Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests > Glass

Signed Glass

(1/17) > >>

Sklounion:
Hi,

In the light of several recent topics and personal e-mails.....

Who needs a signature?

As some are aware, I have the greatest respect and affinity for Czechoslovakian glass, its designers, and the glass-masters who, for probably the most difficult forty-two years in living memory, had to operate in the most trying of conditions.

Recent postings to the board, have, IMHO, been submitted, with a collectors view.

I, personally, have felt very uncomfortable with some of those posts.
Suggestions that current Czech glass-masters should sign their work, even must sign their items....

So I pose some questions.....
A glass-master is, by the very term, some-one whose skills are un-doubted.
Is it necessary to sign, and if so, who for?

Arguably not for the glass-making community, by definition, quite small, so, a glass-master, needs only to be recognised by his peers and equals.
Lipofsky would recognise work by Herman etc....
like-wise with the very best of Czech/Slovak makers and engravers.

So the pleas for signatures are driven by whom? Can I be really contentious, and suggest, the collectors????

A signature does something , allowing (sometimes) a positive id, and thus bolstering a collectors' view of the value.

But, that rather supposes that the designer/maker, signs themself.

Now, being the anarchist that I am, I will re-call a joke, from Stoke-on-Trent, where once I worked in the potteries.

"How do you tell some-one who works in the potteries? They are the one's with food on their shirts."

Looking at, or for, labels does not make you an expert. A signature is arguably a lazy person's option, and pleas for signatures, says more about the collector, than the artist, designer, glass-master.

Is signed glass the lazy collectors option? IMHO, yes.

When some-one accuses some-one of being elitist, because they do not need to see a Biemann signature, on a glass to know it is Biemann, that may be a reflection of some-one's hard-won knowledge, and familiarity with Biemann's work. We cannot raise him from the dead to service collectors insecurity.

Nor can we demand that a current glass-master, or master glass-engraver, sign their work. That is to deny them their democratic right to choose, whether they sign, or not. In a Czech/Slovak context, having been denied their human rights for such a long time, it seems ironic that now certain people think that their new, hard-won freedoms should be subjugated to the whims of collectors.

Only familiarity with current work, by the likes of Igor Muller, will help. No collector has the right, to expect another human being should abdicate their democratic freedoms.

Contentiously,

Marcus

Frank:
Wow! Marcus, I am impressed! I totally agree with you.

Anne:
Absolutely agree 100% Marcus. I know how frustrating it can be not knowing who made something but you are spot on that we do not have the right to demand pieces be signed (or even labelled) by the maker, the engraver, the decorator, the seller or anyone else involved in the process.

Max:
I don't think it's contentious to say that the desire for signature is collector driven.  In my case it isn't to bolster value, but just to make my life easier (I'm lazy! lol)...but then collecting is about learning, isn't it?

I agree that we have no right to demand signature.  At the end of the day, it's up to the glass artist/studio to decide about signature and up to them only.  Interestingly though, I bought an expensive painting that wasn't signed, and got the artist to sign it on the back when he brought it round.  That was to save any problems in the future.

I do think it's a shame that naive and ignorant collectors (I include myself there) can be duped by similar glass styles though.  However, that's what any collecting field is about - learning to tell the difference!

Edit:  When I say 'problems in the future' with regard to the painting...I did mean regarding value...to be honest.

David Hier:
There are various ways to approach this issue........

If you take a historical perspective, very few makers or designers used to sign their work, hence all of the speculation that takes place on this board about identifications.

When historical pieces were signed there are examples of makers marks and artists marks, and occasionally (if we're lucky).....both.

You also have an issue about the signature of a maker Vs a designer/artist (as per the recent controversial Chihuly thread). The same can be said about older glass. You may find a piece signed 'Stuarts' accompanied by an 'RD', which helps trace a piece back to the manufacturer. It does nothing for the craftsperson that created the glass.

When it comes to contemporary glass, I would find it odd if an artist didn't sign their work. This has nothing to do with the demands of collectors, but everything to do with the pride of the maker.

Since the industrialised origins of commercial decorative glass, the emphasis has been on industry and the status of manufacturers. Individual craftspeople rarely received the props they deserved.

Today’s culture is based around the 'self' and the individual reigns when it comes to design and art. We don't talk about designer watches by Fossil, but watches designed by Philippe Starck for Fossil.  We don't talk about the quality of Waterford crystal, but the latest range of designs by John Rocha.

In an age of the individual, why wouldn't a designer want to sign their work?

If we were talking about paintings, wouldn’t it be odd to find an unsigned canvas?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page