Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: Sklounion on June 10, 2006, 09:43:14 PM
-
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
-
Wow! Marcus, I am impressed! I totally agree with you.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Good morning all,
As David, rightly points out in the industrial context, very few western glass-masters have ever been acknowledged by the companies that they worked for, or even by the artists-designers themselves. The designer is the marketing focus, and with some big-name designers, sadly the quality of the designs come a poor second to the marque. This contrasts very strongly with the former Czechoslovakia, where most glass-masters during the communist period of control, were acknowledged for their contribution.
We may know the designer, if the work is documented, the factory if we have a trade catalogue, but rarely the maker.
In the post-communist period, often, the Czech and Slovak glass-masters have had to make choices. When privatisation of the glass industry took place, a number of large factories went to the wall very quickly. So those glass-makers have often started small scale enterprises, some making historical reproductions, others very challenging modern glass. Not all is signed, often with an expectation that one should be familiar with their work and style.
This really only becomes problematic, when the glass comes into the hands of unscrupulous third parties, who deface pieces with spurious signatures and pass these off as.... to people who are not as familiar with the output of factories, as perhaps they should be.
I am currently working to identify Czechoslovakian glass-masters, and the factories they worked for, and time-scales. Once I have made more progress, this information will be made available.
If anyone knows the where-abouts of any list of the fifty glass-masters, who were moved from the Hantich/Flora works to the new Uzitkoveho Sklo factory in 1967 (Crystalex Works Number 2) I'd be very grateful for the lead.
Regards,
Marcus
-
Marcus — I totally disagree. You appear to be discussing one-off or very limited runs of art. My limited experience of the art world in general is that the designer/artist's signature indicates that not only was he or she the principal artist concerned with its creation, but that he / she had carried out the final quality control examination and was happy with the outcome.
The lack of a signature indicates a second, not sufficiently defective to be scrapped, but not a piece worthy of the artist's signature.
Also your comments about collectors took my breath away. They're one half of the deal by paying for it. Without them there would be no art created. What is so special about glass that demands that collectors should be authorities? What is wrong with relatively easily verifiable signatures? Ridiculous.
If, however, you are talking about factory glass, then the lack of a maker's mark is not not traditional. It was plain and simple bullying by a handful of trade buyers. This plus the factories' failure to publish detailed catalogues, turning customers into collectors, were, I believe, the major reasons for the closure of the Stourbridge factories.
Contentiously yours,
Bernard C. 8) (written before the previous reply)
-
Today’s culture is based around the 'self' and the individual reigns when it comes to design and art.
In the Western world, David! Sadly (IMHO) not (yet) in China, for example!
Marcus, I take Bernard's point (although perhaps not so vehemently :wink: ) about your comments on 'collectors'.
Yes, I'm a 'collector'. But I don't buy to sell. Yes, I would like to be able to identify the artist who made (or designed) the pieces of glass I collect. However, this is NOT for the purpose of assessing their value (although I realise that when I die my children or grandchildren may have a financial motive for wanting to identify my glass :twisted: ) but simply for my own curiosity!
I want to know who made the glass in my collection because like to - I'm not quite sure how to put this :oops: - 'give respect' to the artist responsible. In my own mind only. Although of course I would like my family to learn and 'give respect', in this way, too! (Sorry, I don't know how else to put this. There should be a word. Perhaps there is, but if so I don't know what it is :roll: )
Isn't it interesting, though, that porcelain has traditionally been marked with not only the factory mark, but often the maker and the decorator's marks! Why not glass, I wonder? :? :shock:
-
I've always thought that signatures on factory glass such as Kosta (Scandinavian glass being my favoured area) were a commercial addition; having a signature on a piece aligns it in the minds of the initial purchaser with "true" one offs such as paintings (the purchaser the factory really needs to worry about) and allows them to charge a premium.
Selfishly, one of the things that attracted me to glass collecting (I'll wear the collector badge with pride) is that they are often not signed - the thrill of buying just on style without a clear attribution takes it above the realms of stamp collecting (no disrespect intended to any philatalists :lol: )- it also increases the likelihood of picking up unrecognised gems cheaply.
However, signatures are invaluable in extending one's knowledge of an area where there are no readily available reference books (virtually everything I know on Ernest Gordon at Afors I've gleaned from collecting signed pieces of his work and extrapolating).
So on balance my preference now is for more unsigned, but I doubt I'd have got interested initiall without the initial signatures to guide and inform me.
taylog1
-
It was plain and simple bullying by a handful of trade buyers, who believed that their clients would cut them out of the action if their purchases were identifiable. This plus the factories' failure to publish detailed catalogues, turning customers into collectors, were, I believe, the major reasons for the closure of the Stourbridge factories.
I'm not so sure about that. I think the issue of factory closures it a little more complicated than that.
Personally I feel that the closure of Stourbridge firms had everything to do with an inability to adapt. For the most part these firms were based on hand craftsmanship and the importance of the skill of the blowers etc. There eventually came a time when the public was unwilling to pay for this quality, especially when there was an option of buying cheap imported or moulded glass. There was also a cultural shift towards ceramic ware that also needs to be considered.
I feel that the same factors came onto play in the Czech Republic, but at a later date. Unfortunately we now face a situation where some of the best glass artists in the world can no longer make a living in their own country.
Many Czech factories are going out of business because they cannot compete with China (there are even examples of Chinese glass on sale on Czech tourist shops, labelled as examples of the countries craftsmanship). Those firms that are still hanging on seem to think that they can survive by plundering the pattern book archive (much to everyone’s chagrin). It is disappointing to hear that there are plenty of designers with good ideas out there, but Czech firms are unwilling to take the risk. One or two ceramic firms are beginning to listen to new artists and designers, so perhaps the glass firms will follow their lead. Diversity and originality is the only way these firms will survive.
Thankfully Czech glass artists appear to be maintaining some kind of spearhead of originality, although most eventually end up working in exile in the US. I would be much happier to see such artists stay at home and be able to produce both sculptures and designs for commercial firms to reproduce.
Bringing the subject back to signatures, I think that you have to distinguish between factory glass and one-off, or short-run pieces. Even though most glass blowers or designers deserve credit for their creations, I cannot accept that many makers would allow pieces to be signed. Surely the factory would want the all the prestige and not really care about identifying individual makers (unless there was a commercial reason).
All 'art glass' (or glass art?) should be signed and if it’s not, then something dodgy must be going on. I understand the point about buyers wanting to buy large numbers of unsigned pieces by an artist (possibly for unscrupulous reasons.........i.e. passing them off as being antique). I would however argue that such glass is usually unoriginal, commercial and not really worthy of being collectable.
I know I am repeating myself, but as a general rule.......I would expect most factory/commercial glass to be unsigned (except by the manufacturer). Art glass or work by small-run glass artists should always be signed. If its not, then something dodgy is going on.
-
Art glass or work by small-run glass artists should always be signed. If its not, then something dodgy is going on.
I bought a Peter Layton designed 'Landscape' paperweight. It was unsigned. http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-2274 I jokingly drew to Peter's attention the many threads on this board's Paperweight forum in which weights were identified as "it must be Chinese" on the strength of the matt, unpolished base, as this weight had. Peter laughed, and said he had better sign it then, hadn't he? And proceeded to sign and date the weight for me. It is not normally his policy to sign paperweights. I do have a large 'Spirale' vase of Peter's design, which is of course signed, but I don't know if it is just the paperweights, or whether they have a policy of not bothering to sign other, smaller items. :?
