Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: Sklounion on November 15, 2006, 09:30:49 PM
-
Hi,
Having noted that there are observers here of differences, which lead to one pattern being discernable from another very similar, can I pose a question?
Did aesthetics come second to industrial expediency in this piece:
http://www.hogelandshoeve.nl/66pix/question%2016s.jpg
Surely were you to design a plate with three-way divider, you would use any multiple of three, in this case nine ribs, rather than eight, for the pattern, thus allowing the ribs to follow the lines in the pattern?
So, was the three-way divider, a socially acceptable division, and thus more in accord with public taste, than the idea of a four partition concept, even where it spoils the design? Or was the idea of spending money on a new divider mould too costly???
Does this echo landscape planting, where it is more acceptable to plant specimen items, or arrange plants in groups of odd number, than use even numbers? (even allowing for the eccentricities of the Fibionacci series).
Ideas gratefully welcomed,
Regards,
Marcus
La Casson tells me, from near slumber, that 3 and 8 work, when taken in the context of the "Golden Section".Now I'm very confused :oops:
-
Definitely very odd looking – from an aesthetic point of view, odd numbered groups of three or five look more pleasing. The marriage of three to eight just doesn't work!
Is the divider fixed to the plate? I assumed it was.
-
Maybe the plunger (for the divider) was used with other moulds (exterior). This match may have been simply expedient.
Also, with no exterior or interior moulded pattern, the panels (and subsequently the "out of sync" appearance) is emphasised.
Glen
-
Wouldn't the plunger have formed the complete inside of the bowl as well? Sorry, I'm digressing slightly... :roll: but this might show up elsewhere, as Glen was intimating.
What surprises me is that the designer ever allowed such an unholy trinity!
-
Perhaps this was why the glass industry was so often criticised for poor use of designers. But then I recently came across an academic remark 1950ish, that artists had no place in industry!
Or was this the reason for that academics remark - this piece perhaps the design of an artist challenging the conventional ethic, with an classical art training that included the understanding and use of the golden ratios.
-
I would think the whole set of different plates & cups & whatnots was designed carefully - and somewhere at the last moment the factory decided they needed a plate with a divider, so they just matched the mould bottom with the mould top and gave it no thought at all.
-
It surprises me that this happened, with this pattern, as the divider, (a shape characteristic of Inwald) is seen on other relatively plain patterns ie "Boule", where no ribs occur, "Argos" with six ribs, but its use for "Teplitz" looks quite incongruous.
I think this is probably factory improvisation as I cannot see Rudolf Schrötter actively having designed this.
Regards,
Marcus
-
Perhaps this was why the glass industry was so often criticised for poor use of designers. But then I recently came across an academic remark 1950ish, that artists had no place in industry!
I remember reading in a book to do with the history of glass (the name of the book escapes me now, but it was probably The History Of Glass, or Glass: A History... :lol: ) a similar remark from around the 1940s/50s by some chap who, if I recall correctly, was on a panel for some design award-giving board, decrying all the art-glass and glass designers as pointless frivolity and that the most important advancement in 20th century glass was Pyrex.
But within a decade or so the awards which were going to plain utilitarian glass from this design board were, the book noted, instead all going to decorative glass designers and manufacturers.