Topic: Signed Glass

[Glen]

Are we in danger of saying that an architect should not be credited with the design of a building but that we shoud be more interested in the bricklayer?

I'll wade in on this point, if I may, and if you will allow me I will respond somewhat out of context. I would also like to slant it toward my previous comments - and Bernard's recent ones - on pressed glass.

The unsung heroes in respect of much pressed glass are (imho) the mould makers. You won't see their names anywhere (with one or two notable exceptions, such as Franckhauser) - and I am certainly not aware of any signing the glass. But in many cases the design work and the astonishing skill (imagine cutting a complex design in reverse into metal...on the curve!) of the mouldmakers is something that I believe does not go fully acknowledged or appreciated enough.

Glen

[Frank]

There seem to be more than one school of thought coming out. With a hint of the Devils advocate by exaggeration. To save words, Signing, can be a mark a label or any other identification addition.

1. MUST BE SIGNED
[list=a]
[*]All glass MUST be marked or signed to enable identification of the artists, designers, craftsmen involved in each item.
[*]Glass Art MUST be personally signed by the artists
[/list:o]
2. SIGNATURE DOES NOT MATTER
[list=a]
[*]No challenges for collectors if signed
[*]Familiarisation with the work of glass artists/craftsmen makes there work recognisable.
[*]Signatures only encourage fraud and damage of good unsigned glass
[/list:o]
3. SIGNATURE USEFUL BUT NOT VITAL
[list=a]
[*]A mark can help to provide references for learning
[*]Marks are easily forged so caution is still needed
[*]Pulished reference sources can misattribute marks
[/list:o]
4. SIGNATURE CAN PROVIDE INFOTRMATION NOT OBVIOUS FROM A PIECE ITSELF
[list=a]
[*]Different glassworks producing the same design
[/list:o]
5 SIGNING IS A COMMERCIAL OR POLITICAL DECISION
[list=a]
[*]Buyers may require unmarked
[*]Cost of signing reduces competivity
[*]Facilities for marking glass are a recent development (200 years or less)
[/list:o]
6 SIGNING BY SOMEONE WHO DID NOT MAKE THE PIECE
[list=a]
[*]Normal commercial practise
[*]Fraud
[/list:o]
7 SIGNATURES MAY DETRACT
[list=a]
[*]Transparent pieces could be spoilt by a mark.
[*]Parallel to basic stamp collecting
[/list:o]
8 SIGNATURES SHOULD CREDIT ALL WORKERS
[list=a]
[*]Designer
[*]Draughtsmen
[*]Design approver
[*]Craftspeople (Blowers, moulders, artisans)
[*]Ancilliary (Office staff, finishers, packers, delivery driver, quarry workers and miners of raw materials.
[*]URL for a full list of credits (Hollywood style :twisted: )
[*]RFID chip
[/list:o]
Not a perfect list and not all notes are from this thread.

[aa]

A fair summary. I have always taken the view that if you sign a piece it makes it more difficult for someone to try and pass it off as something else later on.
I have different signature styles for different purposes, but in the last few years hhave changed my perspective from not signing less important pieces to signing them in such a way that the Chrism's of this world cannot adulterate them!

[Frank]

... to signing them in such a way that the Chrism's of this world cannot adulterate them!

Say more.
 (p.s. added a section above)

[Glen]

Why is glass made? (I am excepting industrial glass). Who for? Consumers? Who are they? The range is astonishing - from people who merely want a bowl to put fruit in or a jug for milk - to those who want to invest in a fabulous example of decorative art.

And they are not mutually exclusive. They overlap, (especially in time).

So, who are the trademarks or signatures for?

Glen

[aa]

... to signing them in such a way that the Chrism's of this world cannot adulterate them!

Say more.
 (p.s. added a section above)

If a piece of glass does not have a signature, it means that an unscrupulous person can easily sign it with a diamond tool with a misleading and fraudulent signature.

Does anybody have a date for the introduction of flexible drives? `recently saw some Tiffany signatures that made me wonder a bit. Even although teh peices were Tiffany, I felt that the signatures may have been added later.

[aa]

So, who are the trademarks or signatures for?
Glen

Surely it is only comparatively recent that signatures have been for the artist's vanity or the collector's edification? Trademarks and signatures were both to protect copyright and prevent copying but also a result of import legislation in many countries that required the country of origin to be identified. This still applies today. Such id had a bearing on perceptions of quality as well.

[Glen]

Trademarks and signatures were both to protect copyright and prevent copying but also a result of import legislation in many countries that required the country of origin to be identified.

On the whole - yes.     But.

One of the things I was trying to bring out in my postings earlier is that sometimes, signatures and marks can be so much more. I'll mention the example again of the Indian glass (circa 1930s to ?). The JAIN signature on some of the known examples is fascinating. It can vary from huge stylised letters to small neat "capitals". Then there's the Paliwal script signature - florid and flamboyant. I doubt they were for either copyright purposes or trade legislation. I suspect they were a mixture of pride, vanity, culture and design.

A further trademark from the Jain works is the (auspicious) swastika motif. This is actually incoporated within the design of one vase. Then another one from the CB works in Firozabad actually has the huge letters CB as the main part of the moulded floral design (intertwined with flowers, leaves etc).

Glen

[Lustrousstone]

Perhaps Jain were just way ahead of the "logo-ing up" (as in the Royle Family and Baby David being "all logo-ed up" ) bandwagon where a logo (i.e., signature) is part of the design. As we've said before, nothing is new.

[Glen]

As we've said before, nothing is new.

Possibly the true-est comment on the entire GMB. (Don't ask for a definition of "true-est" pleeeeeez).

Glen