNEWS

could be developed with the same level of professionalism, without the need to be physically there. The Corning Museum is doing interviews with their own slant on interviews, which has equal value, but with less emphasis on GAS. Documentation is so important as there is erroneous and misleading information out there on the history of Studio Glass based on myopic or biased views (not to mention ego-based self-promotion). Historians rewrite history as we get further from the true sources and people who have participated in these developments. I believe that we can avoid this with the larger, more inclusive view while continuing our accumulation of more information.

The greatest way for the History Project to move forward is exposure within the glass community and beyond. I would like for more people to access the interviews and listen to the stories that people have to tell. They are not only informative, but inspiring to anyone developing their own career. These interviews provide so much insight into the history, personal struggles, and collective knowledge of our development of the glass arts.

Shane Fero is a studio artist and educator who has exhibited, lectured, and taught in Europe, Asia, Australia and North America. Fero is a past-President of the Glass Art Society.

W F AI N L LT E2 R0 1280 1 4 V O V LU OM LU E M2 E9 , 2I5S, S IUS ES U3 E 4

5 7

FINDING THE FINAL SUM OF A LEGACY

by Tess McShane None of us truly know what will ultimately become of our final legacy. Every day we continuously add to the value of the actions and imprints we will leave on this world.

As an organization, there are many valuable people, places and events that add up to what has made the Glass Art Society (GAS) what it is today and what it will be in the future, but Pamela Figenshow Koss, who left her role as executive director in July, will always remain a part of the final sum of the legacy of GAS. To really understand her role in the organization, it is important to rewind to the beginning to get some idea of how we have gotten to where we are now.

In its 48-year history, GAS has had 25 presidents, and now, including the current interim director, 5 executive directors.

It has held conferences in 31 cities and 7 countries.

It all started in 1971 when Fritz Dreisbach and Mark Peiser approached Bill Brown, the director of Penland School, asking if they could hold a meeting for glassblowers at the school near Asheville, North Carolina. Brown wasn’t completely thrilled with the idea, thinking it would be more of a party than a meeting, but in the end, Penland agreed and mailed out 50 handmade invitations to people around the U.S. who were known to blow glass.

The meeting was based on, and scheduled around, the National Council on Education in the Ceramic Arts (NCECA) which was holding an event in Toronto just prior to the proposed Penland event. The hope was that people would attend both meetings.

Roughly 20 people were in attendance at that very first GAS event. The thought that GAS would grow into an organization with more than 2,500 people representing 50 countries around the globe, would have probably given most of the founding attendees a good laugh.

The American Craft Council awarded the group a $500 grant from Sears to help with the startup costs. One of the most

8

Handwritten invitation to the first GAS meeting at Penland in 1971.

important decisions made at that very first meeting was to bank half of the money to reconvene the following year, and GAS has been reconvening almost every year since.

By 1976, there was a major turning point for GAS, where the organization began to steer away from the big party mentality (although most will agree, that mentality will never completely disappear) towards a more structured organization with a proposed slate of leaders, a board, and a growing group of members from several regions of the country.

By holding the meetings in different parts of the country, members were able to expand their knowledge base and exchange information, this has been a continuous value for GAS and its members since its inception.

In 1988, GAS hired its first executive

GASNEWS

director, Bonnie Startek, she held the position from 1988-1990. Following her was Alice Rooney from 1990-1996.

Ms. Rooney was the major impetus for moving the organization from Corning to Seattle because prior to her position at GAS she had been the executive director of Pilchuck Glass School. Preceding Koss was Penny Berk, who worked for GAS from 1996-2004.

Koss started in February of 2004. Her background in event management was possibly one of her strongest assets when she came on board and she used this talent to elevate GAS’s annual conferences. She organized events in places near and far, bookending her career by starting off in Adelaide, Australia, filling the in between years with some familiar places like Corning, New York and Seattle, Washington and ex-

FALL 2018

VOLUME 29, ISSUE 3

GLASHAUS Stephen Rolfe Powell presents Pamela Figenshow Koss with a parting gift from the board, a Veronese vase made by Italian co-chair Cesare Toffolo, at the 2018 Murano conference.

tending the organization’s reach by choosing burgeoning glass cities like Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Louisville, Kentucky. She succeeded in a grand fashion by organizing her final event in Murano, Italy.

Under Koss’s leadership, programming beyond conferences grew to include SPARK! events, regional forums aimed at providing smaller scale opportunities for glass artists to come together and celebrate local achievements. She also helped to secure a grant to redesign and overhaul the organization’s website in 2013, expanding its reach and global presence and providing artists with a place to promote their work on individual member pages.

The organization’s core belief that coming together as a community to share

GASNEWS

FALL 2018

ideas and techniques was also the major reason for holding the 2018 conference in Murano, Koss helped to make what had long been a dream, a reality. Although all conferences are incredibly labor intensive regardless of the location, the Murano event definitely raised the bar and required the board and Pamela to basically start from scratch, develop relationships with people who were weary of sharing centuries old traditions, and essentially build an infrastructure in a place that had never held an event of this size before. Add to that the fact that the event was held on an island that relies solely on a system of canals and boats for transport, and you begin to understand the magnitude of pulling off such an event. In the end, it was a major

VOLUME 29, ISSUE 3

The International Magazine of Studio Glass

German/ English, 4 issues p.a. 49 Euros Dr. Wolfgang Schmölders Glashaus-Verlag, Stadtgarten 4 D-47798 Krefeld (Germany) Email: glashaus-verlag @ t-online.de Web: http://studioglas.jimdo.com

9

feat, one that Pamela, the board, and the Italian site committee seemed to make happen through sheer will and a lot of miracles and which will no doubt go down as one of the most memorable events in the history of GAS. Murano was a fitting and grand finale for Pamela that exceeded expectations and will live in the minds of members for years to come.

