Talk:Studio glass

Masters

This page is terrible and does a grave disservice to anyone who would like to do any serious research on glass art or the Studio Glass Movement. Really, it's embarrassing. When something is this deeply flawed, how do we even begin to fix it? Hurleydog3 (talk) 05:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)hurleydog3Hurleydog3 (talk) 05:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No one...especially not Cappy or Walter would clasify them as "masters". They are excellent artists--even outstanding but neither have standing in the studio glass community.

Whoever wrote the above sentence needs to find another subject: Walter Lieberman and Cappy Thompson are two of the most admired artists within the studio glass community. The problem with Lieberman is that no one outside of the studio glass community admires him or is interested in his work. "Masters" is a perfectly valid term, it just happens not to be the operative term that most people involved in the studio glass community use.Hurleydog3 15:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Glass design

There's nothing about glass designers. Expecially in Europe, designers, architets and artists caming from other media made the history of art glass. Ettore Sottass, Carlo Scarpa, Tappio Wirkkala as many others, also if they where not directly the "makers" of its works, should be named between the most important personalities. I will try to add something about it.

Canada

I think we should extend the part of European glass art (italy and checz republic at least).. i think it is more important than north america and canada... Pierpaolo.Dondio

As a Canadian glass artist (born in Europe), I find that comment mildly offensive; But if you have more to add about Europe = please do.Bridesmill 21:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of the artists listed here had links to their names but those links (or pages did not exist). I deleted the links. Also, the long lists of names is interesting, but maybe it would be more interesting if there were some details provided about the artists (since they don't have their own wiki page). Any takers?

Content

Please do not turn this page into a linkspam page of every one who has ever made a stained glass apple. If you have less than a thousand ghits as a glass artist you probably don't belong here; if someone considers you to be enough of an artist to be in Wiki; then perhaps you belong on this page. WP:BAI WP:NOT are probably good reading . Ideally this page contains 'the best of the best' representative of glass artists around the world; In other words, a prerequisite to be on this page is probably that the artist already has an article on WP. That does not mean there Has to be 10 from each country. Short form: if the artist you are thinking of is competition for the likes of Dale Chihuly, put them in - if not, it might be an idea to seek consensus here on the talk page lest someone comes along and removes them as NN. That does not mean that I am being elitist - I get over 3,000 ghits and I haven't put myself on this page.Bridesmill 21:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Lipofsky

Restored his name under U.S. He's had a 40-year career, is widely exhibited, is a reasonably important figure in the studio glass movement, and is a very well-known artist. Will be working on his article in the coming days. Shimeru 07:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge, Glass art/Art glass

These comments are now mostly 3 years old. The debate seems to have been won by people who don't know the difference between Art Glass, Glass Art and Studio Glass !!!!!!

The Art Glass page no longer exists !! It just points here to "Studio Glass". That is just plain WRONG !!

"Studio Glass" is only one part of what is considered by collectors, researchers, publishers and librarians as "Art Glass".

NOT all Art Glass is Studio Glass Not all "Studio Glass" is Art Glass; Some of it is small-batch utilitarian, craft, industrial or scientific.

As to Art Glass vs Glass Art Both terms are valid. Both have specific meanings.

There does need to be a disambiguation page referring to both as well as other terms.

"Art Glass" needs to be defined in relation to "collector glass" or "collectable glass", "domestic ornamental glass" and "historical glassware with ornamentation and/or decoration" and in opposition to "Glassware", "Pattern Glass", drinking glasses, decorative glass panels for architectural use and "Stained Glass".

"Glass Art" needs to be defined in relation to "Glass Sculpture", "Artistic Architectural Glass", "Art Glass Installations" "Sculptural Artworks which include glass elements" (Glass in Art) as well as in relation to or in opposition to "Hobby Glass or "Hobby Art Glass" or "Amateur Art Glass": lampworking, slumping & fusing, bead making, glass painting & stained glass"

PLEASE Restore the Art Glass page !

for a definition PLUS links to Studio, Glass Art, Historical Glass, Glass history etc etc etc

It should also cover decorative techniques and technologies not unique to Studio Glass or links to separate pages for those subjects. Morrisque (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Put me right if I'm wrong. I would tend to go with the definition given at the page Art glass and the name Art glass. I think thhat the two articles should be merged under that heading, not under Glass art

Reason- Every person who has done a tech course in copper foil believes that they are creating Glass art.