-
At risk of sounding like some self-appointed Henry Kissinger, I don't see why we can't compromise over this issue.
I don't see any hard and fast rules as to signature, are there any??
We all have our areas of expertise and can make assertive comments relating to them with relative ease, but comments that could be generalisations leave a lot of scope for retaliative remarks.
I'm not singling anyone out, and it's as much to remind myself as anyone else.
-
I do have a large 'Spirale' vase of Peter's design, which is of course signed, but I don't know if it is just the paperweights, or whether they have a policy of not bothering to sign other, smaller items. :?
I have been to Peter's workshop for a couple of his Christmas sell-off sales (seconds etc). Peter will usually sign pieces when asked; although he usually has trouble knowing whether or not a piece is his own.
I believe that this has something to do with the fact that he rarely makes his own work these days. Peter normally has a number of blowers working in his studio, who produce his work for him. The best blower produces his best work. Examples by David Flowers are pretty hard to beat, but they are usually signed 'Peter Layton'.
Peter may still make smaller pieces, such as paperweights, I just don't know.
This is pure speculation, but perhaps Peter doesn't sign his paperweights because he doesn't actually make them. A guilty conscience? I don't know.
-
At risk of sounding like some self-appointed Henry Kissinger, I don't see why we can't compromise over this issue.
I don't see any hard and fast rules as to signature, are there any??
As an artist and designer (not glass) I find it incomprehensible that an artist wouldn't sign their work. We artists are such egomaniacs it wouldn't even occur to us not to sign our work.
As I said before, glass artists should always sign their work. If they don't then something dodgy is going on.
-
David said:
As I said before, glass artists should always sign their work. If they don't then something dodgy is going on.
I wish you hadn't said that again. In my opinion a dogmatic attitude doesn't serve discussion, it only causes rifts.
So much for compromise. :(
-
I wish you hadn't said that again. In my opinion a dogmatic attitude doesn't serve discussion, it only causes rifts.
Lets put it another way. Can you think of a good reason for an artist not to sign their work?
-
Are we including moulded "signatures" (such as the Northwood N)? For some collectors it adds a certain cachet, but in general it really doesn't matter, as Harry Northwood's glass is well documented and fairly easily attributable even on pieces without the N.
But of course, a signature has the downside of being copyable. Northwood's N mark has been copied on a number of occasions over the years (in fact it even went to litigation in the USA). Northwood's script signature can also be found on Dugan glass, so it's not always a form of attribution. And of course, the N is found on the Far Eastern Northwood fakes too.
When moulds have been taken over by other companies, marks have sometimes been left on. Summit Art Glass are well known to have kept the Westmoreland (and Imperial) "signature" on many examples of their glass. This of course, can cause confusion (at best).
What about signatures by decorators and mould makers or designers? I believe they add much to the piece - it's not egotism, it's added information and as such it is very valuable and important. I designed two patterns for both a mould (machined by Island Mould Company) and a plunger (machined by Fenton) that is used to produce glass items. My initials can be seen (tucked away in the pattern) on both designs. It's not egotism that made me do that - it was to provide information and "history".
Glen
-
I wouldn't presume to know the personal or economic reasons why a glass artist would or wouldn't sign their own glass. I'm not an expert on every glass designer and art glass studio, past and present, worldwide. That's my point. Unless you have those facts at your fingertips, then I can't see how anyone can say anything definite and incontravertable.
I'm not posting on this thread any longer.
-
As a collector who cut his teeth on unidentified individually hand-blown glass that was unsigned. At the time the market was dominated by Lalique, Schneider, Gallé and other French designers. Collectors of British art glass were almost non-existant and virtually nothing was documented. Manley was about the only relevant work in that period.
I enjoyed not only learning about the glass but also the journey of discovery. Note, that I was at that time also a stamp collector and built a very specialised collection that required all sorts of tools and knowledge to identify the subtle differences. With no references to identify what was or was not Monart I also had to contend with the different makers of similar types of glass - in the process of which Nazeings history got brought to attention. Not having the luxury of signatures was thus a prime driver to really learning to understand the hallmarks of individual glassmakers. It became possible, eventually, to recognise Monart by touch alone. It was a fun 'party-trick' doing this with pieces I had never seen for other collectors. Also, I have to admit to looking down my nose at collectors who only collected signed glass, I used to make the same parallel with stamp collectors who only collected the basic values and did not care to go deeper into it. I no longer feel that way, it was part of my growng up in glass).
I am also aware that stores like John Lewis insist on glass being unmarked or even labelled.
Monart paperweights were normally labelled at the factory, though rarely coded. However, US collectors who bought their weights from Paul Jokelson got their weights without a Moncrieff label (They did have a PY cane) and it is not known if Jokelson insisted on no labels or removed them before distribution.
In my early days the only British glass with any following was Whitefriars Powell pieces or antique stem and cut glass. Glass artists were struggling and unable to get very good prices - few British glass artists have risen to major international prominence. Few of them signed their work either. I collected glass by a few Siddy Langley and Lindean Mill being the only ones I bought more than once. At that time Siddy was having to concentrate on bread and butter work and her 'art' was limited to when invited to exhibit. But only 3 galleries, Coleridges, Hayhurst and one in Bristol. Adam Aaronson was a sales assistant that I bought my first Lindean Mill from and I met him next when he had a gallery in Edinburgh after Coleridges closed. The discussion about signatures never occured in those days.
One of the main impact of the obsession with signatures is that they are an open invitation to fakers to reproduce the signature - the Chrism episode showed he did not care if the glass was scarce and valuable or cheap from a discount store. Many pieces were spoiled as a result.
One of the driving forces for glass manufacture for non-functional or decorative use is a succesful economy that leaves people with disposable income. Such an economy creates demand and desire, desire takes no account of wealth and this means that limited number of appealing and succesful designs are going to inspire reproduction and style following. Todays unique masters creation is tomorrows mass market vase and this allows more people to share in that original thinkers concept. Such an economy also faces increased wage demands as more people want to partake in the consumer process and to be able to enjoy the 'luxuries', this in turn leads to cost cutting in manufacture to meet the demand. Marking the glass is a labour intensive task and is often carried out by one or more persons in a factory. When trying to compete against cheaper imports the indiginous companies have to cut costs and expensive finishing is an obvious candidate.
Few collectors are studying and collecting current glass production. I am certainly guilty of not researching Strathearn while they were an active company and as a result much is lost. But Strathearn glass gives an indication of another issue with marking. Most Strathearn glass is marked with am impressed applied seal but in order to support that it was found neccesary to increase the thickness of the glass - increasing the cost. This is probably why many glassmakers did not use a similar approach. But even those seals were being ground down and a basal ring added in order to pass off as Monart. The accident of needing to thicken the glass resulted in a very different feel so it mostly hurts 'new' collectors. I would argue that you learn by your mistakes. The early period at Ysart Brohers glass saw the continuation of the Monart labelling approach, but this was very quickly replaced by an acid etched signature that was applied by 3 women using a brush. When times got harder and Vincent took Dunlop as a partner the signature was immediately replaced by a label of very similar design to that used by Dunlops Pirelli Glass. Indeed some Vasart was sold with only a Pirelli label on, but with made in Scotland instead of England. When Stuarts took of the Strathearn works it was used mainly as a decorating shop. Stuart Strathearn was marked by sandblasting over a stencil. While cheaper than most other methods of marking glass it is for collectors very dangerous because it is so easily copied. Acid etching needs a lot more skill, particular for well defined marks. The mixture of acid and flouride needs to be adjusted to each individual metal composition and I know one restorer who tried hard to duplicate such marks and failed.