GAS is grateful for the more than 14 years Pamela served as executive director.

The organization will continue to build on the projects and programs that Pamela Koss helped to implement during her tenure and we wish her well as she moves on to new adventures, knowing the impact she made on our organization will remain a part the Glass Art Society legacy forever.

In an interview at the new Nordic Museum in Seattle after stepping down in July 2018, Pamela Koss expressed in her own words the immense gratitude she feels for the people she met and the opportunities she had while working for the Glass Art Society.

Tess McShane: When you started at GAS, did you have any ideas and goals that you wanted to achieve?

Pamela Koss: I wanted to support the glass artists and the community in a way that would help build their careers so that they could do what they wanted to do and make a living doing it. I also wanted to create a phenomenon around glass and create an international buzz about the medium.

Murano was a culmination of that initial goal. The goal was made possible through many years of sound fiscal management and building reserves to allow the flexibility to make it happen. It was a very long process to create and carry it through to fruition – especially planning it from afar.

It is really the thing I am most proud of as part of my legacy.

TM: What were your initial thoughts when you started at GAS? PK: I was not a part of the glass community when I started. I was an event planner and, by artistic measures a photographer, and I thought the process was similar in some ways – both are a very left brain and right brain mix. I had a creative eye, but also knew the science of planning and processes.

TM: What are your final thoughts as you depart?

PK: As I leave this position, I find it interesting how time moves and how quickly the fourteen years seem to have gone by.

Had anyone asked me in the beginning how long I thought I would have stayed in this role, I can’t imagine I would have said I would stay anywhere for that long. But, the glass community became my community, they made me love what I did and for that I will be forever grateful, this is my community now.

10

GASNEWS

TM: If you had to describe what you are most proud of at GAS, what would it be?

PK: In 2011, at the Seattle conference, the opening ceremony just happened to be on my birthday and Jeremy Lepisto, who was the president of the board at the time gave me a gift and said something that really stuck with me and meant a great deal – he gave me a piece from his bridge series called “Out of the Blue” and in his comments he said that “no matter what challenges are presented and no matter what void there seems to be, the board can always count on Pam to pull something out of the blue and make it a success.”

It meant a great deal to me then, and it continued to inspire me throughout the years – especially during the Murano planning – because despite the challenges that arose – the language barrier, the politics, different government operations systems, a different currency and taxing structure, diplomatic nuances, planning on an island – you name it – I knew that we could overcome them and in the end, the conference would be a success.

TM: What do you think is the most important legacy that you are leaving GAS? PK: I believe that GAS is a stronger organization than when I started and is positioned to grow into another realm both domestically and internationally. I think that I helped to establish strong financial reserves and have safeguarded those reserves so the organization has some flexibility moving forward to accomplish big projects when it is necessary and balance and maintain the organization’s needs.

TM: What is it you would most like to say to people as you depart GAS and move on to your next adventure?

PK: Thank you! To all of the staff that I have worked with, and the board members and presidents who worked with me, planned with me, and gave me this opportunity.

I am grateful.

Tess McShane is the Communications Manager at the Glass Art Society.

FALL 2018

VOLUME 29, ISSUE 3

LEAVING A LEGACY: THE CURRENT PHENOMENA IN STUDIO GLASS COLLECTIONS

by Jan Smith

VIDEO: In Perpetuity

VIDEO: The State of Glass

As the collecting community has grown and evolved with the studio glass movement through its support and enthusiasm for the medium, the conversations have transitioned from acquiring the work of the artists they have followed for decades to decisions on what will happen to these treasured collections. In many cases, as the Post World War II and Baby Boomer generations survey the world they have supported and created around them, the families they have raised do not always share their passion and taste for glass.

These collectors are often faced with finding acceptable placement for these objects, or selling them. The choices are limited to either finding an institution that would welcome these as a gift, or to take their chances on the volatile secondary market, which inevitably means breaking apart their collection of art along with the memories they hold of their acquisitions.

A third option presents a blend of both, that in the long-term benefits museums: the museum can accept the most relevant work and sell those that do not fit their standards, retaining the proceeds in the collectors’ names for more directed acquisition in the future.

Faced with these considerations, many collectors are opening conversations with

GASNEWS

FALL 2018

their accountants, attorneys, and museums to examine the long-term implications of a gift, often of the entire collection in order to keep their legacy together.

These conversations are charting new, unknown territory for some, and for others, they have been well defined and calculated negotiations. They began with the trusted gallery owners with whom the collectors have established long-term relationships, then artists whose work they have collected, and now they are entering the institutional level, examining the relationships that can be beneficial to all parties through this dialogue.

Some recently published articles have captured this phenomenon, and in 2017, a symposium was presented at BergstromMahler Museum of Glass to acknowledge this issue, as well as addressing the questions and conversations taking place among collectors, their galleries, artists, museums and financial consultants.

On a broad national level, this phenomenon affects more than those collecting art, as evidenced in the New York Times article from August 18, 2017, Aging Parents Whose Children Don’t Want Their Stuff, preceded by similar articles that year in Forbes, US News, CS Monitor and several blogs. As heirs of the Post

VOLUME 29, ISSUE 3

WWII generation and the Baby Boomer’s bequests, the next generation is faced with what to do with their accumulated material goods. In many cases, the children have households of their own and are not interested or able to take on the materials collected by their parents.

