WarmGlass.com

Brad Walker wrote:It requires 16 weeks of intensive, full-time training just to sew first quality work consistently, then several more years to really do it well. And some people can never learn.

Of course that doesn't make a pair of pantyhose a work of art, does it?

Okay Brad, I just gots ta know!!!!

How do you know how long it takes to train someone to make pantyhose??? Or is this a question that should have remained unasked?

Tony

I was wondering where Brad acquired that knowledge as well....

inquiring minds...

Tony Smith wrote:

Brad Walker wrote:It requires 16 weeks of intensive, full-time training just to sew first quality work consistently, then several more years to really do it well. And some people can never learn.

Of course that doesn't make a pair of pantyhose a work of art, does it?

Okay Brad, I just gots ta know!!!!

How do you know how long it takes to train someone to make pantyhose??? Or is this a question that should have remained unasked?

Long ago, before there was a Warm Glass website and a Contemporary Warm Glass book, I was a senior vice president for the hosiery divisions (L'eggs and Hanes, among others) of Sara Lee Corporation. In that job, I ran all of Sara Lee's hosiery operations for North America. This included overseeing a number of manufacturing plants and distribution centers, many of which made (you guessed it) pantyhose.

Sewing a pair of pantyhose is unbelievably difficult, especially if you want to do it well and rapidly (up to ten dozen pair an hour!). It's a lot harder than what most of us do for our art, and it pays less, too.

Brad Walker wrote: Long ago, before there was a Warm Glass website and a Contemporary Warm Glass book, I was a senior vice president for the hosiery divisions (L'eggs and Hanes, among others) of Sara Lee Corporation.

Really! Does Sara Lee make edible.... nahhhhh.... =; never mind!!!!

Tony

After reading your posts, I guess my concern is that I don't like people equating my creative ability with hourly wages (skill level, or what ever method of measuring you like). I (we) can do something others can't - we create pretty things that many people like so much they are willing to pay for them. It bothers me for a customer to impose some type of cost/per/hour (or skill/per/hour) assessment on my art - it makes my skin crawl. Ok, maybe I'm just being pissy?

I like Don Burt's piano key analogy. Maybe I'll use it, right after I answer for the billionth time that, "No, it's not painted plastic."

Judd

It's not the pantihose thats a work of art it's what's in them that counts. Not to mention that without pantihose you can't use Free to dust your molds
regards
Ian

Hey Brock, you mind if I take this (part) to the main board? "Technique is cheap" Harvey Littleton circa 1975.

It's something that has been (and will be) thrown in my face for the next 3 yrs. I'd love to have more ammo, or learn the opposition's arguments.

When I have time to phrase it I'll post in in the main board.

Greg

watershed wrote:Hey Brock, you mind if I take this (part) to the main board? "Technique is cheap" Harvey Littleton circa 1975.

It's something that has been (and will be) thrown in my face for the next 3 yrs. I'd love to have more ammo, or learn the opposition's arguments.

When I have time to phrase it I'll post in in the main board.

Greg

I don't mind at all. That quote has assumed mythic proportions over the years, and I don't know if anyone really knows what it means. I always thought that it meant that technique alone would never make art . . .

Why will it be thrown in your face for the next three years? Ae you in a college art program somewhere?

Brock

Here's Littleton on what it means:

MR. LITTLETON: Well, the misinterpretation of this phrase "technique is cheap." All I meant by that is that technique is available to everybody, that you can read the technique, if you have any background. Technique in and of itself is nothing. But technique in the hands of a strong, creative person, like Voulkos or Dante Marioni, takes on another dimension. And it's that other dimension that is the product of our educational system, of our uniquely American freedoms, and so on.

From this interesting interview: http://artarchives.si.edu/oralhist/little01.htm

Well gee Brad, how to kill a possibly interesting thread. Brock

Brock wrote:Well gee Brad, how to kill a possibly interesting thread.

Might have been boring and repetitive, too.

Of course, Chihuly's working in plastic now, so all this glass stuff is passe.

I guess I'll have to start working on "Contemporary Warm Plastic."

. . . boring and repetitive, too.

On this board. Come on!

Brad
I would be more inclined to say "our uniquely Human Freedoms"
Ian
Our Educational system in South Africa is as good as yours in America don't you think

Brad Walker wrote:

Brock wrote:Well gee Brad, how to kill a possibly interesting thread.

Might have been boring and repetitive, too.

Of course, Chihuly's working in plastic now, so all this glass stuff is passe.

I guess I'll have to start working on "Contemporary Warm Plastic."

Heh. So the next time someone asks me if my work is plastic, I guess I'll just say to say it is and that I learned everything I know from Dale Chihuly.

javascript:emoticon(':roll:')

Brad Walker wrote:Here's Littleton on what it means:

MR. LITTLETON: Well, the misinterpretation of this phrase "technique is cheap." All I meant by that is that technique is available to everybody, that you can read the technique, if you have any background. Technique in and of itself is nothing. But technique in the hands of a strong, creative person, like Voulkos or Dante Marioni, takes on another dimension. And it's that other dimension that is the product of our educational system, of our uniquely American freedoms, and so on.

From this interesting interview: http://artarchives.si.edu/oralhist/little01.htm

This is an absolutely fascinating interview... Rich with experience and insights as to the history and researching of material, the value of resultant work, gallery/artist interaction, museum purchases... Pour a fresh cup of coffee, sit back and read the entire thing.

Thanks for posting this link, Brad.
Catharine

That actually fits in with my reading. "Technique is cheap, it's the ideas that are valuable" tm.

Yes Brock I have commenced Graduate study in Glass at Kent State. So defending my thoughts is going to be my stock in trade.

Greg

watershed wrote:That actually fits in with my reading. "Technique is cheap, it's the ideas that are valuable" tm.

Yes Brock I have commenced Graduate study in Glass at Kent State. So defending my thoughts is going to be my stock in trade.

Greg

Are you a caster? Isn't that Sean Mercer's sculptural specialty? Brock

Yep, you've got me nailed. But the more impatient I get, the more I'm looking at doing a lot of stuff hot. Craved out Graals, Diamond wheel cutting, then fire polishing. Once I get around to it, I'll post some pics.

Greg

Mark Kemp wrote:

watershed wrote:
I don't think that people really want to know how things are done, the same way they don't want to know that they are paying for all that slag that you had to make, before you could make that really spiff piece.

That's not to say you shouldn't tell them, just that they might not want to know.

Greg

I find some people are very curious about how the art is made, some mildly curious, and some don't want to know at all. When I start telling the latter sort, I can see their eyes glaze over. With this type, I think it's better not to tell them the facts behind the art -- they just like what they see in front of them.

Because of my museum location, there's a lot of public comes through my studio, family groups most times.

Most kids are especially curious and (rarely) some have a pre-concieved idea that nothing I say is worth anything. Talking to the parents, I can see why. It underlines my theory that attitudes and prejudice is taught from an early age, nobody is born with it.

Anyhow, the interested ones are fascinated to know that how I make the glass is exactly the same technique as that made in Mesopotamia, thousands of years ago, just that I have some fancy equipment to do it with. It's great prompting them to figure out how glass would have been made with just charcoal as a source of energy.

It's great following the thought process, then we get onto what glass would look like if it was made in a zero-gravity environment, and how in thousands of years time, an archaeologist would know this pot-melt was done in the northern hemisphere because of the direction of the curl.

Fascinating.

The interested ones make up for the dummies.