There is one intriguing Monart piece smothered in signatures, was this done by Moncrieff's chemistry department to test mixes or is it the work of another restorer attempting forgery? (http://www.ysartglass.com/BaseLabel/Labelimage/MonSigEX1.jpg) a few more views are shown on this page http://www.ysartglass.com/BaseLabel/Labels.htm (Some Monart was acid etched for export to USA, Australia, Canada and New Zealand). There is no provable example with an etched mark in the Monart exported to other countries.
Signatures and labels do form an interesting part of the in depth study of a factories output but have, in my opinion, little other value.
Each glassmaker has a right to decide for themselves if they wish to sign and this applies equally to artists.
An interesting discussion about a paperwight by Allan Scott in the paperweight forum http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,5696.0.html did highlight
the contributions of weight maker, Harry McKay and later in the thread attributed Martin Murray who facetted one of the weight. It transpires that the type of cutting used in this example is of the most complex nature and few have the skill to achieve this. Without the active involvement of Allan Scott, who made the lampwork and is viewed as the primary craftsmen, the contribution of Martin Murray would be lost to history. Then there is the polisher and any other assistants involved. Credit need to be given also to the other workers that contributed in some way to each work. Where do you stop?
Another signature focussed discussion in paperweights is about one signed with a script Schneider - this is leading down some circuitous paths and it is still not sure if this is a fake or an unknown Schneider!
There are plenty of hideous pieces of Lalique that are signed yet fetch a good price simply because of who they are by. I have owned some hideous Monart, because it was Monart, even if unsigned.
In summary, I would suggest that signatures are an interesting sub-topic for research but of no relevance to the collectability of a piece of glass.
Certainly collectors should not demand that glass be signed, mostly they are buying on the second market out of historical and fashion interest. They could go to still living craftsmen and pay them the value of the unsigned glass to have a signature added, although usually they just hand it over and say will you sign this piece please. Why on earth should the craftsmen do so? Flattery perhaps, usually they also get to buy a piece from the crafstmans own collection at the same time - do they pay the market value current, or just what the old guy asks for? I know that when I bought one piece from the Ysart family, I was generous paying ten or twenty times the pieces then value.
-
Frank wrote
In summary, I would suggest that signatures are an interesting sub-topic for research but of no relevance to the collectability of a piece of glass.
I think they can be much more than that, Frank. It depends on what area of glass you are collecting. If "signature" in this context can be extended to trademarks (which is what I was saying above) then they can add much to overall knowledge and background / history. It was a trademark / signature "Jain" that led Bob Smith and me (as side kick), to discover that Carnival Glass was made in India. A shattering and astonishing piece of research, in its field - that had profound effects (both good and bad) on collecting.
Glen
-
All 'art glass' (or glass art?) should be signed and if it’s not, then something dodgy must be going on. I understand the point about buyers wanting to buy large numbers of unsigned pieces by an artist (possibly for unscrupulous reasons.........i.e. passing them off as being antique). I would however argue that such glass is usually unoriginal, commercial and not really worthy of being collectable.
I know I am repeating myself, but as a general rule.......I would expect most factory/commercial glass to be unsigned (except by the manufacturer). Art glass or work by small-run glass artists should always be signed. If its not, then something dodgy is going on.
I must take you to task on this as a collector of contemporary art and with many artists as friends. Not signing their work is often a part of their artistic expression. Take Richard Long and in his own words from his web site:
Over the years these sculptures have explored some of the variables of transience, permanence, visibility or recognition. A sculpture may be moved, dispersed, carried. Stones can be used as markers of time or distance, or exist as parts of a huge, yet anonymous, sculpture. On a mountain walk a sculpture could be made above the clouds, perhaps in a remote region, bringing an imaginative freedom about how, or where, art can be made in the world.
The addition of a signature will alter the perception of the work, were you to come across a Richard Long scuplture while hill-walking, would you recognise the effort of the artist or look for some geological explanation?
Another friend makes her work in such a way that over time it crumbles and ultimately is a pile of dust. She tipped buckets of her work into the Thames to regain studio space - but her chosen method of disposal was itself an expression of the art that she chose to relocate.
The suggest of dodginess comes across to me as an offensive and arrogant remark David, please revisit that those thoughts.
-
What about signatures by decorators and mould makers or designers? I believe they add much to the piece - it's not egotism, it's added information...........
In a perfect world that is exactly what would happen.
I think there are examples where decorators, blowers and designers have signed pieces, but these are extremely rare. I think Okra might be a good example, with some pieces being signed by Richard Golding (hot glass work) and Terri Colledge (enamelling). I think you can find similar signings with modern paperweights, where the weight is made by one person and the lamp-work produced by someone else.
It would be a lot easier to identify glass if everything was signed and attributed. Unfortunately that isn't the case, but if I ran a glassworks I would make sure everyone was acknowledged for their work. I find it odd that others wouldn't share this sentiment.
The more I think about it, the more it irks me that modern makers might not sign their work. We live in the information age where I would actually expect more than just a signature on an artwork or piece of glass. We should really expect some kind of digital record that could be scanned. You could then be directed to online information that would acknowledge all makers and identify relevant pattern/model numbers and names.
-
I think they can be much more than that,
I hear what you say Glen, but surely the interest in the glass is whatever made you pick it up in the first place? In this context any interest in a label/trademark etc is secondary and a part of the subsequent investigation of the piece.
Wow this is a fast thread, I have not read all the responses since I started my long post.
-
I have been to Peter's workshop for a couple of his Christmas sell-off sales (seconds etc). Peter will usually sign pieces when asked; although he usually has trouble knowing whether or not a piece is his own.
Yes, I too have a few 'seconds' from Peter's sales. None are signed, although I do know who was responsible for actually making them.
However, you will notice I said in my post that I "bought a Peter Layton designed 'Landscape' paperweight" and "a large 'Spirale' vase of Peter's design". I am of course aware that Peter doesn't make many of his designs once he has done the initial design and overseen the artists who produce his designs.
This is pure speculation, but perhaps Peter doesn't sign his paperweights because he doesn't actually make them. A guilty conscience? I don't know.
Personally, I find the suggestion that he might have "a guilty conscience" not only speculative, but deeply offensive!
I think we're in danger of having 'the censors' delete this thread, which would be a great shame! Shall we be a bit more careful what we say in future? We have already 'lost' one useful and perceptive contributor, and others may well be deterred from making thoughtful and insightful comments because of the way this thread is going.
-
Isn't it interesting, though, that porcelain has traditionally been marked with not only the factory mark, but often the maker and the decorator's marks! Why not glass, I wonder?
The means to sign glass were very limited but ancient painted (enamelled) glass was often signed by the decorator.
Using a diamond was about the only option to sign glass other than painting prior to 1800, whereas paint or ink was always available to mark ceramics.
Acid etching only possible since 1800 although moulding is earlier it was not common to use a mark as part of a mould. Many more recent moulds, say 19th century on could have a mark added and this slowly became popular.
Glass is transparent and a mark could be considered unsightly, on ceramics it is out of sight while the item is in use.