In 2015, Dr. William Ganis examined this more closely in the glass collecting community when high profile collectors were making news with substantial gifts to museums. He authored an article called In Perpetuity, for Glass Quarterly, and referenced this phenomenon in his 2017 Symposium presentation, that explored this issue in depth by examining several recent gifts to museums. Ganis outlines a range of cases that represented agreements for the donation and acceptance of some major collections: a newly established glass collection in institutions that did not previously exhibit glass, creation of new galleries in those that did show glass (such as the major gift of 240 works by Ben and Natalie Heinemann in 2006 to the Corning Museum of Glass), and collectors making a choice to supplement glass education by donating to a university where the museum collection complemented a glass education program (as was the case with the Marilyn and Sheldon Glick Collection

11

gift in Indiana, which also supported a glass program at Ball State University in Muncie).

Several of the recent large donations also required that museums take on the responsibility of storage and care, particularly when accepting the collections gifted in their entirety. Therefore, additional funding has sometimes been accompanied to support the overall gift to create new facilities and provide some on-going support. Myrna and Sheldon Paley, Phil and Nancy Kotler, with Warren and Margot Coville, and Carolyn and Richard Barry are among a growing number of collectors who have contributed glass art, financed the collection’s exhibition space, and contributed resources to ensure longevity.

These gifts are substantial and very often welcomed by the targeted institutions.

Yet, for some museums, particularly those established in glass, acquiring a collection in its entirety presents some challenges.

The collections reflect the taste of their owners, and not necessarily that of the studio glass movement in general, or a museum’s curatorial perspective. Some collections have depth in certain artists and lack others; and some collections house works of uneven quality.

While many collectors prefer to keep major portions of their collections together, some have taken a very broad approach.

Donald and Carol Wiiken were early studio glass collectors who chose to gift their 425 glass pieces to over 25 universities and museums. Susan Steinhauser and Daniel Greenberg also have chosen to enhance several museums with their gifts, thus spreading the works among many.

The gifting of these glass collections is an American phenomenon, with tax implications that can be a motivational force in the United States. Donations provide significant tax relief, and today, their retail value is sometimes not advantageous. Museums with art as its

12

GASNEWS

mission (where the gift is considered a related gift to their mission) realize the largest benefit. According to former gallery owner and appraiser Kate Elliott, museums are much better equipped to take care of the work for posterity. They also offer a valuable mission in public display and education.

There was a consensus among several collectors attending the 2017 Symposium, Leaving a Legacy, on the nature and responsibility of collecting. It was summarized

by Gordon Park that collecting is the easy part, the second stage is giving it away, and the third, and most difficult stage, building the audiences through museum programs to cultivate new audiences and perpetuate the interest in the art form.

As collectors are making these decisions to give away the objects and memories they contain, they are establishing their own criteria for making these difficult choices.

To Dudley and Lisa Anderson, personal contact with the curatorial staff, tax deductibility, frequency of exhibition, history of interest in glass at the targeted institution, and whether to give to many museums or just one are among the considerations they evaluate. Giving to multiple museums requires a more strategic approach and there is a concern for the institutional track record of acquiring glass, as well as their expertise in handling it. The Andersons have given consideration to the longevity of their gift, but in a different way. Their gifts of glass are specifically unrestricted so they do not encumber the museum for future decisions.

As an artist and collector, David Huchthausen has also stated specific parameters for a large promised gift to the Museum of Glass. There is a segment of this gift intended to be permanently on display, and 140 cannot be deaccessioned of the 250 promised works. Additionally, he required that a major catalogue

FALL 2018

VOLUME 29, ISSUE 3

accompany the exhibition. He considered three museums and the Museum of Glass accepted these terms, hoping the collection would expand their educational scope. In addition to this large estate gift, Huchthausen is working with small museums for smaller contributions which he sees as an advantage due to their flexibility.

Bonnie Marx, a Chicago based collector and former gallery owner, states museums rely on philanthropy with the goal of matching a collector’s personal best with the museum’s best. Bonnie has been working with eight museums to divide her collection of art, working with her accountant and attorney. These efforts are a balanced negotiation to accomplish the collector’s wishes with the museum’s needs and abilities.

While collectors are sorting through the considerations and criteria for making gifts, museums are reviewing their criteria for accepting them and the long term implications for care. In some cases, collectors and the museums agree that adding to an already established glass focus is an important consideration in choosing the institution. Museums that already handle and display glass are better equipped to add works to their collections, if space is not an issue. Such considerations cause museums to approach these gifts by hoping to hand select or as it might be considered “cherry pick” exceptional pieces that fit the museum goals. These are the evolving conversations and delicate negotiations that begin to define the donor/museum relationships.

Some collectors are seeking ways to expand the visibility of glass. Therefore, offering glass objects to museums or other institutions that do not have established collections provides one way of increasing exposure. It has its drawbacks because the institution may or may not be equipped to

GASNEWS

FALL 2018

house, care for, exhibit, and interpret the material.

Museums have always thrived on philanthropy and many have been established with significant private collections of art and objects that are specific to the collector point of view; the Phillips Collection and the Isabella Stewart Gardner are two examples.

However, as museums have an increasing opportunity to define and shape the gifts being offered, they also have the ability to shape their growth and define the meaning of the objects they collect. Additional responsibility comes with the necessary financial support for long-term care and exhibition. The tipping point is when a gift becomes a burden to an institution, and that is worth factoring into the upfront conversations.