There needs to be a concensus also about who links to this page. Your average lead-lighter is right out. I agree that its the Dale Chi-whatsits that ought to be represented here.

--Amandajm 00:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Also- I would not feel happy about excluding Marvin Lipofsky --Amandajm 00:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Art glass is in better condition at the moment. The historical notes here could stand to be merged there. I think the list of artists will be hard to manage either way, though; once the redirect is in place, the people who add themselves here will do the same there. That page is also missing a few reasonably prominent artists like Christopher Ries, and somehow overlooks Harvey Littleton, a giant in the field. I suspect a fair amount of research regarding the listed artists would need to be done to determine who to include. Then again, the best bet might be not to have a list at all, but include the more prominent names among the text of the article, with citations to back up their contributions. Shimeru 19:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

More comments

I feel the first paragraph of Glass Art reads more like "Glass in Art" stating a number of uses how glass has been used in combination with other materials to form objects. Often the glass is the decorative component of the object (ie. in glass beads in a bracelet, stained glass with lead in a window, crystal with metal in a chandelier etc)

My understanding of the term Art Glass was that it referred to both the glass itself and objects almost solely made of glass which are decorative/challenging/inspiring and perhaps of no other use than to be looked at (often vases, ornanments, paperweights).

In my understanding the likes of Tiffany would fall under both categories as he not only experimented with producing different types of glass (art glass) but mostly used them in other things ("glass in art" - lamps, windows, theatre curtains)

I find the reference to the use of Art Glass in cannabis pipes to be close to a joke.

My understanding of Art Glass is that it refers to the type of glass, not to the art of glasswork.

While it should be noted that I have no formal training in this discipline, it is my understanding that these two terms are interchangeable. I would be amenable to having the articles merged under either title with the remaining term redirected. SteinAlive 12:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Content

Is this an article talking about the glass art or just a yellow page for glass artists? I suggest to remove all the country-specific glass artists. It's not what Wikipedia for. — Indon (reply) — 01:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Naming the artists who create the Glass art is a perfectly normal thing in an encyclopaedia. But, the observation that Wikipedia is not a Yellow page is correct. All links in the article itself should be removed immediately. If we don't stop it now, more are coming.--GerardusS (talk) 10:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If the artist doesn't have a page, they should be removed. Better yet, we should move to whole mess of glass artist lists to a new page, List of glass artists. Clubmarx (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

First part : no!! (If that is your task, you have more pages to do a clean-up). Second part: yes, and you did so already without real consent. You see the result!!--GerardusS (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is a list of glass artists from the article glass which requires incorporation into this article. They have no place in glass but could be used here.

While earlier modern glass masters such as Rene Lalique, Louis Comfort Tiffany, Emile Gallee, Carlo Scarpa and Paul Venini were sought after for important glass collections, the scale and ambition of glass art scaled new heights. Some important contemporary glass artists in glass include Dale Chihuly, Lino Tagliapietra, William Morris, Martin Blank, Stanislaw Libensky, Bertil Vallien, Willem Heesen, Livio Seguso, Harvey Littleton, Dante Marioni, Dan Dailey, Sonja Blomdahl, Tom Patti, Stephen Rolfe Powell, Richard Marquis, Therman Statom, Hiroshi Yamano, Ann Robinson, Paul Marioni, Nancy Callan to name just a few.