-
I wouldn't presume to know the personal or economic reasons why a glass artist would or wouldn't sign their own glass. I'm not an expert on every glass designer and art glass studio, past and present, worldwide. That's my point. Unless you have those facts at your fingertips, then I can't see how anyone can say anything definite and incontravertable.
I agree with you on this, I was merely talking about what should happen with current makers and artists.
-
but surely the interest in the glass is whatever made you pick it up in the first place?
No, not in this case, Frank. It was the trademark that was sought after! The "Jain" mark had long been a puzzle, and collectors sought out examples with the trademark itself.
I have bought examples of glass where the item itself was of absolutely no interest at all (boring and plain, in fact). But I wanted the trademark signature, as it was rare, interesting and fascinating. A good example would be a marigold plain panelled vase that has a moulded Riihimaki "signature" of the lynx. Wonderful, fabulous trademark!
Glen
-
This is pure speculation, but perhaps Peter doesn't sign his paperweights because he doesn't actually make them. A guilty conscience? I don't know.
Personally, I find the suggestion that he might have "a guilty conscience" not only speculative, but deeply offensive!
As I said in my post, the question of a guilty conscience was pure speculation.
I did not mean to cause any offence and in spite of how my post may have been received, I have a great deal of respect for Peter Layton as a designer.
I simply feel that glass makers deserve to receive credit for their work and signatures can help to achieve this. A 'designed by' and 'blown by' or 'decorated by' mark would be a good solution.
-
With reference to decorators' signatures and various others (post actual glass production), I thought it might be of interest to note that Fenton Art Glass decorators add their signatures to their art work - and these are avidly sought after (both the actual sigs and the lovely painted designs). One of the most sought after (imho) is Louise Piper - and in more recent years, Martha Reynolds and Kim Plauche.
I have also painted designs on Carnival Glass, and I always sign them. The circumstances warrant (demand) it - but I can understand that there are many other circumstances where a signature may not be wanted, needed or warranted.
Note too, that members of the Fenton family add their actual signatures to some of their "Family Signature" items.
http://www.fentonartglass.com/newsletter/events/signature4-06.html
Glen
-
I think we're in danger of having 'the censors' delete this thread, which would be a great shame! Shall we be a bit more careful what we say in future? We have already 'lost' one useful and perceptive contributor, and others may well be deterred from making thoughtful and insightful comments because of the way this thread is going.
We do not censor but we do have rules of behaviour in order to maintain civilised dialogue. There have been some exaggerated claims of censorship recently but in fact it was a case of some highly offensive personal attacks on other board members that initiated the actions that were taken. No-one has been banned as a result and anyone is able to post if they choose too. In the entire history of this board we have had only two temporary bans imposed on members who would not keep to our guidelines. One of these is now one of our most frequent and valued contributors. The moderators are the public face of a committee composed of a previously unrelated group of members. The moderators make some decisions on their own but major decisions are carried out by a democratic process. On occasion a thread is moved to the committee forun for further discussion and might be edited before returning it to the foru,m or it may be returned intact.
This thread is raising strong feelings but that does not mean we have to resort to attacking a viewpoint we may disagree with. Nor does it mean we have to swallow it. It is possible for any itelligent person to discuss different points of view and express their own feelings with out resorting to playground tactics, shouting and name-calling.
Fundamental conflict theory has a good maxim that makes civilised dialogue possible between the most opposite points of view: Always make a criticism with a recommendation. In this way no-one is left dangling, they are given the information that you do not like what they say but it also gives them the means to reconsider their viewpoint. This can lead to change but importantly it allows a conversation to be continued. Once name calling started it becomes difficult to manage and firm action will generally follow. Many forums may have less controls but i personally give up on them them when you get swearing matches in every other thread.
We have tried to maintain a free and open community by designing our guidelines and keeping a check when things get close to the edge or go over the top. Serious attacks on any member by another will lead to almost immediate reaction. All society's have laws to maintain civilised behaviour and police to act when excesses are carried out outside those laws. In our micro-community the same theory is applied, many people can be easily intimidated and many glass researchers are quiet people with a serious reason for sharing their knowledge here. We have lost many of our contributors, mostly temporary, following personal attacks. Do we really want a forum where only the street-wise take part. I think not Leni and I am sure that if you review your concerns about censorship you might appreciate our efforts.
This thread has not produced any such extremes, yet it is certainly raising very strong passions. Passion is a part of collecting and inevitably a part of any serious subject here.
David has made some contentious remarks and I have asked him to review those. Perhaps David, you could use the word I instead of we for some of your generalisations as the views you express are clearly not taken on board by everyone and I have given examples of why even artists can choose not to sign.
-
I must take you to task on this as a collector of contemporary art and with many artists as friends. Not signing their work is often a part of their artistic expression.
I think this is the exception rather than the rule. I certainly take on board the point you are making and would even go so far as to concede that some artist feel the originality of their work is its own signature.
As a general rule most artists sign their work. Although I know some artists don't sign their work, I haven't met one who doesn't. I suppose it is all down to personal experience.
When it comes to artists like Richard Long or Andy Goldsworthy, the actual artworks may not be signed, but the photographs of the artist’s work (which is usually what sells in galleries) is almost always signed. Unsigned work is usually documented in some way, which is a kind of alternative to a signature. The artist is rarely anonymous.
I can't think of a reason for an artist to produce work that is sent into the world anonymously, without attribution or a signature (with the exception of illegal works, although these are usually given a cryptic signature of sorts)
I don't feel that my comment about the dodgyness of unsigned work was arrogant, its just a fact. With the above exceptions (as well as your own observations), there is no reason for an artist not to sign their work.
To revise my position, I would say that an artwork would only be unsigned if there was a) an artistic, creative, philosophical or leagal reason, or b) something dodgy is going on..............(edited addition)...........or c) the artist didn't think to do it, or simply forgot.
-
No, not in this case, Frank. It was the trademark that was sought after!
But that was after the research began. I was meaning more the first piece you chose to collect, I am sure that you did not go to a stall/shop and look at all the labels and marks before you bought your first piece of Carnival.
The first Tabatznik I bought was because of the impact of the piece on me, I discovered who made it after that. The first Hawkins I bought was the same and ditto for every piece of art. I have one ceramic sculpture that I completely forgot the artists name. It is unsigned. When I renewed contact with Adam Aaronson, through this board, I sent him a photo for identification as it had been bought from his gallery in Edinburgh.
-
I am sure that you did not go to a stall/shop and look at all the labels and marks before you bought your first piece of Carnival.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Actually, I am barmy enough to do that. But you are right, of course, I didn't. The first piece of Carnival I purchased was because I saw it at a fair and thought it was the most fantastic piece of glass I had ever seen.
But to go back to the Jain mark, I really don't see it quite as black and white as you do, Frank. The mark (and others eg "Paliwal" in script) has been specifically sought out, regardless of the actual item of glass it's on. Was it the research that caused people to want it? Or the curiosity and strangeness of the mark? In many cases the latter (some collectors don't care two hoots about researchers and what they do - they just want the piece of glass for one reason or another).
I just think there can be instances where the mark/sig is what is sought - and the fact that it's on a piece of glass is almost incidental (but necessary, nonetheless!!)
Glen
-
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.
I just wanted to bring things back to the original question that started this thread.