These are the difficult but meaningful conversations. Collectors are sometimes reluctant to dismantle a group of objects that has brought meaning and memories to their lives, and museums are sometimes hesitant to memorialize that very personal perspective. Finding the balance and the right match between institutional responsibilities to the public and goals for collection growth, as well as meeting collector expectations is essential to creating exposure to the studio glass movement that has been so carefully chronicled through its collecting community.

Jan Smith is the Executive Director of Bergstrom-Mahler Museum of Glass in Neenah, WI. Disclosure: Jan Smith was an organizer of the Leaving a Legacy Symposium in 2017 at the Bergstrom-Mahler Museum of Glass.

VOLUME 29, ISSUE 3

13

PEBBLES IN THE POND – USING PERSONAL EXPERIENCE

TO EXAMINE THE FRINGES OF WHAT LEGACY IS IN SERVICE TO

by David Schnuckel This article is not about me. You’re going to have to trust me on this. But, it’s certainly going to seem so.

It’s an article using myself (and a recent educational experience of mine) as a heavily noted point of reference.

Being one-part narrative and one-part contemplation, this article is really just an oddly angled examination of the premise at which the LEGACY phenomenon within our field exists (as experienced first-hand.)

The people and places referenced in this piece may or may not be specifically mentioned. I haven’t decided yet. However, if I decide to address the specifics it’s important for you to know that whatever or whoever is brought up is not the focal point of the piece. Just as I am not. It’s all a platform I’ve recently been chewing over regarding the notion of heritage; a quest within a recent teaching experience to seek, define, and place myself (as well as my students) within a shared history. One that may or may not even exist…

When I proposed a writing class to an internationally recognized glass school I had assumed it was a stretch. The idea of approaching an educational entity with such a rich history of its learning community engaging glass in a very tactile, physical way with a course about facilitating artistic growth with glass through conversation (and conversation alone) seemed impossible. A course that would engage material and making, but with words? Many might see it as interesting, but who would see it as important? …enough people to sign up for it? …enough to make it run? Who would want to bypass the opportunity to experience the prestige of a school devoted to glass without the experience of making something with it while in their studios?

Turns out that there were a handful of souls who would. The session was quick and the course’s pace determined.

We joined on campus, we dove into the

14

“The matter of LEGACY within our field is more a measurement of time, community, and service than it is personal achievement.” Photo: David Schnuckel

content, our conversations were rich, our work was illuminating. Course participants were asked to investigate the multi-faceted organism that the glass field is through various writing exercises and projects; activities that would then invite further conversation between the group on topics of shared appeal (which would, in turn, influence more writing direction).

What made the work and what we were doing unique was that it relied heavily on interaction with the community upon the school’s campus; crossover with various members and happenings in the session’s program as a focal point in our thinking, writing, and conversation.

We wore many hats in the work we did. We explored various corners of the field through several ways in which writing exists: in lists, critique and criticism, field GASNEWS

journalism, the op-ed, poetry, narrative, and the experimental. All different lenses with which to examine this GLASS thing …a variety of methods engaged to help us explore all of GLASS’s various parts.

All of us felt like something special was going on. We were not making with glass per se but making was happening nonetheless. “Making” of a different kind.

We used words to make commentary, to make needed observations, to make meaningful connections between things unseen, to make clear the unclear, to make the familiar strange, and the strange familiar.

This is where the notion of LEGACY began to come up in our conversations, emerging part way through the session.

This is also where it begins to introduce itself within this article; this foundational

FALL 2018

VOLUME 29, ISSUE 3

occurrence of benefaction and inheritance that the contemporary glass field has been built upon. What it is still currently being built upon: the idea of enhancing what others had provided before us, and leaving something important for someone else to run with afterwards within our making, teaching, learning and living practices.

I wondered, as the author of such an unconventional glass “making” course, if we were following a tradition previously hosted by the school that was unknown.

This couldn’t be the first course of its kind at this school, could it? If not, when was there one like it before? Who taught it? Who was part of it? What were the objectives and issues of those past writing courses on campus? ...and how do they measure in relation to this one?

The conversational direction of the course was designed and delivered by me, a current-day community member under the influence of the current-day landscape of glass. If it exists, how would the conversation of a course like it be influenced by the landscape of the field if it took place in the 70s? …the ‘80s? …the ‘90s? …or even the aughts?

What LEGACY could we be a part of as a non-making, conversational course within this school? …or even within material study workshop schools like it?

It became a side project for me during the 2-week duration of the class …a desperation to know what educational ancestry we were resurrecting (as I was certain there just had to be one). I asked the school’s marketing team and staffed archivists. I asked the current artistic director. I ran into or reached out to pillars of the school’s history. People like Fritz Dreisbach and John Reed, first-hand individuals who had been involved in the school’s inception and/or administratively involved in the school’s early development from the early 70s up until the recent past. I reached out to staff at the Rakow Research Library. All incredibly helpful, equally interested in the mystery, but not quite certain if such a thing had indeed ever existed before. No one was even sure if records had been kept from far enough GASNEWS

FALL 2018

back to help substantiate the possibility of such a course taking place.

There are other leads and I’m currently looking into them. A general question has now become a personal obsession.

But this article isn’t about the class I’ve recently facilitated, or the wild goose chase I’m currently on trying to identify one like it at this particular school before.

It’s about a hope of connecting with (and placing myself) within a shared past; a crazed determination to believe that this recent course and its participants are part of a thing that has been established by someone before me.

And I’m having trouble believing that there isn’t.

