A Glassmaker's Perspective
World Glass:
B. Jane Cowie discusses the history and practice of studio glass making in South Australia.
'Knowledge is a continuous process of realisation involving both the implicit and the explicit ' (1)
This paper provides a summary of the conclusion of a written thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Masters of Visual Arts degree at the South Australian School of Art, University of South Australia in February 2003. The thesis investigated, through text and artifact the major factors that had influenced the development of studio glassmaking in South Australia. The thesis argued that the dominant historical narrative of studio glassmaking in Australia describes a predominantly eastern states view of Australia's studio glassmaking history and does not include many of the factors which influenced the development in the South Australian situation. The separation by distance within Australian glassmaking communities has meant that concurrent events happened without the knowledge of others working in other parts of Australia and that a number of regional differences are not fully considered within the dominant narrative (2) . The research concluded that the South Australian glassmaking community needs to be considered as an independent, yet interdependent community of glassmakers, rather than being marginally mentioned within an historic account. Ethnographic methodologies were used to explore implicit and explicit factors that influenced the development of studio glassmaking in South Australia. These incorporated a glassmaker's knowledge of process, taken-for-granted (implicit) knowledge of practice and knowledge of the South Australian community of glassmakers. Tacit knowledge, based in practice itself, has previously been overlooked within the dominant narrative and so is included in this text to provide an opportunity for a glassmaker to participate in the text-based discourse.
The research presented information from a number of knowledge fields which include available text-based historical records; interviews and survey data from South Australian glassmakers; my knowledge about the glassmaking narrative, of the South Australian glassmaking community and my tacit knowledge of glassmaking.
Within the thesis two parts of the dominant narrative were investigated. It was found that the first part of the dominant narrative (the events that introduced studio glassmaking to Australia) was not inclusive of the South Australian 'place'. Information collected from text-based sources demonstrated that in South Australia, studio glassmaking came about due to State rather than Federal government funding and that this funding created the JamFactory Glass Studio which played a major role in the development of studio glassmaking in South Australia. In addition, the influence of European glassmakers and glassmaking practices - in particular the 'designer/maker' ethic from the former Czechoslovakia - influenced the type of development that occurred in South Australia. This study acknowledged that although North American glassmakers visited South Australia, and although many South Australian glassmakers have worked and trained in North America, the predominant influences in South Australia studio glassmaking have been from European glassmaking traditions.
The second part of the dominant narrative (the three developmental phases) was examined in an auto-ethnographic study, revealing that it omitted the nuances that can be found within the South Australian development. Five distinct stages in South Australian studio glassmaking practice emerged, which can be listed as an initial expressive phase followed by the acquisition and development of skills, a period of challenge of those skills, a business focus of professional practice and lastly a commitment to the refinement of technique and technology. The following section reveals the subtle shifts in practice that occurred in South Australia as found during the auto-ethnographic re-making process.
It was found that the tacit experience of re-making the pieces from the 1970s expressive period was an embodied experience, a sort of 'dance with the glass' reminiscent of the spontaneous "dip and drip" (3) technique. During this process it felt as if the glassmakers did not control the glass, but rather experimented with the material with a 'let's see what happens if we do this' attitude. The objects produced exhibited an emphasis on the alluring surface, with colour randomly applied in a free style. This phase displayed a spontaneous, fluid and expressionistic style, with the qualities of the glass material in its hot molten state being the main focus as seen in the re-making of the Stanislav Melis pieces in Figure 1.
The re-making process was enticing and seductive, watching the glass, feeling the weight and the experiencing the heat was of most concern. Allowing the glass to 'flow' where it would naturally go, rather than controlling the material into a confined form was strongly experienced.
In the early 1980s, it was not the gathering of the glass, the embodied dance, nor the enticing surface that seemed important, but an emphasis on skill development. The re-making experience of these pieces was different, as care and effort were the focus as the inflation of the glass was controlled and calm. Figure 2 shows that the pieces were created by making an even, smooth, round bubble with even colour and a controlled decorative element. The European training of the designer/maker ethos, introduced to South Australia by Stanislav Melis, was implicated in these pieces. The increased level of control and glassmaking skills became important as these glassmakers sought to gain "know-how to put into practice while working".(4) The skill challenge phase occurred in the mid to late 1980s was subtly different from the preceding phase. This skill challenge phase required a maker to create the smooth, round bubble, and then challenge their skills with the creation of a difficult piece that demonstrates their glassmaking expertise. The skills required to create a bubble, once acquired, became part of the community's implicit knowledge. These glassmakers hid the bubble from view so that they must use their intuitive understanding of the material to make the piece, or concluded the making process with a climactic and risky movement, which only one opportunity to undertake the actions required to make the shape, as seen in Figure 3.In the late 1980s and early 1990s glassmakers began to focus more on the financial viability of glass production in the business focus phase. This phase involved efficient making processes and effective decorative techniques to produce works that were easy and quick to produce, ensuring a low price and sale-ability. The decorative elements that were used added a sense of the 'handmade' as they were slightly different on each piece; however, the forms were relatively simple to produce, as in Figure 4, suggesting a focus on high turnover, reduction in seconds and increase in sales.