It may well be easy for glass makers within the industry to identify one another’s creations. This was no doubt also the case when much of today's collectable glass was originally produced (be that in the 18th, 19th or 20th Centuries).
That doesn't help today’s collectors or archivists who have to trawl through pattern books and build up years of personal knowledge and experience to identify the work of specific makers (if possible).
For the sake of posterity, contemporary glass makers should fully document their work. Otherwise in 30 or 40 years time there will be a whole new generation of glass enthusiasts who will have difficulty attributing the glass that is made today.
The work of Lipofsky or Herman may be identifiable to those 'in the know', but as time passes and the memory of such artists fades, their work and legacy could potentially go unrecognised or appreciated……which would be a shame.
-
Of course, David, but what would life be like then?
"Who made this piece?"
"Turn it over and read the list of signatures."
"Oh right, never thought of that. Thanks great forum. Whats it worth?"
:?
But I also suggest we cannot equate the future experience with the experience of the past. The information age has provide us with the means to preserve such knowledge.
My Scottish glass project is interested in the names of everybody involved in Scottish glass and will list them if they are master crafstmen, a finisher or an office clerk. Where possible it will give a brief account of that persons contribution. http://www.ysartglass.com/Indexart05.htm For example Betty Reid who was the person that marked up and applied the labels to Monart. She is also the woman who saved the original pattern books from a skip outside Moncrieff's. A clerk who has allowed the previously unknown contribution of Paul Ysart to the design process - it was always assumed that it had been his father!
If all our members picked a currently operating glassworks in their area, they could list all of the staff and post it for posterity.
What about the situation where a small piece of glass is conceived by a client, final design by a design team followed by a handful of crafstmen to create and produce the run. Where and how would the dozen or more names be applied to the piece without distracting from the design.
-
Where and how would the dozen or more names be applied to the piece without distracting from the design.
I would suggest an RF Chip or an IP address as a couple of possible solutions.
You certainly make a good point about the way information is treated differently these days. However if a maker doesn't see fit to sign a piece, how likely are they to keep any record of their accomplishments, let alone share such details with collectors?
Obviously some makers will keep extensive records, which will be of great help in the future. Others won't. I would hazard a guess that in spite of the resources available today, many details will still get lost over time.
Your suggestion about ways for forum members to contribute to the archiving of modern glass is an excellent idea. It would be even better if the makers could co-operate in making the information as accurate as possible.
-
That can happen, Caithness glass are actively supporting the documentation of their work and as their archives are limited this will be mostly driven by collectors input. Caithness providing feedback as well as original material:
http://www.ysartglass.com/Indexart09.htm
There is another aspect which has a direct bearing on this side issue to the signatures topic (But relevant):
Companies protecting their IP from casual use. (It might irritate collectors but it is their right to withhold data for any reason that they chose)
Maintaining an archive is very costly and there are, in Europe at least, laws that prevent release of personal data. My Scottish database is based on publicly available data, collectors data and direct input from the individual concerned.
Fires and other accidents that damage the archive.
Providing access to an archive requires supervision or the accessors will steal things.
One example is a very large corporation that has a huge archive going back to the 19th century. This company feels that its archive contains sensitive information that could have an impact on their business if released. Their archive covers not only the papers, almost complete, but also examples of almost every thing they developed wether it was put on to the market or not. Some of this is perceived as still having potential value over one hundred years later.
-
Hi,
Please, for new members, I would like to make it clear, that this topic, was posted, with a view to encouraging some robust discussion regarding the issue of signatures. This sometimes involves some articulate and equally contentious responses, but, by no means should it be seen as anything else other than a discussion.
To Bernard, I will say this. I wish that you had not felt it necessary to ameliorate your comments. Within the context of this topic, they were fair.
I'm sure that no offence was meant, and none taken.
With that said, back to topic.
Clearly there are conflicting needs.
Once someone has peeled off a label, is it possible to identify a piece of glass?
Even if the label has gone, does a signature guarantee anything?
On a brocante here in France today, was an Iittala Festivo candle-stick,
with 80% of the original transfer label missing, but a well-known and documented design. One problem with it was that it was signed with a poor dremel-inflicted TS signature to the base.
Timo Sarpaneva designed it, but a signature on a piece of pressed glass?
I bought there an unsigned piece of glass. No makers mark, few of Inwalds factories products carried a mark, and where they do, that is usually an indicator of a particular factory.
In this instance, it was a 1940 design, by Rudolf Schrotter, produced at Rudolfova Hut', during the Nazi occupation of the Sudetenland. It bears no signature but is identifiable, none the less.
In some respects, there is little difference between art glass and industrially-produced glass. If it arrives without labelling/acid-etched mark, a signature, then for the uninitiated, it can be a daunting task to find the designer, or maker of company which produced the item.
Even the presence of a label can be unhelpful. Last year I bought four pieces of Helpringham Glass. Other than the label, there are no signatures, and because this small art glass workshop disappeared after a short period of time, the information regarding the studio is sparse, its glass-master, known to be Japanese, but beyond that nothing.... In this situation, having a signature would still be irrelevant, there is nothing to relate it to. Yet, If I see work by the same hand, I will know where it came from, if not, the as-yet un-identified maker.
This is a challenging topic, with people bringing very different perspectives to this debate.
For that, I thank you all for your contributions.
Regards,
Marcus
-
... To Bernard, I will say this. I wish that you had not felt it necessary to ameliorate your comments. Within the context of this topic, they were fair. I'm sure that no offence was meant, and none taken. ...
Marcus — You will be delighted to know that my modifications were not intended for your benefit. However, my original text could have been seen as a poor example to the handful of members whose use of language is perhaps less considered or controlled. That was why, after a brief off-air discussion with the man with the zapper, I made the changes.
... I am also aware that stores like John Lewis insist on glass being unmarked or even labelled. ...
Frank — I believe you may be inadvertantly misquoting me from way back, on the old board. Some years ago, after hearing it from two unconnected glassmakers, I reported that the old John Lewis glass buyer was one of the worst of the bullies — "you sign it, we won't buy it". Nothing could be more different today. That buyer has long gone. Today's John Lewis glass buyer is innovative, and, for a department store, quite daring at times. Almost all their glass is marked in some way. Today John Lewis is one of the safest places for the general public to buy new glass, and I think they deserve our praise for their complete change of approach, with an unusually strong emphasis on British studio glass. Take a look for yourself, next time you are in the vicinity of one of their stores. I think you will be pleasantly surprised.
Bernard C. 8)
-
That is good to know, nice that some things change for the better in this hurly burly world!
Certain types of industrial glass also present a signature problem that can be due to trade agreements. Paricularly where two glassmakers in two countries have conflicting patents. For Moncrieff and Corning resolved by each using the others mark for sales in the market that they would otherwise be prevented from selling in. At other times the solution was a joint company, particularly where the patents overlap and both can benefit by using a mixed product Edison/Swan. Corning also utilised many glassworks to absorb capacity peaks and again the actual maker is concealed.
I have built a small collection of gauge glass from across the 20th century, mostly Moncrieff but due to lotting other makers too, I have some that is identical but probably different makers, Moncrieff marked everything sold in their name. I also have some Corning marked that I suspect are Moncrieff but no way to tell. I satisfy myself that the collection covers the maker in which I have a primary interest but also possibly pieces by them that are not verifiable.
Other examples of ambiguous manufacture are readily found in the product packaging field but here the collectors follow the brand names rather than the maker of the glass.