I’m having trouble with the fact that, in this media-specific writing course I facilitated at a media-specific school, I may accidentally be a pioneer. I may have accidentally cultivated a body of student trail-blazers. We all may have accidentally experienced a groundbreaking moment in this school’s programming. Why does it

not sit well with me? Perhaps another essay for that…

All the above has been a roundabout way of getting to such a very small point. The matter of LEGACY within our field is more a measurement of time, community, and service than it is personal achievement. As our field evolves and advances, there’s an underlying element of giving and generosity inherently designed within progress that is often overlooked.

The present is a funny pivot point. We as a collective GLASS community can only be as good as our predecessors have allowed us to be. “Good” in whatever terms that may apply to or mean. And, in turn, it’s our job to kick as much ass as we can to not only perpetuate the “now”, but to do so in a way that will provide a platform for the “next” to kick ass further.

My desire to know where my recent non-making educational experience might be coming from is really important to me.

It’s a desire to anchor; to find anchor in something. And then to use that connection

“My desire to know where we might be coming from is a desire to find anchor; to use that connection to measure the distance between then and now.” Photo: David Schnuckel

VOLUME 29, ISSUE 3

15

“ Writing is sometimes a chance to rethink what I think I already know.

Chewing over the notion of legacy within the context of GLASS in this way is no different.”

Photo: David Schnuckel

to measure the distance between then and now, to see what that information may or may not suggest. Those are the things that perpetuate forward motion.

It should be important to all of us, especially as we’re making all these unpredictable, remarkable strides forward in how glass is being engaged and what all glass is in service to today. It’s important to not just wave the flag of progressivism for its own sake, but to do so with some context and an awareness of exactly who and what has been responsible to put us in this particular place, this particular moment, to spring forward in the way that we can and are doing.

But the other side of the pivot point of the present is then thinking about what we’re doing now and how it’s setting something up for someone down the road to be able to build upon; to build up in a way we’re not able to in this moment…in a way that we haven’t even predicted or imagined to be possible in this moment.

Potential and direction that not only exceeds our current capabilities, but our current ability to even conceive.

Writing is usually an opportunity for me to explore something, to understand something, to maybe even try to prove

16

GASNEWS

something. It is always an attempt to penetrate what seems obvious, sometimes even to rethink what I think I already know.

To chew over the notion of LEGACY within the context of glass making, teaching, and learning here in this way is no different.

This piece allows me to dwell in the cyclical nature of giving and receiving when it comes to heritage; a measuring stick held against now in relation to what came before, but also a question regarding the unknown influence of now in relation to what’s ahead (both near and far).

I think that’s what the personal narrative above has introduced me to.

Talking so much about this non-making educational experience I’ve just facilitated at a glass making school and wanting to place it all within a bigger picture.

I am wondering if others might take the time to do it in their own way, too. I wonder, then, not only what could be discovered, but what those discoveries could further perpetuate communally.

David Schnuckel is an artist and educator, currently Assistant Professor within the GLASS Program of the Rochester Institute of Technology in Rochester, New York.

FALL 2018

VOLUME 29, ISSUE 3

THE LEGACY OF NEW GLASS: AN INTERVIEW WITH SUSIE SILBERT

by Patricia Gomes In 2019, the Corning Museum of Glass will mount New Glass 2019 an exhibition celebrating the 40th anniversary of New Glass Review and the 40th and 60th anniversaries of the two exhibitions that launched, Glass 1959 and New Glass: A Worldwide Survey (1979). We sat down with the Susie J. Silbert, curator of the exhibition.

What are the legacies of the 1959 and 1979 shows?

Independently and as a whole, Glass 1959 and New Glass: A Worldwide Survey (1979) changed the landscape for contemporary glass. From the 1959 show, it isn’t exactly a straight line, but it isn’t such a crooked one either to the Toledo glass workshops which forever altered the relation of the hand to the material of glass. The ‘79 show brought glass to new audiences, spurring collecting by individuals and institutions, and inspiring new artists to work in the material.

I learned two incredible things while researching the ‘79 exhibition. First, the inveterate collectors Dorothy and George Saxe – mentors to generations of collectors and artists, incredible supporters of glass – first began collecting glass because of the catalogue to the 1979 show (eventually they saw the show too). Second, when I was in Australia I learned that Kirstie Rea, a grand dame of Australian glassworking, first decided to make glass her medium after seeing the 1979 show at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London. And these are just two examples. There are many more. It’s hard to overstate the legacy of the New Glass shows.

Why do you think it is important to have an anniversary show now?

Between the ‘59 and ‘79 exhibitions the language of glass changed almost completely. The ‘59 show featured primarily industrially designed glass: beautiful cups and goblets, vases and decanters. By GASNEWS

FALL 2018

New Glass Review 39, Full Cover Design, Courtesy of The Corning Museum of Glass.

1979, Studio Glass reigned and the show was full of (my favorite) freeform, ooeygooey, early sculptural explorations.

Over the last 40 years, the language of glass has changed again. It is time to showcase the varied work of contemporary glass makers and thinkers of today. The earlier shows highlighted the types of work that were most relevant and timely to their period. We’re in a special moment; all kinds of work are relevant to glass today.

New Glass 2019 will feature the full complement of ways people are thinking and working in glass at present, including industrial design, new sculptural explorations, performance, installation, and experiments in glassmaking, and more.

And I hope that the show will inspire new scholarship, collecting, and artistic directions as the earlier shows did.

What are your hopes for New Glass Review?

Ultimately, I want New Glass Review to be so physically compelling that someone that doesn’t know anything about contemporary glass could see the cover and be interested enough to pick it up.

And then, by looking at the images and reading about the pieces, get a sense of VOLUME 29, ISSUE 3

what is happening in our field. I think if we can make this incredible work more intellectually available to outsiders – if we can help them see what we are up to – we can begin to spark new interest, involve more people, and start new conversations.