Polyamorph (talk) 11:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Colors

No, No, No. Glass , Colors, Ovens and tools. Glass artists cannot create without them. Yes essential. Look at Dale Chihuly work and you know it's right. But so what. In an article about art and artforms you just does not talk about these subjects. The list is highly interesting, but not here, on this place. Put it back where it came from. Give in the article a SUPERLINK to that place and let's concentrate on art!! Sorry for spoiling the party. Cheers--GerardusS (talk) 08:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The content is NOT appropriate where it came from, possibly glass production would be better but it was decided after mutual discussions that for now colors are more appropriate in glass art than any other subject since that is where they are used most. Your comments about how important colors are in art don't back up you arguements at all abut instead support the view that the colors section most certainly belongs in this article Polyamorph (talk) 11:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jdrewitt, that was highly ironically ment. Can you find in the article about painting one word about the kind of/color of the paint. You must do what was mutually discussed, but I don't agree. But what with the glasssculptors not using color at all? Cheerio--GerardusS (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have created the page glass production and moved the colors section there since it is rather technical. I do however think that color (or lack of it) is extremely important in art and should be discussed in an art article, as an artist's tool. Polyamorph (talk) 11:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Gallery

By removing the gallery to the bottom of the page you suddenly showed me the miserable images in it. Cannot we find better ones ( in Wikimedia Commons Category:Glass art for instance).--GerardusS (talk) 08:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

See also

I added an internal link to the glass disease page since glass disease is a problem encountered on occasion by art conservators.--CristaPack (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Several comments

This is the intro:

Glass art and Glass sculpture is the use of glass as an artistic medium to produce sculptures or two-dimensional artworks. Specific approaches include stained glass, working glass in a torch flame (lampworking), glass beadmaking, glass casting, glass fusing, and, most notably, glass blowing. As a decorative and functional medium, glass was extensively developed in Egypt and Assyria, brought to the fore by the Romans (who developed glassblowing), and includes among its greatest triumphs European cathedral stained glass windows. Great ateliers like Tiffany, Lalique, Daum, Gallé, the Corning schools in upper New York state, and Steuben Glass Works took glass art to the highest levels. Glass from Murano (also known as Venetian glass) is the result of hundreds of years of refinement and invention. While there are now more hotshops and glass artists working in Seattle (USA), Murano is still held as the birthplace of modern glass art.

• Easiest to fix first.

What we have here is a potted history of Art Glass. However, it runs happily from Egypt and Rome to New York State without a single indication of a time frame. Are we talking about 'Ancient Egypt here? ...or what? This is an encyclopedia. We need to make these things clear. Likewise, we are told here that Murano's glass is the result of hundreds of years of refinement... yet because the chronollogy has been stuffed-up, it really reads as if New York is "the birthplace of modern glass art".

• Definition

This is harder. This article used to be called "Art glass", and there is a very good case for it still being called "Art glass", because that is what the article describes.

This article is about "real and major" glass studios. This is not about "glass art" as in amateur copper foil production. Neither is it about stained glass as in stained glass windows.

My proposal is that we return this article to its proper name Art glass. The intro then will need to indicate that "Art glass" does not mean "all artistic products in glass". It means, specifically, the products of Art Glass studios such as those of the Murano glass artists, Faberge, and Dale Chihuly.

Amandajm (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Agree. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• I agree - see my detailed comments under the 1st "Merge, Glass art/Art glass" heading. Maybe I should have put them here. This page is a mess.

Morrisque (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion: Studio glass and Art glass: Two different animals

"Art Glass" and "Studio Glass" are two different animals. It would serve both best to take the Art glass references off the Studio glass page and give Art glass its own page. "Studio Glass" is an art movement that was started in the early 1960s by Harvey Littleton with the assistance of Dominick Labino. Studio glass has come a long way via several ideological turns since then, but it can be said that artist-craftspeople from that time to this who both design and have a hands-on relationship with the blowing, molding, carving, flame working, etc. of the glass are Studio glass artists, and that what they make is called Studio glass. Art glass is glass that has been made in a factory under the factory division of labor. This means that an artist or designer designs the glass object, and it is then produced on the factory floor by skilled laborers. Glass by Lalique, Galle, Faberge, Tiffany, Loetz, Steuben, etc. and much of the Murano glass would be included in this category. Glassnote (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I am far from sure that distinction, or the timing of it, is universally supported, but I agree two articles are best, wherever the split is made. See here and here. If you support renaming this (back) to Art glass, please say so above. It is easier to take the studio glass out of here than the other way round. Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Glassnote: "Art Glass" and "Studio Glass" are two different animals > I agree Glassnote: "It would serve both best to take the Art glass references off the Studio glass page and give Art glass its own page." > I agree Glassnote: "Art glass is glass that has been made in a factory under the factory division of labor." > in general this is true but this should not form part of a definition of art glass as there may well be exceptions.