-
I wish you hadn't said that again. In my opinion a dogmatic attitude doesn't serve discussion, it only causes rifts.
Lets put it another way. Can you think of a good reason for an artist not to sign their work?
Among others, until comparatively recently flexible drives for diamond engraving were quite expensive! :D
-
What a fantastic debate! Unfortunately we are still not on line at home, but broadband on order, so evening posting still a bit difficult and daytime...well have to make glass etc!
Just wanted to bring up a thought upon which I'll try and expand later. Signing takes up quite a lot of time! Most places like Orrefors, Lalique, Kosta etc had to and still do employ engravers to do nothing but sign all day! :D
-
I wish you hadn't said that again. In my opinion a dogmatic attitude doesn't serve discussion, it only causes rifts.
Lets put it another way. Can you think of a good reason for an artist not to sign their work?
Among others, until comparatively recently flexible drives for diamond engraving were quite expensive! :D
This is why acid signatures used to be commonly used in the industry. They may not be added to the glass by the makers own hand, but they still serve as a useful way to identify a piece of glass.
-
The only time that I made an income from art was in the 1960's, I recently came across the only one of my scupltures that had not sold. I looked for a date on it to remind me when I had been making them... it was unsigned, I presume that I never signed any of them. Too long ago to remember if that had been a conscious decision or if I just did not consider it. If I look at my current collection, nearly all of the paintings are signed but virtually none of the sculptures bear a signature or any other mark. Amongst my modern glass I find that some is signed, diamond point, and others not. Patrick Stern - unsigned, Siddy Langley (art piece not bread and butter) - unsigned, Lindean Mill, all signed and dated but with Lindean mill not Kaplan and Sandström. Of the utility glass, mostly is decorated by Pirelli and bears their label but no indication of who made the glass. At least one container I suspect to be British made and has mould numbers on, some of the other glassware is possibly French. Nearly all of the remaining Scottish glass is unmarked.
Adam what is the cost benefit of sand-blasting over acid etching. Stuarts mostly used sand blasting with a stencil in the Modern period at least.
The use of glass enamel inkjet printing will offer much more potential for fully documenting a piece of glass during manufacture, as David asks. Relatively new technology, it can already be used to put several lines of text onto uneven glass at between 100 and 200 items per minute.
Another reason that has not been mentioned yet is size. Much Strathearn glassware under 4" was unmarked despite their policy of marking all glass. It was labelled though.
-
Following my response on the thread "Franco Moretti 'Love Birds' Signed to Base" on the Morano board, I received an email from Yvonne Moretti, in which she said, "My father only signed and/or dated his personal collection; very rarely did he sign production items. Small animals and such were not signed."
HTH
-
Adam what is the cost benefit of sand-blasting over acid etching. Stuarts mostly used sand blasting with a stencil in the Modern period at least.
I'm not sure about Stuart's but I seem to remember that Wedgwood's method of sandblasting was extremely fast. Guyson International, who are the market leader in sandblasters in the UK developed a system that involved a heavy duty rubber stencil set into an upright sandblasting unit. You placed the object over the stencil and pressed the foot switch. Instant sandblast signature. The unit was set up like a work bench and didn't need a conventional cabinet and dust extractor. It was just for "signing".
Acid etching meant applying an individual mask to each piece, which took time to apply and then clean off. So although the set up costs for the Wedgwood system were high it saved a lot of time.
If any of this stuff is wrong, apologies! I wasn't there and am just going on what I have been told by people who were! :D
-
That makes sense then, I was told that Stuarts used that method because of the speed. Now Wedgwood too.
It would be useful to provide some guidelines to enable people to recognise the differences.
Acid etching could also be done with a rubber stamp to but getting the paste to the right consistency to give a clean impression is difficult. I suppose it is also possible to stamp the piece with a resist ink and then brush the paste over.
Lets see how long before we get eBay listings with "sand-blasted" instead of "acid-etched" signature :lol:
-
Hi,
Clearly there are diverse opinions on this issue.
I think that it was Adam A, who suggested in another thread that Blanka Ademsova, had not personally made a piece of glass, the inference perhaps being given that some-else did the work, and she took the credit. In part, that may be an erroneous perception drawn from a comment from the late and much respected Robert Truitt, that (to paraphrase" few czechoslovakian artists made the glass").
That quite clearly is erroneous, Suhajek, Fisar and Jezek, always clearly as cognisant of the skills, and capable of exhibiting them, as any glass-master assisting should be.
To talk of Ademsova, Novak jnr, etc, is to talk of a training, bearing little relation to western perception. Virtually any candidate to VSUP, was already, by virtue of their training at the glass-schools of Kamenicky Senov, Novy Bor, or Zelezny Brod, a highly skilled and trained artisan.
Thus whether later they chose to design only, or interact in the creation of the piece, many had skills far beyond most western artists.
I suspect, though no doubt I am probably wrong, that Jasper Conran, or John Rocha, have had little or no training, in what is a complex material to work with. I suspect that designs have merely been passed to the glass-masters.
Thus any glass bearing such a tag /acid-etched mark, sand-blast motif, has what, if any, value?
It is no indicator of anything, beyond an un-acknowledged glass-masters ability to produce an item, bearing a desirable name.
Once the plastic or paper label has disappeared, does it matter?
A glass-master may be able to say.....
regards,
Marcus
-
Signed pressed glass is unusual. Glen has made some comments in this topic about signed Carnival glass.
A query by new member izwizz highlights another example of signed pressed glass. Early examples of Jobling Opalique from late 1933 on were signed "Joblings Opalique", all in the same hand. Other inscriptions in the same hand on this range include "REGN APPD FOR" and "RD No ...", applied to early examples before the registration number was punched into the mould.
Bernard C. 8)
-
Hi,
Clearly there are diverse opinions on this issue.
I think that it was Adam A, who suggested in another thread that Blanka Ademsova, had not personally made a piece of glass, the inference perhaps being given that some-else did the work, and she took the credit.
In this context I was talking about her hot glass pieces as opposed to her cast pieces.I wasn't in any way suggesting that the work was not valid. Far from it. I think her work is phenomenal.
In part, that may be an erroneous perception drawn from a comment from the late and much respected Robert Truitt, that (to paraphrase" few czechoslovakian artists made the glass").
That quite clearly is erroneous, Suhajek, Fisar and Jezek, always clearly as cognisant of the skills, and capable of exhibiting them, as any glass-master assisting should be.
Yes, but perhaps these are exceptions that proved the rule:after all Suhajek came to the UK and studied at the RCA to because at that time there were no facilities within the Czech system for glass-blowers to become artists in hot (blown) glass. It was easier for artists to do cold work and casting. This meant that Novak and Vasicek had their hands on the glass, while Touskova and others who were making fairly monumental pieces had to work with gaffers in a factory, whom they directed.
[/b]
To talk of Ademsova, Novak jnr, etc, is to talk of a training, bearing little relation to western perception. Virtually any candidate to VSUP, was already, by virtue of their training at the glass-schools of Kamenicky Senov, Novy Bor, or Zelezny Brod, a highly skilled and trained artisan.
Thus whether later they chose to design only, or interact in the creation of the piece, many had skills far beyond most western artists.
I suspect, though no doubt I am probably wrong, that Jasper Conran, or John Rocha, have had little or no training, in what is a complex material to work with. I suspect that designs have merely been passed to the glass-masters.