We need to be asking, who are the Dorothy Saxe’s and Kirstie Rea’s of the next generation?

It’s this drive to make contemporary glass more of an open arc than a closed circle that has led to all the changes you see in the design this year. That and a desire to make the publication match the incredible of level of the work that’s submitted each year in its graphic design, layout, and concept.

What are the changes you’ve made to New Glass Review this year?

The most important change is that we’ve organized the layout thematically rather than alphabetically. When it was organized alphabetically it might have been easier to find something, but often the work didn’t look great on the pages – the juxtapositions were sometimes jarring.

What I’ve tried to do this year, is make the process of leafing through the publication

17

New Glass Review 39, p. 4-5, Map Graphic of Countries Represented, Courtesy of The Corning Museum of Glass.

New Glass Review 39, p. 18-19, An example of the redesigned spread layout, Courtesy of The Corning Museum of Glass.

like walking through an exhibition. I hope you get a sense of pacing, and unfolding, and that each work means more in conversation with each other than they do by themselves on the page.

The other key change I’ve made is that I had the panel write about each piece.

That’s an important part of the audience broadening I talked about in the last question, but it’s also critical for our core audience. I want people to know why these works were selected and I want folks to know what their colleagues in other parts of the world are thinking about. I also wanted to foreground the fact these works were chosen by individuals based on their own expertise and perspective – that’s why each of these short statements is bylined.

18

In my experience before joining the Museum, it was easy to think that New Glass Review recorded the opinions of Corning on high – what I’m working to do, is to reveal the hands behind the machine.

And I hope that we will all be stronger for it.

Patricia Gomes is an emerging scholar focused on the intersections between art, craft, and performance. She is the Windgate Museum Intern at the Corning Museum of Glass and will begin a PhD program at UC-Berkeley in the fall.

New Glass Review 39 is available with your subscription to UrbanGlass’s GLASS Quarterly Magazine, or from the Museum Shops: https://shops.cmog.org/newglass-review-39-2018 GASNEWS

FALL 2018

VOLUME 29, ISSUE 3

BEHIND THE SCENES – GLASS TECHNICIANS AND EQUIPMENT BUILDERS

by Eddie Bernard For thousands of years, glass has been worked cold, warm, and hot by human hands. Some of those same hands have built the machinery and heating equipment required in processes of cutting, grinding, polishing, blasting, torching, melting, slumping, fusing, blowing, casting, annealing that bring life and meaning to vitreous forms. Over time and across continents, just about anything that would serve as a power and/or heating fuel has been used.

From water-powered engraving factories to coffee bean-husk-guzzling glory holes, there has always been a need for innovation behind the scenes and under the hood.

Consider such innovations as bottom feed furnaces, diamond emblazoned lathe wheels, inside sculpting tools, and even blowpipes! Think of cold shop aprons, pipe coolers, graphite tools, and flameworking torches.

As studio glassmaking has made its way around the planet, innovators have worked to create more efficient machinery as power and fuel sources have repeatedly become scarce and therefore more costly. Along with the vast volumes of fuel and electricity required in some of these processes comes inherent risk of

University of Louisville furnace build with Glass Department students. Photo: Eddie Bernard

injury, electrocution, and fire, and along with that risk come the opposing forces of best practices, safety standards, and relevant system components. Of course, along with all that risk mitigation come wiring schematics, math problems that never end, spreadsheets, inspections, and technical support. Who in their right mind

Class assisting Urban Glass technicians to place crucible with during their furnace rebuild. Photo: Eddie Bernard

GASNEWS

FALL 2018

VOLUME 29, ISSUE 3

would choose the path of the studio glass equipment builder?

Glass studio systems and innovations are constantly being developed, often out of sight of the activities and participants in art making. Behind the scenes, someone is cutting metal, mixing castable, and wiring a control panel. Behind the scenes, someone is using 3D modeling software, calculating the secondary voltage of a transformer, writing a manual, generating a bill of material, ordering hundreds of parts, and updating a website. Behind the scenes, in the wee small hours of the morning, someone is on the phone helping a client navigate and troubleshoot a temperature controller.

The commitment of the equipment builders to the artistic community is immense in magnitude. A fabrication shop, like a glass shop, is a very specialized place with specialized machinery and skill sets. There is often a great team spirit that comes with good communication and shared sense of accomplishment.

There is no end to the opportunity to learn

19

As artists continue to push the limits of glass making, so will equipment builders keep pushing. Creativity begets creativity, and necessity is the mother of invention.

Equipment building is one facet of the glass art movement that allows for varied career paths so that a greater diversity of minds and skill sets can participate.

Anyone interested in learning more about equipment building might consider taking a furnace building class, applying for a job as a technician at a glass making facility, or applying for a job with an equipment building company.

Eddie Bernard served on the GAS Board of Directors from 2004 through 2011 and is a founding owner of Wet Dog Glass, LLC.

Technicians packing fiber insulation during furnace build. Photo: Eddie Bernard

and take on new challenges. Employees drive forklifts, build specialized tools and machines of their own, and get plenty of exercise! Feedback from clients makes its way to the shop floor, and, in cycle, feedback from the shop floor makes its way to the design team.

Equipment builders often push the limits of their technical comfort zones in order to deliver for the client, and in this way, the ability of the entire community grows. There was a time when it was unknown that glory holes could be shipped standing on their feet, that furnaces could be shipped completely assembled, or that energy consumption could be reduced by over 50% while doubling a glass studio’s melting capacity. There was a time when glass studio apprentices slept in the studio to turn the dials of old ceramics kilns throughout the night in order to anneal the day’s work. There was a time when there was no internet, and early studio

20

glass movement innovators wrote letters on paper and included hand sketches and xerox copies of designs. These ambassadors traveled the globe in search of knowledge and new friends, not entirely unlike the search for life on other planets.