Glassnote: ""Studio Glass" is an art movement that was started in the early 1960s by Harvey Littleton with the assistance of Dominick Labino." >

WRONG IMHO This development was not the start of "Studio Glass". The statement as it stands is misleading & Americano-centrist. Several French studio makers such as Argy-Rousseau, Albert Mazoyer, Almeric Walter & Francois Decorchemont predated this development by more than 40 years. Also virtually contemporaneous with Littleton & Labino et al was the installation of a small "studio" type furnace at the RCA in London under Sam Herman, where Michael Harris, and others started their careers. See the extensive discussion on this whole suject at www.glassmessages.com.

If you were to refine this to the "Modern American Studio Glass Movement" which forms a part of the subject called "Studio Glass", then fine, no problem.

Most importantly, please restore the Art Glass page !!! Thank you Morrisque (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sam Herman studied with Prof. Harvey Littleton at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and was awarded the Master of Science there in 1967. He then went on to the RCA where he was a research fellow in 1968. (Please see "Who's Who in Contenporary Glass Art", 1st Ed. 93/94 for a brief outline of Herman's education and early teaching career.) It is true that others in Europe as well as the United States worked glass in the private studio before Harvey Littleton. Prof. Littleton even consulted with the notable Jean Sala, of Paris, France, about forming glass on one's own before Littleton ever picked up a blowpipe.

Littleton's contribution to the Studio Glass Movement was teaching the techniques of glass in a university art department to young artists (such as Sam Herman) who, in turn, disseminated the idea of glass as a fine artist's medium in other schools. Before Littleton, Dale Chihuly and Marvin Lipofsky (also Littleton students) and other early practictioners came along, there was a sharp division of labor in glassmaking: the glass designers were trained in art schools, and the glass workers were trained in a technical school or, more often, under the apprenticeship system in a glass factory. The designers in those factories did not work the glass themselves, and the glass workers did not design the creations that they made.

Littleton and his students and colleagues in the 1960s and '70s combined the art training of the designer and the technical training of the glass worker into one course of study for the contemporary glass artist. This movement has come to be known as the "Studio Glass Movement". The title in no way negates the work that came before by individual glass workers or even factories that made glass art. The Studio Glass Movement is a modern (beginning in the 1960s) art movement, and it was disseminated by artists teaching other artists how to use glass as art in art schools. Those who work in their own studios with glass today can be said to be the grandchildren, even the great grandchildren, of the Studio Glass Movement. It is not an "American" movement, nor is it a "European" movement. It is an international movement.

On a Studio Glass page the early experimenters and masters (preceding Littleton et al) have every right to be. They were not, however, organized even loosely as a movement, or a group with the goal of dissemiating their ideas about art in mind. Nor did they call themselves "studio glass artists." "Studio glass" is of fairly recent coinage (I didn't invent it); a modern term for a contemporary understanding of glass art. Glassnote (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The thing that makes the idea of Studio Glass compelling is that it is always evolving. It could be that the definition of Studio Glass as Littleon and colleagues knew it has subtly shifted. The Studio Glass artist today may not have a university degree, but has picked up the art and the craft in workshops or private study. These new artists are not struggling to have a ubiquitous industrial material accepted as fine art; they are artists who use glass as their primary fine art medium, period. That glass is thought of as a fine art material today - as viable (and now just about as old fashioned!) a medium for producing art as stone, bronze or oil paint - is directly due to the work, both making glass art and in teaching glass, of those early Studio Glass artists in the '60s and'70s.

