From the archives, this post received 79 long comments. Wander over to Glass Secessionism Archives group to see the comments. 4-22-14 The Economics of Glass I assert that a distinguishing aspect of studio glass is repetition after completion. What does that mean? Many of the leading artists passed through an early intensely creative phase, became highly collectible and known for an iconic work or series, and after that they cashed in by repeating the iconic work or series over and over. Is there anything morally or aesthetically wrong with this? I do no think so. But for the most part, we as a community have been very hesitant in identifying the economic strategy involved. What I do not understand is: must all art forms evolve in a similar fashion? Will Glass Secessionism encourage repetition as a means to economic stability for artists? Will Glass Secessionism even produce iconic works? There are many variations on the cashing in via endless repetition strategy. Dale Chihuly is an example: he creates a series, cashes in, and moves on to a new series. He repeats old series. But he always moves on. Disclosure: I have written a lot about how good Chihulys work is aesthetically. I like Chihulys economic strategy as well. Is Chihuly a model for Glass Secessionism in terms of economic strategy? I think he is. Littleton and Chihuly should probably be linked as the co-founders of studio glass. Is that too radical?
Posted on: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 15:10:39 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015