What the future holds for studio glass equipment is yet to be seen. There are more mobile glassblowing studios than there has ever been before – a reflection of our persistent affinity for sharing our work with others. Remote monitoring and control, while long available, has also been given serious attention and seen great successes supported by the use of smart phones over the past decade. 3D glass printers now exist! Studio glass equipment building is now, more than anytime prior, a bona fide industry with a long, wide-ranging menu of application specific, purpose-built products reflecting the mind's preferences, and priorities of the designers, builders and users.

GASNEWS

JOIN GAS IN ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA

Charting a Course: Visions of Glass March 28-30, 2019 THE 2019 GAS CONFERENCE will explore the new excitement of St. Petersburg and the Florida Gulf Coast, from Sarasota to Tampa, offering a new perspective on future directions in glass. Join us in a city with a vibrant arts community and famous white sandy beaches.

Sun – Glass – St. Petersburg!

GLASS ART SOCIETY 2208 NW Market St. #200 Seattle, Washington 98107 USA 206.382.1305 info @ glassart.org www.glassart.org

FALL 2018

VOLUME 29, ISSUE 3

TURKISH STUDIO GLASS MOVEMENT

by Dr. İlhan Hasdemir and Hacer Yilikoglu Worldwide, glass began to be accepted as an applied art in the 19th century, when many celebrated artists began designing limited production of unique vessels and sculptural objects. However, a great deal of glass production and studio knowledge was kept, and guarded, by the large, established glass houses. Thanks to the influence of Harvey Littleton’s workshop the sharing of this knowledge became widespread, many artists and institutions throughout the world have opened their own hot glass workshops and further encouraged glass to be recognized as an artist’s medium.

This movement of glass being perceived as an artist’s material, started quite late in Turkey with the establishment of Paşabahçe Glass Factory in 1935, masters started to be trained for the glass production line.

Those masters who were trained in the factory would play a major role in the beginning and spreading of the Studio Glass Movement in Turkey. The education of “Glass Art” in universities began long after, as the first mention of the glass movement in Turkey might be the works of Master Yusuf Görmüş and Prof. Dr. Önder Küçükerman experimenting on some designs for the factory. As these were all experiments made in the Paşabahçe factory, it wouldn’t be right to include their works in the Studio Glass Movement. However, Master Yusuf should be considered as an important figure, not only because he gave the first glassblowing lectures at Anadolu University’s Hot Glass Workshop but also because he trained and inspired many masters who would later go on to work in other studios.

Today, many universities are opening glass workshops in their Fine Arts facilities.

This element of the Studio Glass Movement in Turkey began in 1987 at Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, and was further accelerated with the establishment of The Glass Furnace in 2002. Growth continued through the development of programs at

GASNEWS

FALL 2018

Hot Glass Studio at Mimar Sinan University in 1987

Anadolu University in 2004 and Marmara University in 2011. More recently, the studio at Odunpazarı Municipality opened in 2011, and the first private artist glass studio, Glasst, opened in 2014.

1987 First Formation: Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University Hot Glass Workshop After the the establishment of YÖK (Council of Higher Education), the name of Mimar Sinan University Ceramics Department was changed to Ceramic and Glass Department and the Glass Main Art Branch was opened at the same time. Then, Remzi Köklü, who was self-taught, was assigned as a glass master in the department as a result of Prof. Beril Anılanmert's efforts.

Prof. Beril Anılanmert was the head of the Department of Ceramics of and one of the leading ceramics artists in the country.

He installed the first diesel glass furnace at the university in 1987 and began glassblowing lessons.

The first glass project made in this department was the graduation project work of Cenan Uyanusta, in January, 1987.

However, this work was carried out in Paşabahçe Factories using cold working

VOLUME 29, ISSUE 3

techniques. In this first glass studio, established in Turkey towards the end of 1987, Can Yumru, who was enrolled from December 1987 to January 1988, was the first person to complete his degree using the hot glass blowing technique in his diploma projects.

Unfortunately, in 1995, this furnace, which was the first ever furnace opened in a university in Turkey, was destroyed because of the dangerous working environment created by the primitive technical infrastructure, the inadequacy of the furnace, and the disconnection of Remzi Köklü with the department.

2002 The Beginning of the Movement: Yılmaz Yalçınkaya The Glass Furnace Foundation Yılmaz Yalçınkaya, whose main education and business area is textile, was also interested in glass. In 1996, he visited the Pilchuck Glass School and decided to build a similar school in our country. Glass Furnace foundation was laid in 2000, but earthquakes in 2000 led to serious problems. Despite these events, the campus, which required a much

21

higher investment than originally planned, officially opened on April 20, 2002 1.

From the beginning, The Glass Furnace Foundation, known as Cam Ocağı, has organized conferences and workshops with major glass artists from around the world including Dale Chihuly. There are not only hot glass classes but also workshops for a wide range of flameworking, cold, and kiln glass techniques and important events are organized every year. These workshops have been the driving force behind the progress of our country’s glass art.

The Glass Furnace has been an essential experience for students studying in glass-related departments of universities thanks in part to an assistantship position they have created for business and foreign artists. Visitors and students from primary and high schools, who were highly esteemed

by Mr. Yılmaz, regulary visit The Glass Furnace thus ensuring the future of glass.