What I see as the biggest problem with the Wikipedia Studio Glass page has already been mentioned above. The page must give a concise history of Studio Glass, beginning with the proto-Studio Glass artists mentioned by Morrisque above, emphasizing Harvey Littleton and colleagues, and giving a quick overview of the innovative Studio Glass artists of today. I don't want to see makers of Christmas balls and sun-catchers here, and I don't want to see the page as a gallery for free advertising for anybody's studio.

And don't worry about exceptions to the rules. Sometimes exceptions make the rules. Is Dale Chiluly a Studio Glass artist or is he a factory with Dale Chihuly's name on it? I fall on the side of Studio Glass artist, first. Put him on the Studio Glass page as the most visible promoter and teacher of the idea. Studio Glass artists have come out of his workshop. Studio Glass would not be studio glass today without him. Glassnote (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Glassnote
Finally some real sense and clear vision of what's needed on this page.
Sam Herman> Correction entirely accepted, thanks
Re Jean Sala > Interesting and should be noted in the article
Div of labour: Designers & blowers vs hands-on glass artists> agree that this is a crucial distinction
However Murano "Maestri" (master glassblowers) traditionally had significant design latitude, if not total freedom as they were often also partners in the firm and "designers" were unknown in Murano prior to Martinuzzi in the 1920's. In Bohemia ( Czechoslovakia), the "Fachschule" (specialist glass technical and design colleges) apprenticeship for glass designers, lasting 10 years, included a significant amount of technical hands-on training BUT I totally accept Littleton's role in formalising the educational fusion of roles in the "anglo" world and the creation of a new breed of hands-on artists araising from that.
re Studio Glass Movement> points re dissemination, aims, goals taken and agreed.
"an international movement." > agreed
""Studio glass" ; a modern term for a contemporary understanding of glass art." > agreed
Re: Acceptance of glass as a "fine art material" > Crucial point and that prior to that Art Glass was an "Applied Art"
acceptance .....due to Studio Glass MOVEMENT > I cannot argue with that. You have superior knowledge. Sounds entirely plausible.
The page must give a concise history of Studio Glass > AGREED 100% ...the history will act as a definition ....much better than struggling to define it in the abstract and sounds like you are the man best qualified to write it !!
"beginning with the proto-Studio Glass artists mentioned by Morrisque "> Thank you, tho I only wish I were expert enough on them to write it. I know only the sketchiest of outlines.
"quick overview of the innovative Studio Glass artists of today" > agreed but this will be the most contentious part. Whom to include and whom, not. Tricky. Again, contemporary studio glass is not my specialism. I maybe do know someone who is qualified but v busy trying to make it as a studio artists himself. Hmmmm it may give me an excuse to interview Sam who lives within a mile of me....if I can get his number
No "makers of Christmas balls and sun-catchers here" > Agreed ....needs to be classified as "hobby Glass" or something similar.
No "gallery for free advertising" > agreed and inline with wiki policy as far as I understand it. --Morrisque (talk) 04:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Morrisque:

Thanks for your notes above. I have thought about working on the Studio glass page, but decided that because there is so much contention about it, it would be best to discuss here instead of bulling my way ahead with changes. The discussion page is an excellent venue for working out ideas. "Studio Glass", as we both realize, is a large and complex subject. It is better to get some sort of consensus before trying to organize the subject into a Wikipedia entry.