In the mid 1990s a larger variety of glassmaking techniques were introduced as glassmakers turned to more difficult processes in the technical and technological refinement phase. Complex pieces were created, requiring an increased level of preparation, a high level of skill and incorporated refined techniques, as seen in Figure 5. There was a move away from the high turnover, mass manufactured product that was quick to make, towards a focus on more involved pieces that incorporated a number of difficult stages. This indicated that suitable conditions occurred in South Australia that facilitated this type of development and the introduction of a collectors' market would have increased the opportunities for glassmakers to sell this type of technical refined work. Glassmakers with an increased level of skill were able to specialise in a particular technique that distinguished their work from the work of others to create an individual identity or 'signature style' as they refined their techniques within a specialty area.
The re-making experiences were central to this study as they brought in memories of the different periods and my knowledge of the people who made the artifacts. This was in the forefront of my thinking during the re-making process as it was closely linked to the experience of making and my tacit knowledge. Flash-back memories of associated events, concerns and influences were ignited by the activity of re-making, by the feel of the glass, the smells of the process and the types of decorative techniques used. The re-making process became charged with additional contextual information, such as marketing and selling concerns, personal developments, private conflicts and the influence of others. These memories and experiences of people and periods subliminally, intuitively and implicitly informed and influenced this research. These influences are a part of the South Australian glassmaker community's 'body of knowledge' that is as much a part of me as I am a part of the community(Figure 6).
The auto-ethnographic methodologies also entailed stepping outside of the community that I belonged to in order to see (and experience) it with a researcher's analytical eye. I felt distanced from friends, peers and my own practice as a glassmaker. I could not wholly be an active participant in the community during the research period, as I needed to observe the community from a researcher's perspective. The ethnographic methodology provided the opportunity to heighten my awareness of the tacit experience of glassmaking and provided a deeper appreciation of the glass made in South Australia.
The re-making process proved to be a powerful research methodology that allowed me to make explicit much of my implicit glassmaking knowledge. When I was re-making the artifacts I felt I was 'going back in time' and at one stage I was lost in 'these other times' and in the art works of others, as if a sense of my own identity and ability to create glass was temporarily displaced. It felt as though time was suspended as I referenced the images and re-made the works using different colouring agents and techniques than I don't normally use in my current practice. At times, it became a frightening experience, as a sense of me, as an individual glassmaker, was almost completely lost.
Glassmakers predominantly learn skills and knowledge by observing, listening, speaking with other glassmakers and through doing, rather than by reading books. My passion for glass and the South Australian glassmaking community influenced the decision to undertake research that is presented in a text-based document (and visual display) to fill the gap in existing textual information. This research has provided new information as Australian glassmakers have not previously undertaken an ethnographic study of their field of practice.
While the focus of the thesis was on developing knowledge that could inform the dominant narrative of studio glassmaking in Australia, three other themes emerged as being important; the dominance of written text within current culture, the value of a glassmaker's perspective within a historical context and the importance of place on glassmaking practice. These themes which were woven into the thesis are outlined in the following section.
Key ThemesThe symbolic power of recorded text-based information emerged from the research as a key theme. In current western culture, it is within text that dominant narratives are constructed. As a researcher-glassmaker, I am participating in the printed text and published image discourse by presenting my findings mainly in text, with a small visual display to compliment this text and show the artifacts re-made as part of the research. The published text genre dominates and is longer lasting than the ephemeral nature of studio glass artifacts or anecdotal stories. My knowledge as a glassmaker for over twenty years, has allowed me to bring a glassmaker' perspective into an academic text-based field to contribute a glassmaker's perspective to the textual discourse.