The Glass Furnace’s reputation is also highly regarded around the world. During the 15 years since its foundation, it has become an important center of glass art in the world. However, it is clear that it isn’t receiving much attention and support from authorities, it should be supported by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism and transformed into a tourist destination center.

2004 First Glass Department: Anadolu University Hot Glass Studio In 2004, under the leadership of Assistant Prof. Ekrem Kula, with the logistical and technical advisement from Durk Valkema and Yusuf Görmüş, a 200kg gas furnace was put into operation along with installation of a large studio with up-todate equipment. Since its inception, the factory masters have been educators and, at present, the studio is run by its own graduates.

This workshop experienced problems for a considerable period of time due to significant investment and expenses. It is the largest glass workshop located in an educational institution in Turkey in terms of infrastructure and equipment. The facility’s important contribution to the studio glass movement in Turkey can not be denied in

22

Hot Glass Studio at Mimar Sinan University in 1987

Master Yusuf Görmüş at Anadolu University

terms of the demonstrations and activities that are held and the accomplishments of its glassblowing graduates.

2013 Small but Functional: Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University Hot Glass Studio After a long process of planning and technological research, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Faculty of Fine Arts Ceramics and Glass Design Department’s Hot Glass Studio started activity in 2013.

Because of the limitations of the existing building, there is no gas for the use of the furnace in a 60-square-meter space, so an electrical solution has been installed. The melting and annealing furnaces and gloryholes are all electrical. There are two work benches and four people can work in the studio at the same time. Since the whole system works with electricity, security is taken accordingly. The disadvantage of this system is that the nuggets for glass melting are rather expensive, but on the other hand it has advantages such as a short glass melting process, low energy costs, and eliminating the need for night shift/guards.

Casting and glass blowing workshops and project lessons are held in this workshop.

2011 Glass Movement on Behalf of the People: Odunpazarı Municipalty’s Hot Glass Studio In October 2011, Odunpazarı Municipality, in Eskişehir, established a hot glass studio at Odunpazarı Kurşunlu Külliye, which used to be Sübyan Mektebi (a school for orphans). This studio is a fullyequipped studio where all the hot glass techniques (blowing, freeforming, casting etc) can be easily applied.

It is a fully-equipped workshop, with a 70kg-capacity electric melting furnace, an annealer, a glory-hole, as well as 4 work benches where the latest technology is fully equipped with all the tools used in hot glass processing. Odunpazarı Municipality aims to combine the cultural touch of the regional glass art as well as offering an environment where domestic and foreign tourists visiting the region can enjoy all the finesse of glass art in a glass workshop.

Training is provided by expert hot glass artists. The studio contributes to the glass art movement with its annual International Odunpazarı Glass Festival2.

GASNEWS

2014 First Artist Studio: GLASST Hot Glass Studio Tülin Yiğit Akgül, who was trained at The Glass Furnace and other workshops, opened the first private glass studio in

FALL 2018

VOLUME 29, ISSUE 3

GAS RESOURCE LINKS To access the Glass Art Society’s up-to-date resources, just click on the links below.

CLASSES EXHIBITIONS AND WORKSHOPS Dutch Glass Artist Bernard Heesen at Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University’s Hot Glass Studio

Galata, İstanbul in January, 2014. Glasst has an electric melting furnace, a gloryhole and an annealer oven as well as an exhibition area that consists of various compartments. At the same time it acts as a glass gallery 3.

Tülin Yiğit Akgül is an artist who uses mainly sand casting technique as well as blowing and cold-working in her art. This workshop, which is an important financial investment, is the first and only private hot glass studio in Turkey. Glasst has become an important space for training and an activity center for those who have studied and graduated from Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University and Anadolu University. The increase of such artists' workshops is an inevitable necessity for the Studio Glass Movement in Turkey.

In closing, the main problem for Glass Art Departments located in many of our universities is the lack of academic educators. Generally, educators who were ceramics tutors then moved on to glass, thus producing students who are trained in glass and can then go into this business.

The first and only artistic hot glass workshop, Glasst, is a good example but there is not yet a young graduate with an academic glass education who has opened a hot glass studio. The high installation and operating costs significantly prevent young people from becoming active in this area. A possible solution for this is the GASNEWS

FALL 2018

development of glass art and the forming of a glass art market along with workshops focussing on architectural works so they could make a living. Despite these hurdles, the first seeds have been planted.

Due to its more recent development, much of the Turkish Studio Glass Movement has not had large visibility by other countries.

The Studio Glass Movement is starting to take the right steps in our country. Even though these are still the early stages of its development, we have more hope for the future as notoriety has been growing in Turkey and abroad with a number of artists. Growth and potential increases with the new students and programs at The Glass Furnace, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Anadolu University, Odunpazarı Municipality and Glasst. There is great hope for the future of Studio Glass in Turkey.

CLASSES AND WORKSHOPS

Dr. İlhan Hasdemir is Assistant Professor at Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University Fine Arts Faculty Dept. Of Ceramic and Glass, and Hacer Yilikoglu is Assistant Professor at Atatürk University Fine Arts Faculty Dept. Of Ceramic.

CALLS TO ARTISTS

REFERENCES 1. Yılmaz Yalçınkaya, Glass Furnace, Interview, August 2017.

2. Web Site, http://www.odunpazari.bel.tr/ odunpazaribelediyesi-16-cam_sanatlari_ merkezi#, July 2017 3. Tülin Yiğit Akgül, Studio Glasst, Interview, August 2017.

VOLUME 29, ISSUE 3

JOB OPPORTUNITIES

FOR SALE

OTHER OPPORTUNITIES

23