I am still working (as I have the time) on some individual glass artist entries. I started to expand Stanislav Libensky' and have not had time yet to fact check and add references, which that article needs. Fortunately, I've got some great books on a variety of glass topics from which to draw. You might want to add some pages for those early glass artists, Morrisque. I've found that the entire subject of glass art, and info on glass factories and individual artists, is sorely needed. Sincerely, Glassnote (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Another thought, Morrisque:

The Studio Glass page is first and foremost a good place to talk about the philosophy behind Studio Glass, as well as the history and names within that history. As you point out, the philosophical distinction between the general term of "art glass" and the specific one of "Studio Glass" is in the combining of the artist and craftsman into one person, plus the fact that this first occurred in the realm of fine art education. Harvey Littleton's personal work in glass (although I admire it very much) did not spark the Studio Glass movement. It was an idea (a very powerful one,evidently) that the medium of glass is worthy of Art-making that started this whole thing. Prof. Littleton was a very persuasive promoter of that idea. That the banner was eagerly carried forth by his students and others is what brought the movement to life. Glassnote (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Glassnote
Thanks for your feedback.
I have scanned your excellent article on Glassblowing and have put links to it in the other pages I'm working on. There is so much very basic stuff to be done here on the artistic side of glass and on the technical side too. I found yesterday that the page called Glass production deals only with the two techniques used to produce glass packaging !! Even the very basic structure is chaotic. Look at the use of the term "Glass art" for this Category !! http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Category:Glass_art

I do enjoy discussing glass but I'm afraid I find the (lack of) format of these discussion pages unhelpful. It really needs a forum style format which would make it a lot easier to keep track of people and topics. In fact the whole of the Glass Project needs forum(s). I don't know who to suggest this to.

I have referred to Libensky in my outline of Glass Art. To me he long ago transcended the role of "Studio glass" artist into the quintessential "Artist in glass". However even his story could well have been very different without Brichtova who used her father's influence and contacts to set up their casting studio. Was he from an arts background ? My understanding is that the Czech education system is less inclined to make a distinction between art and craft and that students who were training as blowers and designers would often take the same courses.

In books I have only Petrova's "Czech Glass" and a book on the Roubicek's. Personally I feel that artists such as Vizner belong in the greats too eventhough, without Party influence, most of his career was designing for mass-production. See "Art Before Industry: 20th Century Czech Pressed Glass" by Marcus Newhall.

So, where did this idea, that glass was an "acceptable" art medium, originate then ?? The Czechs ?? I don't think they or the Swedes, Finns, French, Austrians etc ever had problem seeing it as such. Like I said I think it was only in the Anglo-american world that ridiculous distinctions between "fine" and "applied" arts were made.

As to early proto studio artists, I keep thinking of new ones who came completely outside of the Studio Glass Movement. One is Emmanuel Beranek who started out as a studio artist in the late 30's but went on to engender adventurous industrial designs in others at the small Skrdlovice glassworks which he founded and which was used in the communist era for design testing. There designers and master glassblowers, worked very closely together on each design, modifying it as required or not as the case may be. One design which didn't make it into production was formed by using compressed air to mould the outer layer of the plastic glass. Yes you read that correctly. I have an example.

Another is Charles Lotton who I think started up in the 40's ?? As far as I recall he received no formal training whatsoever yet ended up making one of the most technically challenging types of glass. His early work was very rough but fascinating and at first he used recycled glass as his metal in a home made kiln !!!! I have photos of a very rare early piece which is nothing like the pretty stuff his family firm later churned out but his very close relationship to the material is unquestionable.

This very sharp division between the technical and the artistic, in UK at least, goes way back and was as the result of class divisions built into the educational system as far back as Henry VIII and the invention of "schools". I believe that such divisions are present in American society too but hidden by the reflective veneer of an assumed meritocracy.

I don't want to argue for the sake of it but your thesis is the received wisdom in the Art Glass world and the more you press me the more I tend to agree with other dissident voices that the Studio Movement is only one part of the Studio Glass story as a whole, not the defining moment which you guys see it as. You say that exceptions prove the rule. Well in that case, all the more reason highlight those exceptions.... except that I think there will be too many to mention all !!