Fair enough, but Rocha and Conran are trained and acknowledged "masters" in another discipline, and they bring an understanding of design to glass that has a different perspective. Conran's stems for Stuart have caught the public's attention and made cut glass 'fashionable' for the first time in years. is that such a bad thing and why should we not give him credit.
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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!
-
... 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)
-
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
-
... 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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
As a matter of interest I thought everyone might want to look at the following item listed with eBay:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7422269099
Apart from this piece by Studio Ahus being a stunning work of art, the accreditation and provenance is of particular interest.
As well as being signed by four makers/designers/artists (Hanne Dreutler, Arthur Zirnsack, Martin Zirnsack & Lennart Nismark), the piece is dated, titled, has a factory mark and a design number.
On top of all that, the sculpture comes with original design drawings and a 'making of' DVD.
Now I know that this information takes time to put together and is completely impractical for studios or factories that produce large volumes of glass, but its nice to see such a level of documentation. When it comes to one-offs or limited additions, I would like to see all glass artists and studios take a similar approach.
-
After viewing the following topic:
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,5929.0.html
...............perhaps I should add that it would be helpful if signatures were legible?
-
After viewing the following topic:
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,5929.0.html
...............perhaps I should add that it would be helpful if signatures were legible?
Aww, come on! That would take all the fun out of it. :lol:
Glen
-
.......perhaps I should add that it would be helpful if signatures were legible?
Sometimes you need to have an idea of possible names to interpret a signature.
Of course we also have to respect the language of the persons involved or would you expect everything in Arabic script?
With the growth of Indian and Chinese production and later African, we can expect to be finding even more challenges in the future.
Ultimately someone has to pay for the signatures/markings. For the most part, not the collectors who want to buy below production cost on the second market. The direct customers pay, but do they care if it is marked or not. Perhaps the only justified signatures for collectors are those where the principle market is collectors and not those buying for decoration and use. Perhaps glassmakers could get more benefit if they only signed their work after it appears on the secondary market. They could then levy a charge and benefit from the demand for their products. Of course there would be some willing to sign anything. As mentioned earlier, glassmakers do sign their unsigned work after is has come onto the second market - I have yet to meet a collector who actually paid the glassmaker for doing so! A double standard if anything, as the added signature adds to the value of the piece.
The preference of collectors to wait for the secondary market is perhaps good justification for the makers NOT to mark their glass :roll:
It does seem that the strongest feelings for signatures are coming from those with an interest in trading within the secondary market. But surely full marking would de-skill those traders.
-
This topic has resulted in all sorts of thoughts spinning through my head.
Another one.
There are some collectors who say that some glass should not be collected or is not worth collecting. This has surfaced many times on these boards and most often with a racist undertone - which of course is not allowed so you will not find many such comments still here.
Probably the largest area of glass collecting currently is for Zwarovski - about the most prolific of all glass direct to collectors with Zwarovski shops and concessions at airports worldwide. They have been in business since 1895 yet much of their output is unsigned.
-
May I diverge off into the concept of collecting? People may not realise (or not have realised in the past) that they are collecting glass. Pressed glass, made for domestic use, cheaply and competitively priced, has been bought for function and retained through either accident or intent. And now it is collected, at prices way, way higher than the original makers could have even dreamed of.
It was this thought that was in my head when I posed the somewhat esoteric questions earlier in this thread: "Why is glass made? and "Who for?"
Glen
-
Probably the largest area of glass collecting currently is for Zwarovski - about the most prolific of all glass direct to collectors with Zwarovski shops and concessions at airports worldwide. They have been in business since 1895 yet much of their output is unsigned.
There is no accounting for taste :roll: .
Having said that, I understand that Swarovski are attempting to move into the so-called 'designer' sector. Over the last 18 months many big-name designers have been commissioned to produce pieces for the firm. I doubt if these will go unsigned. Although I doubt if the actually makers will be acknowledged.
I think that comments about whether any particular type of glass should be collectable has more to do with personal taste and how an individual rates the cultural importance of any particular type of glass.
As tastes vary, both with individuals and society, I would say that it is very difficult to foresee what will become collectable in the future. Who would have thought that vintage Pyrex would acquire dedicated collectors?
I don't think I am in any position to dictate who should sign what, or how, especially with so many things to consider (cost, practicality etc). However I don't think many people would disagree that the work of contemporary studio artists is likely to remain collectable in the distant future. Therefore signatures will be extremely useful: not only for collectors, but also for historians and archivists.
When it comes to factory glass I couldn't say one way or another whether it is going to have any value in the future; in which case a signature may not be that much of a priority. This would include commercial functional glass or any of the poor quality glass coming out of countries such as China, Romania, and India etc.
There are, as always, grey-areas. There are manufacturers who produce 'art glass' on a large scale. Here you find items of glass that have clearly been conceptualised by talented designers, who are often influenced by the output of renowned studio artists (much like Whitefriars in 60s & 70s).
Just because the glass is mass-produced, does that make it any less valuable to a future collector? Does that mean that such glass should be signed, just in case it becomes valuable?
Is it practical or desirable for large-scale makers to have their work signed?
If you have a situation, where a dozen or more glassmakers make a piece of glass to the same design, is there any value in knowing who was responsible for an individual piece? Is it more important to know the identity of the designer?
-
Indeed Glen, the vast majority of glass production is for technical or practical uses and its collection is very much a niche subject. Most collectors of secondary market are buying glass made for collectors or made as eith art or for decorative purposes.
Beyond Swarovski there are few company makers almost exclusively making for collectors markets. Paperweight companies possibly being the main exception but even they are producing significantly for the gift trade. Franklin Mint are another possible with exclusive designs for collectors - some of which is by identifiable makers. Few of our visitors collect in this area of the market though. Which is perhaps an indication of the level of intrest created by unsigned glass.
-
I would say that Fenton is primarily such a producer (for the collector market). There is quite an overlap in the collector/gift market for both Swarovski and Fenton. I've bought Swarovski as a gift (not to collect) and Fenton as a collectible (not for a gift).
Glen
-
Just because the glass is mass-produced, does that make it any less valuable to a future collector? Does that mean that such glass should be signed, just in case it becomes valuable?
Is it practical or desirable for large-scale makers to have their work signed?
The example of Carnival Glass answers the first question - mass produced, yet in some instances, very valuable (now) indeed. The top dollar items are generally not trade marked in any way, but are usually (not always) identifiable.
Edited to add this ebay item as an example
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7422461142
A Northwood ice blue Strawberry plate - not even N marked.
The third question takes us full circle.
Glen
-
Totally irrelevant, but had you noticed that the seller of the Northwood ice plate is also selling a Bagley Polkadot Jetique Equinox. Lovely. I once met the Bagley Polkadot lady, a wonderful experience, rather like meeting royalty. They did it all by eye, never marking the pieces up.
Bernard C. 8)
Frank — bursting into song — "Deletable, That's what I am ..."
-
Who would have thought that vintage Pyrex would acquire dedicated collectors?
Probably all of the Kitchenalia dealers who were active already in collectible Pyrex heyday. Much is marked Pyrex of course as it is one type of glass that cannot be labelled permanently or etched/signed. It can and does get enamelled marks but mostly as part of the mould. Pyrex is also a good example of a glassware where the name was a major part of the marketing message and has since become a generic term for boro-silicate glass to the probable chagrin of Corning.
