Glass Discussion & Research. NO IDENTIFICATION REQUESTS here please. > New Zealand & Australia Glass

ID Robert Knottenbelt? Small vase - suspect early. ID = Robert Knottenbelt

(1/2) > >>

misha:
OK, strongly suspect this could be an early Robert Knottenbelt vase, from what I have read online. [thanks Trevor]

Has that cryptic arrow, no date, silver chloride trails over mostly blue body, square form base with bulbous top. Not all that thick / heavy for size.

Perhaps 'early' because I have a John S Walsh rather odd shaped vase dated 1/79 that I can't help think is somehow related.... maybe not due to the underlying darker grey blue tone.  [Hasn't been photographed yet]

Sorry for shoddy images here, pushed for time while daylight decent last week, and re-learning how to use camera.  Quick shoddy work, sorry.

Anyhow, opinions please and thank you.  :)

 

misha:
  and...

brewster:
Hi Misha. It's a beauty! What dimensions?

I think you have answered your own question. Here's an essay that confirms it:
http://australianglass.blogspot.com/2015/09/robert-knottenbelts-early-production.html

The shape of yours is also a common Rob Knottenbelt one of the period. Presumably that derives from Sam Herman at the Jam Factory where RK trained. "Early" in this case means post JF but before Britannia Creek, so 1978-1983.

Trevor

misha:
Thanks Trevor,

Yeah, suspected so from your previous article. Wasn't really sure about date range he marked pieces this way.

Size is;

Height: 110mm
Base: 63mm square [35mm high there]
Bulb: 80mm diameter

It's pretty with all the entrained bubbles around blue. Silver trails appear to be a different colour to what appears around rim are, being more of a golden iridescent finish, but not like the usual peacock kinda iridescent finish applied post forming. I guess, iridescent isn't correct description.

Images are poor I must say.  Shape not so skew in reality. Camera angle and macro setting distortion.  Really should do better on that... soon. Only excuse is pushed for time.

What do you know about why the cryptic 'arrow' Trevor? 

Was it due to Robert seeking some anonymity, having the glass be focus rather than the artist?

Does this relate to a degree of disillusion with political machinations in the art glass movement at the time? 
I bet there are some unique stories about the early years and many who would prefer 'no comment' and 'let sleeping dogs be'. I'm assuming that, having read a Mr King article about the early Aus. years and exhibitions.

Or, perhaps it's a simple K Because thats less work to engrave?
I can relate to that, I mark works I've done with a stylised N rather than an egocentric full name tag.

brewster:

--- Quote ---What do you know about why the cryptic 'arrow' Trevor?
Was it due to Robert seeking some anonymity, having the glass be focus rather than the artist?
--- End quote ---

Most likely, the purpose would be to distinguish bread-and-butter 'production' items from works of artistic intent. The latter would be signed with the artist's name; the former marked in some other way known to insiders but without the cachet of being "signed" by the artist. Many glass artists (and potters) do that.

Having said that, RK has sometimes been ambivalent in identifying his early works. See the similar item on Peter Lupinski's web site, where it is reported that RK said it "could well be an early piece of his production work".
http://blog.peterlupinski.com/?p=154

Trevor

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page