I also feel that the theory does a disservice to designers whom you seem to regard as remote from the work. If you read Bill Geary's (an American) book "Scandinavian Glass: Creative Energies" this has been far from the case there, where "design" has long been thought of as an "art form". Most of the ground-breaking techniques and designs were developed with designers working alongside gaffers at the furnace! Bill trained as a blower at Orrefors and worked in marketing as well as designing. He talks about the very close relationship which developed between designers and blowers. The results of these close collaberations in graal, ariel and kraka can be considered alongside some of the very best in studio glass and are certainly valued as such. So the designer-blowers of "Studio glass" are not the only ones to bring artistry to bear on the hot metal and during the process of making !!

These days it's tougher than ever to make it as an independent Studio glass artist. I know more than one who have gained wide recognition as but still couldn't make a living at it. A couple have gone into commercial contract "Glass art". On the other hand I know a successful studio maker of contract decor glassware who comes from an arts background yet struggles to gain recognition as a "studio artist"

I have no clue about the artistic or other background of the early French proto artists so I'd have to research that. I think most of them used the facilities of large glass factories. I really think someone else would do a better job than me on this. I'll have a think about who among my contacts would be best. Morrisque (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello again

Hello Morrisque - Please note that "Studio Glass" is not the be-all and end-all in glass art. I still hold that it is a term for a more specific time period and place, rather than an honorific catch-all for every bit of fine contemporary work in glass that has been done in the past 50 years. Here is what Sylva Petrova writes in "Czech Glass" on the subject of "studio glass" (p. 14):

"The work of Czech artists is sometimes referred to as studio glass, perhaps to present the contribution of Czech glass artists towards the development of world modern glass. Even that is not a correct term. The activities of modern glass have a rather longer history and quite a different character in the Czech lands than the studio glass ever had in the United States, Great Britain, and other countries, from where the term "studio glass" originates."

So, we had better be careful who we call a studio glass artist- it may not be appreciated in some quarters. A page titled "Czech glass" could cover the Czech tradition without mixing it up with "Studio Glass"; "French Glass" could cover the French contribution to glass art and a new page, "American (or United States) glass" could cover US glass production from Colonial days up through Harvey Littleton and the Studio Glass Movement and beyond. Perhaps this is the best way to organize the different eras and places; maybe there is really no need for a specific "Studio Glass" page. That way we can concentrate on what studio glass is, or was, give it its due without intending to take away from the rest. Glassnote (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi (Morrisque) and (Glassnote):

I have been checking out the activity on glass pages, trying to see how the division of art glass and studio glass and fine glass (Crystal) finally worked out. You both make an interesting point: studio AND glass art have evolved differently in different areas, and it may be more satisfying to readers (one like myself) if they were segmented to their own individual pages in order to explore their full merits and evolutions, rather than condensed to a single shared page labeled "studio glass".

I would rather see the studio glass page describe in detail what exactly the style is, and then refer to individual pages of regions or eras. Who says Wikipedia needs to be SMALL? FauxClaud (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Back to the bigger picture

I see Art glass is now under construction, which is good. My main concern is that Glass art still redirects to this page, while Glass in art & other variants go nowhere. The only approach to an overall international and historical survey article on glass as an art we have is History of glass which is pretty sketchy, and naturally also covers technical and archaeological stuff. But it does serve as a summary to link things like Korean glass art and Ancient Roman glass off.