It was found that most of the text-based knowledge about studio glassmaking in Australia was framed by a visual arts or crafts historic perspective and mostly presented from a historians', 'theorist' or viewers' perspective (in other words, non-glassmakers' perspective). This research presents a glassmaker's perspective, within text, that offers a different point of view that enriches the existing glassmaking narrative. The use of ethnographic methodologies meant that new perspectives on a variety of knowledge fields could be included.
The value of my glassmaker's perspective through the use of an ethnographic methodological framework provided the means to take multiple positions within the research: as a glassmaker, as a member of the glassmaking community and as a researcher. It provided flexibility in the methods I employed to gather information from the various fields of knowledge, which included: published texts and images from the public domain, the taken-for-granted knowledge of glassmaking, the 'common' and professional knowledges of those who work within a collective of glassmakers, and from those with an intimate knowledge and understanding of the glassmaking process.
The auto-ethnographic method of re-making selected artifacts allowed the collection of data via a first hand experience, and assisted in a broader understanding of the influencing factors specific to the glassmaking culture in South Australia.
The re-making process was a way to 'reenact past experience' to access the 'energy' that is inherent in the making process, as seen in Figure 7. The experience of re-making, although subjective, provided a way for me to describe the differences in the various making processes, between different makers and different developmental phases. However, this research did not rest its legitimacy solely on the authority of my experiences alone, as external information from other glassmakers (interviews and questionnaires),were joined with my experiential findings to give a broader glassmakers' perspective. The ethnographic methodology provided the opportunity to heighten my awareness of the tacit experience of glassmaking and provided a deeper appreciation of the glass made in South Australia.
The third theme that was woven into the research was the importance of place within the context of the dominant narrative. The findings demonstrated that there were regional differences within studio glassmaking in Australia and that things happened differently in South Australia to those outlined in the dominant narrative.
It was shown that glassmaking in South Australia emerged out of the burgeoning crafts movement, was taken up by State government arts funders who then established a craft centre based on the European designer/maker model. The information presented in this thesis highlighted this development and demonstrated that this development happened somewhat independently to the events that occurred concurrently in other states of Australia. Thus, place had played an important role in the development that occurred in South Australia and the generalized historical narrative does not necessarily fit all circumstances within Australia.
History has shown that glassmaking and glass technology thrive on accidental discovery and the inheritance of accumulated experience. In each location where glassmaking is introduced the differing variety of factors that influences a particular community of glassmakers results in glass that has a particular style. In the case of South Australia, the factors that have influenced this community have been predominantly European glassmaking traditions, and the objects produced tended to be vessel based and focus on the design/maker model (introduced from the former Czechoslovakia by Stanislav Melis).
This research has gone some way to redress the exclusion of a glassmaker's perspective from the text-based dominant narrative and has uncovered a number of implicitly understood areas of glassmaking practice that are worthy of further investigation. I understand these areas are sensitive issues that glassmakers rarely discuss, but implicitly know. It would be challenging to investigate these areas as little has been contributed by glassmakers as writers within the text-based realm of practice. If, as a community of makers, we are to have some say in the way objects are perceived, how stories about our work are told, how our objects are appreciated and remembered, then it is important that we contribute to these other realms of knowledge to ensure that the remaining texts more fully encapsulate our stories and our practice of glassmaking.
The experience of this research has influenced the development of my own practice as a maker and it has taken me some time to 're-find myself' and settle back into my own identity and practice as a studio glassmaker. I am now more aware of the community in which I work and have a deeper understand of 'where I fit in'. This is perhaps the core of the reason why I initially undertook this type of research... to determine how I got here, and why things are the way they are.
The research will naturally affect my future as a studio glassmaker in South Australia, which continues to operate within an increasingly globalized art market. The re-making process was an excellent way for me to learn different glassmaking processes and experiment with materials in new ways. In addition I found that there is more to the development of studio glassmaking in South Australia than the dominant narrative would have us believe.
_____________________________
Footnotes:
(1) Ibid., p. 7.
(2) King, G. 1998, 'Oz glass, ausglas, ausglass' in The Story of Studio Glass, ed. F. Lynggaard, Rhodes International Science and Art Publishers, Copenhagen.
(3 )Klein, D., 1998, 'Venice's Influence on the World of Contemporary Glass', Venezia Aperto Vetro, Elemond Editioir Association, Milano, p. 33.(4) Womald, P., 1984, 'Trainees', SA Crafts, Spring, p.17.
B. Jane Cowie is a pracitising artist and educator, also former president of Ausglass.
