Karl P. Platt on sat 10 may 97
M.-J. Taylor
M-J --
Just to clairify a couple things. I would suggest that leaded glass panels
are in the same quandry as any other form in which glass as it regards
deciphering what they are or aren't art. Liturgical panels can be artistic,
but in the here and now if we look at the personal work of Susan Stinsmuhlen-Ame
(absolutely ART in my book) or Narcissus Quaigliata, etc., the intent of
the work is something quite other than to reinforce the dogma of this or
that religon. I would point out that the work of these (and many other
workers in the field) are not only highly personal, but also extremely
well made -- highly lucid works. Perhaps it is intent and that provides
us a discriminating factor as to whether something, in this case glass,
is ART. I dunno -- you guys figure it out.
There is also some question as to whether Tiffany "invented" the copper
foil trchnique. Some argue that Lafarge (whose work I personally like better)
was the original proponent of this method. Lafarge was very adventerous
with technique and incorporated many odd bits of glass in his panels. He
certainly had the imperative to come up with something other than lead
to hold the glass. Armstrong also used copper foil at the same time as
Tiffany. Tiffany or more appropriately the high calibre designers and artisans
he hired, had the rich guy's advantage of a personal glass factory. I was
surprised to learn that there were utterly tens or thousands of Tiffany
windows made. Not that this diminishes their beauty in any way, but they
were a lot less rare than I imagined. Philadelphia, for example,
is full of them. It's also worth noting that Philly also has some astonishing
mosaics -- the Tiffany rendition of a Maxwell Parrish painting in the Curtis
Building and a panel by ???? at the 30th Street Station commemorating the
railroad -- very nifty work.
Anyway, the point I wanted to make in the post is only that in the here-and-
polemic over what does and does not constitute ART, as one sses it in those
highly authoratative magazines at the Barnes and Nobel, there is a great
division as to whether and where glass might fit into the scheme. Those
in the Vitterati certainly think their things are possesed of ART and those
from the outside frequently disparage glass objects as eye-candy -- I'll
submit that this is often an appropriate criticism, but that there are
also solid ARTFUL glass things, too.
KPP -- vou almocar.
Faaaalaaaaaa Mangueira!
Seja Diferente! Kill your Television
| |
|
