Topic: who ( was ) is the best glass engraver and why ?!

[chopin-liszt]

I'm well aware I'm a bit odd, Peter, babies give me the heebie-jeebies and the announcement of an imminent arrival, I'm afraid fills me with despair for the poor, innocent mite thrust, without it's permission, into this dreadful, hellish and rapidly deteriorating, over-populated world. I simply cannot see anything remotely "happy" about the arrival of one.
No need for anybody to try to explain it to me, please. I know it's just my own, very carefully considered, point of view.
The sooner humans are extinct, the sooner the planet can start to recover from them. We are the biggest natural disaster the planet has ever known.

It's a good job I'm an optimist!  :usd:

However, I do appreciate the artistic wit and merit of these pieces, now I understand them a bit better, thanks to your explanation.  :thup:

[claretjugcollector]

 A quick snap of ' Hansie in de Kelder' by the stippler named 'Alius' so named as there are no known signed examples of his work and attribution is made by comparison and the differences in his style to other known and signed stipples,and if i may add , though i do accept that rarity is no measurement for quality,this example is unrecorded in current literature and is possibly a unique example by  one of the finest exponants of stipple engraving.

ps much fun has been had with this glass, on first look in the hand by most the stippling is completely hidden to the eye, as said before, untill the correct angle for veiwing is used , :thud:      pretty neat !!!! eh !!!! :hiclp:

Cheers ,
           Peter.

stunning museal wonderful piece !!!!!!!!! :hiclp: :hiclp:

[aa]

A couple of weeks ago I had the great honour of accepting an invitation to give a talk at the AGM of the Guild of Glass Engravers http://www.gge.org.uk/.

On that occasion I reiterated a long held (and personal) view on the distinction between art and craft as applied to engraved glass. With works on paper it is considered usual to draw a distinction between illustration and art. The draughtsmanship shown by the illustrator may often be superlative but it is not the ability to draw, per se, that defines fine art.

Thus for me, the acid test is always to consider whether if one were to "remove" the work from the glass and apply it to paper or canvas, would it end up being described as art or illustration? And would one be impressed with it on that basis, or was it simply that when it appeared on glass, with its "extra" qualities, that one became impressed?

Art comes from the heart and makes one's heart beat. Illustration may be of superlative quality and in the case of some excellent engraved glass may demonstrate excellent craftsmanship, but this does not make it art.

Many engravers, and often collectors of their work, get so hung up on the technique and craftsmanship that the content pales into insignificance. It doesn't matter whether it is copper wheel, stipple, drill engraved, sandblasted or a combination of all of these. What matters is that it sings to you and makes your heart soar, or stops you in your tracks and makes you think.

[Frank]

Absolutely Adam. However you then come up on the problem of 'Art' as it was before Modernism and Impressionism freed the artists from the constraints of acceptable portrayal and the need to abide by current period rules. Thus you have a whole group of work in glass engraving from before the late 19th Century that mostly sinks into the mire of illustration. Yet there were people that expressed themselves subtly before that timeframe. There are Putti and there are Putti, And yes some of those can make your heart sing... or your gut... or whatever part of your anatomy responds to your emotions.

But wile I do not like it personally there is also a successful body of art that has the intellect as it's primary reference and objective. And to a certain extent this is the body of work that is generally most regarded by a majority, simply because it does not cause any emotional upheaval and allows a lot of polite and intelligent conversation.

It cannot be ignored as it is a part of our rich variety as a species and for that group discussion about best is highly relevant. But the artist that delivers from the gut is my preference and then the argument about best is fun. Whistlers work is largely lame subjects and clearly fall into the illustrative camp, at least in a book, but held in the hand and moving a piece around it explodes in the gut. So does the apparent content matter? The advantage is clearly to the gut orientated artist that has also mastered technical ability.

On a visit to the V&A some years ago they had brought up a stack of Monart from the cellars to ask my opinion. I immediately grabbed a piece that sang its song to me - the curator was horrified "You cannot touch it with your bare hands" and handed me gloves. Victory for the non-gut. As so much gut art needs and demands to be handled, particularly glass. Half the song comes through the hands, The blind man when viewing a painting can only appreciate it through touch, they are much more sensitive to the artists emotions than those of us blessed with functional eyes. But if I cannot handle a glass object it becomes to a certain extent 'just' an illustration.

[krsilber]

"Thus for me, the acid test is always to consider whether if one were to "remove" the work from the glass and apply it to paper or canvas, would it end up being described as art or illustration? And would one be impressed with it on that basis, or was it simply that when it appeared on glass, with its "extra" qualities, that one became impressed?"

I'm so surprised to hear you say this, Adam.  This completely takes away the power of the medium to contribute to the work!  That's like saying a picture of a sculpture is representative of the sculpture, and depth and the ability to see the work from different perspectives are simply "extras."  The wonder of glass is its optical qualities, which can usually be best appreciated by movement of a piece, the light, and/or the viewer (although some rich cut glass designs I like best in a photo, where the razzle dazzle is simplified into shades and patterns).

"And to a certain extent this is the body of work that is generally most regarded by a majority, simply because it does not cause any emotional upheaval and allows a lot of polite and intelligent conversation."  This seems quite an assumption.  Is the majority capable of a polite and intelligent conversation?

Tellling an artist a piece makes ones heart beat is the best compliment one could give him/her, I reckon.

[Cathy B]

Adam's definition does take away from the ability of the medium to influence the glass, but I think I see what he's getting at. With photography, it's easy to oooh and aaah at a well-taken picture, but my criteria for deciding whether it really 'sings' for me is whether I'd want to live with it every day - whether, when surrounded by everyday items and familiar, it would still lift my spirits to look at it. So I imagine it out of context and on my wall, and that helps me decide whether or not I really like it.

If an image etched on glass is tacky, you can probably see that it is immediately. But it's only when you imagine it on paper that you understand why--you might be hit by the full force that it's the sort of thing that could be found printed on a brown velour bedspread and owned by the wearer of a Three Wolf Moon t-shirt. (No offence meant to anyone owning a Three Wolf Moon t-shirt, by the way!)

If someone has worked with the glass to produce an image that, say, makes use of the refractive qualities of the medium, or works with the transparency, would it make up for cliched subject matter?

Peter, I have to ask - are those engraved chickens doing what they look like they're doing?

[claretjugcollector]

hm i think they do what they seem to do  :vkg:

[oldglassman]

HI ,
         Yes the chickens are doing exactly as the image suggests , as I said in the post ,this glass,inscribed 'for good friendship' clearly indicates that something more than friendship is being requested , engraved friendship glasses are fairly common usually depicting clasped hands and flaming hearts etc emerging from clouds etc,but a very few are much more explicit,eroticism being much more acceptable and even openly enjoyed amongst the upper classes, those being the ones who could afford such finely engraved glasses.

pic is a more commonly found example of a frienship glass , again by Jacob sang

Cheers ,
             Peter.

[oldglassman]

Though this 1 is also quite exceptional being 1 of only 6 or so known examples with the poem inscribed on the reverse,

written c1740 by Dirk Smits Gedichten of Rotterdam:

MIND GY EDELE VRIENDSCHAP TEEDER (If you value tender, noble friendship)
VULD MY DAN TOOT AAN DEN RAND (Then fill me to the brim)
DRINKT MY LEEG, AND VULD MY WEEDER (Drink me empty and refill me)
STELD MY ZOO UW VRIEND TER HAND (And thus hand me to your friend)

[oldglassman]

and the only known example to retain its origional lid :thud:

Peter