Interestingly it is also a glass area that in many cases the designers are big names in industrial design - Wagenfeld being the most obvious but on Jena brand 'pyrex'. Even the advertising for Pyrex is highly collectible as it is a good window into changing fashion and the maturation of industrial design in glassware. I suppose the unsung heroes of Pyrex will be the glassmakers who operated the machinery.
-
Bagley Polkadot lady
How about a thread giving the account of her for the archive. Unsung hero indeed! But two illustrations of missing credit from one seller :shock:
Certainly not off topic Bernard, we are looking at motivations as well and letting people know how many different people are brought to bear on a piece of glass is highly relevant.
-
After five pages of comments I don't know that anything I have to say on this subject will be of any particular value, but I will go ahead and say it anyway.
Sooner or later, unless destroyed or donated to a museum, all art objects eventually make their way onto or into the secondary market. Even the most avid and knowledgeable collector does not live forever.
All things being equal, when that event occurs, the object with a verifiable signature/manufacturer's mark will in almost every case, demand a premium. Look what happens at the great auction houses when two comparable works come up, one signed, with impeccable provenance, the other unsigned, but "in the manner of." Spectographic analysis, X rays, radio carbon dating, brush-stroke analysis, along with every other test known to mankind, can only disprove or cast doubt. Is it from the hand of the master, or his student? The potential buyer can never know with certainty, and the price he or she is willing to pay will reflect that nagging doubt.
In the field of glass, it is even worse. I am certain that all of us including the experts on this board, have inadvertently mis-attributed items, not once or twice, but numerous times. Small wonder the casual collector does not feel comfortable without a permanent imprint that announces to the entire the world "this is a genuine ..."
Can we demand that all artists and manufacturers sign their work? No.
In years to come however, I firmly believe the unsigned product of such men's labor will never develop the type of following and collector interest it might have otherwise. They deserve better.
-
Of course your comments are of value and a nicely thought and balanced. I do hope people aren't deterred from airing their opinions by the amount that has been said so far. It is always useful to understand the thoughts and feelings of different people and this was intended to be a wide open debate. No one expects to change how people regard this issue, although David has altered his position slightly.
For myself, it has made me re-look at my glass and actually think about the markings or lack thereof in a way I had not done before. As the debate wound through some hoops to considerations that broaden the debate it has kept my interest level high.
Of course, in some senses I have been a little provocative too which has gotten people to explain their position in different ways and enriched the debate further. I am certain that there are perspectives not touched on yet.
The potential buyer can never know with certainty, and the price he or she is willing to pay will reflect that nagging doubt
Which of course also reflects on the experts and methods used. Perhaps the most notable glass example being the way Graydon-Stannus manipulated the market for fake glass by publishing a book to 'help people' recognise antique Irish Glass. Read more about that here: http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,1403.0.html
Some of David's ideas about coding or RFID chips are quite likely to come about with much commercial glass production. Although the purpose will most likely be for reducing manual intervention on automated machinery. A side benefit if the data behind the coding is preserved will be that the coding will be of immense use to future research. However, with more automation of archives this is the type of data that would most likely be deleted automatically in a 2-5 year timescale.
In 3 or 4 years of trying I have yet to identify one single bottle definitely produced by Moncrieff's Tay Bottle Works in Perth. The moulds are either lost or dispersed and there is no record of any markings that may have been used. From the late 1920's until closure they used machines to mould bottles - but again I draw a blank.
Only one picture of the bottles produced exists and while I will be replacing this with a much better copy (Shortly) it is really not much help as you can see http://www.ysartglass.com/Moncrieff/MoncrieffProduct.htm of the more distinctive shapes I have found near identical ones in Owens Illinois catalogues! One 'possible' hand-blown bottle is shown just below that one.
The target balls on the same page have a moulded N.B. Glassworks Perth in a central band. But until I posted that page nowhere else had they been identified as by John Moncrieff's St Catherines Road Glassworks which were called North British Glassworks. So even a fully marked piece can defy researchers.
-
It is always useful to understand the thoughts and feelings of different people and this was intended to be a wide open debate. No one expects to change how people regard this issue, although David has altered his position slightly.
A very good reason to take part in an open and stimulating debate :) .
I certainly wouldn't say that any of my views are set in stone. In fact I relish the opportunity to expand my knowledge and discover different perspectives on a subject.
More often than not any discussion will result in a modification of ones opinions, especially a debate that has so many complicated aspects to consider.
-
:D yes David. You have a very strong style and an obvious openness too. A good combination. Not to mention your impressive range of knowledge.
-
:D yes David. You have a very strong style and an obvious openness too. A good combination. Not to mention your impressive range of knowledge.
Seconded. :D :D
-
Thanks for the kind comments :D .
Of course debates like this wouldn't be worth the effort if most of the contributors didn't contribute fresh insights, valuable information and intelligent arguments.
-
Agreed. I learnt much from reading others' comments and insights. A fascinating discussion on many different levels. Thanks to all for allowing me to participate.
Glen
-
To those who feel that an artist who signs his or her work reflects that they take pride in their work, I would agree. Hell, I made 1 crummy crimp rose, my total sum paperweight output, and it is Ugly.
But I'm proud as heck that I struggled through the process successfully and so I signed & dated it! (pics upon request...lol).
Recently, I bought a wonderful lampwork weight on ebay script signed ''Joshua Steindler'', pic below:
http://glassgallery.yobunny.org.uk/displayimage.php?pos=-2399
The lampwork is just stunning and yet I'd never heard of this guy.
So I asked the seller if he knew of the artist as no info about him was placed in the listing, just his name.
Well, the seller proceeded to tell me, in part, that Joshua Steindler was a member of Paul Stankard's team for several years and that they parted on good terms. Joshua has gone on to make weights on his own and is mainly working on sculptural art.
Well, that explains the quality of the weight.
I'm sure glad that Joshua signed his work so I could find out more about him and how he came about his expertise.
IMO, had this info been included in the listing, the weight would have sold for alot more.
I wanted it, regardless because it is so beautiful and well made.
But some simply want to know more about a piece and the maker before taking the plunge and making a purchase.
Mod: Link corrected
-
Whilst reading another thread, Frank supplied the following Link, which I thought might be relevant to the discussion about whether or not glass (or art) should be signed:
www.dacs.org.uk/pdfs/uksi_20060346_en.pdf (http://www.dacs.org.uk/pdfs/uksi_20060346_en.pdf)
The above document outlines the The Artist's Resale Right Regulations 2006. The following extract relates to authorship of an artwork:
Proof of Authorship
Where a name purporting to be that of the author appeared on the work when it was made, the person whose name appeared shall, unless the contrary is proved, be presumed to be the author of the work....
In consideration of the above, if an artist doesn't sign their work they may find it difficult to claim any royalties they would be entitled to when their work is sold on the second market. Consequently it would make financial sense for all artists to make sure they sign their artworks.........including glass.
-
Does anybody have a date for the introduction of flexible drives?
2 years on, I have given up trying to resolve this one, failed to find patents before 1970 but was fairly certain that we had such in the 50s at home, it was made by Wolf and was used with the cub-master and I was sure jewellers have been using them for a very long time. Perhaps they used to have another name. Usually termed flexible shaft. The electric power hand drill was developed 1895 but potentially flexible shafts were used on other central drive systems earlier than that. All images I have seen of early workshops, no sign
Perhaps others missed Adam's question, but it would be useful to know when such a tool was first available.