In the absence of a survey article more centred on glass as an art, I propose that Glass art redirects there instead. Johnbod (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Johnbod I'm confused by your message. In the first sentence it seems like you are arguing for a Glass art page yet in your last sentence, the opposite. I thought for a minute or two that you were two different people !!. Not sure what exactly you mean by a "survey article" ??
There seems to be a great deal of confusion over terminology in many sections of the Glass Project particularly over the term "Glass art". It's being used to mean all sorts of things, sometimes things I just can't fathom.
To those involved in the Art Glass World (Studio Glass Artists as well as collectors and artists in glass) the meaning is specific. "Glass art" as mentioned earlier by someone on this page means <<Works of "Art" by established and recognised artists who use glass as their canvas>> As usual there are some ifs and buts but essentially its as clear as that.
If there are sections of the more general glass community who have a different understanding of the term I;d very much like to know what it is !!!
In either case, I strongly feel that there is an urgent and very real need for a page called Glass art which doesn't re-direct, but which can have links to many other relevant pages.
To link it to Glass history implies that it's a term used only in an historical context! That to my mind is as bad as re-directing it to this nonsensical article currently called Studio glass which has been confusing and misinforming the public for some years now.
I am all for working to consensus. I would not be here if not but surely there has to be a time limit on how long to allow for interested parties to come to the table ?? At some point someone needs to DO something !!
I read in the FAQS "Be bold" !! and to that end I have worked up a rough sketch of what should be on a Glass art page at the page Glass Art.
Hopefully by reading it those who have no involvement in glass whatsoever will be informed as well as those who come from different aspects of the glass world. If they disagree we could talk about it on that page's Talk Page. It's getting rather crowded and confusing here !!!--Morrisque (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought we had established above that "Works of "Art" by established and recognised artists who use glass as their canvas" was Art glass. I'm sure "glass art" may be used in that specialized sense re the contemporary scene but it also seems to me to be in wide use as a general term for "Glass as art" worldwide and throughout history. At the very least there should be a disam page. Johnbod (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we Revive Editing on this Page?

Since Editing/Development seems to have fallen off, last year, I'd like to revive editing on it; Seeing the page as a Wiki reader, when i search for the differences between glass art, art glass, studio glass, and glassblowing -- i am pretty disappointed to have to dig through and make the disambiguation for myself, and still come up a little confused.

1. Can we do a disambiguation page 2. Can we do a little intro for at least this page, studio glass page, and glass art page, definitively telling readers what WE have decided is the meaning of each term? FauxClaud (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Glass.sculpture.kewgardens.london.arp.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Glass.sculpture.kewgardens.london.arp.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Separate cleanly from art glass, make glass art into overview page

This page and art glass use the same terms, images, and artists. This should be fixed. This page currently refers often the the "art glass movement" rather than the studio glass movement, and seems to want to include everything; those parts should be merged back into art glass.

It should be clarified whether art glass is an umbrella movement and term of which studio glass is a specialized subset, or whether they are two different movements with no overlap aside from some historical shared origins. I can't tell which it is from what I've read; but that relationship should be stated in the first paragraph of each page's lead.

Related: an overview page is sorely needed. Currently glass art is a mess and should be an overview of art made with glass, or glass in art. (I see no sources for the casual uses of "glass art" to refer to monumental glass sculptures; monumental glass art can be a section of the overview page :) – SJ + 17:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Pinging @Johnbod: who's still editing in this area. :) – SJ + 17:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Probably. I'm just about to go travelling, I'm afraid. Johnbod (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Travel well! I'll try to fix up the overview page, which has no refs and is redundant, before thinking about these two articles. Update: the overview draft is done. Take a look at how I describe there the difference b/t art glass (as a type of glasswork) and studio glass (the movement). It's not quite how these two articles describe it today. – SJ + 19:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Current thoughts:

• studio glass should be largely about "The studio glass movement", describing studio glass as a form of art glass, made in small production runs and in studios.
  • The section on "regional glass art" should become "regional studio glass movements".
  • The history should be about the development of this movement, in counterpoint to factory glass and other expansions of glass art into the home.
• art glass should be a short article about the type of glass art, and related techniques.
  • Most of its history should be merged into glass art, much of its studio specifics should be merged into studio glass

– SJ + 20:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Removal of sections lacking sources

[here] is the diff. If reliable sources can be added then feel free to add them and restore a particular section. Otherwise, keep massive swaths of unsourced material out of articles. See WP:VERIFY and avoid original research. jayhawker6 (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

As Johnbod states in their edit summary, you can start by tagging the sections. Just because content is currently unsourced does not mean it is not verifiable. While I very much agree that content should be sourced, the question to ask would be is any of the unsourced content actually contentious? If not then the {{citation needed}} can simply be used, since wikipedia is a work in progress. Polyamorph (talk) 08:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)