CONTINUITY AND CHANGE IN GLASS HISTORY

When in 1928 Whitefriars Glass company moved their factory from their original site, which they had occupied continuously for over three hundred years in central London, to a new purpose built factory in Wealdstone they devised a telling way of celebrating the event.

The furnaces at the new factory were lit from a furnace from the old one, carried on the back of a specially adapted lorry. Glass furnaces, because of their high operating temperatures are kept alight round the clock, and this symbolic lighting of the new from the old was a way of maintaining an unbroken line that stretched back three centuries.

This event can also be seen as a metaphor for the way in which glass itself has spread from place to place, country to country, and civilisation to civilisation during its eventful five millennia as a coherent material in its own right. The point of the metaphor being the way it encapsulates the spread of the two central aspects of glass; how it is synthesised from its raw constituents, and how it is shaped via its special tools and skills; and particularly, how these are communicated.

Glass has, despite making a major contribution to most of the world’s great civilisations, only been discovered once; its spread, like the Whitefriars furnace has been from one centre to another, carried by skilled and knowledgeable individuals in their heads , but above all in their hands. The transfer of these, essentially tacit secrets was through a literal laying on of hands from person to person. All of the movements of glass across both distance and time have depended absolutely on a prior shift of glassmakers to literally carry the flame of glass on and in their persons.

Small wonder then that the Venetian republic, eager to preserve its world dominance of crystal glass in the 15th century, forbad the movement of any of its skilled glassmakers to any other country, on pain of death by mafia style assassination. Attempts to circumvent this by the presentation of glassmaking knowledge and skill by word and illustration fell far short of anything but a description of the circumstances in which glass was made, rather than facilitating its replication. Diderot`s encyclopaedia, despite its excellent pedigree was not responsible for the establishment
of any new glassmaking centres.

Pictures and words, however excellent were no substitute for the laying on of hands; examples can be cited from our own era; when, in 1850 Chance Brothers of West Bromwich were commissioned to produce three million square feet of sheet glass by hand for the new Crystal Palace building, they had to recruit thirty skilled glassblowers from the continent to bolster their workforce. Nearer our own era, when Dartington Glass was established in the 1950s it had to bring in both glasshouse managers and glassblowers from Sweden, inducements included the building of Scandinavian style houses on site. The Church of Saint Mary, Oldswinford, is the last resting place of Huguenot glassmaking families like the Henzeys and Tyzacks who emigrated from France to establish the industry in the Midlands. It is fair to say that every new glassmaking centre has relied on the on site expertise of groups of skilled and knowledgeable individuals. However, if these hand to hand movements had simply resulted in the production of identical glass and artefacts in every new centre, the story would be of very little interest, the truth is, fortunately, very different.

The crucial influence of local conditions ensured that, as glass spread, both the nature of the glass itself changed, and the uses to which it was put evolved in new, previously unthought of ways. This was due to the dynamic interaction of a number of shifting forces, not all of them welcome, foreseen, or even fully understood. The important ingredient that transformed such chance forces into creative opportunities was the intervention of human creativity.

The most local influences lay largely unseen in the available materials from which glass was synthesised. For example, although silica is the basic ingredient of glass, its specific form varies enormously; from fine white sand to sand contaminated with trace elements like iron. These variations caused the glass made from them to shift their visual and material qualities, sometimes dramatically so. The famed `crystallo` which was the vehicle for Rennaissance Venice`s dominance of world glass was the result of the dredging of the canals, a side effect of this being the fine flint pebbles that resulted. These were crushed to provide the silica for glass founding, and, largely fortuitously, resulted in the clear glass that became the standard by which glass was judged until the development of English lead crystal in the late seventeenth century. Clear glass was still called `Flint` glass in the local Stourbridge industry until the closure of the last great factory Royal Brierley Crystal in 2007. Silica is, of course, only one part of the complex equation that produces glass, and local variants in any of the constituents, potash for example can affect the glass made from it, sometimes dramatically.

The beautiful green/blue glass of 15th and 16th century Waldglas, produced in parts of Northern Europe derived its accidental, but highly prized colour from raw materials contaminated with iron. As so often in the history of glass, accidental characteristics were swiftly assimilated into the creative language of the glassmaker, and it is impossible to envisage Waldglas drinking vessels in any other glass. The use of the repeated prunt, for example exploited the build up of colour characteristic of the glass.

Glass managed to react to influences as powerfulas the rise and fall of great civilisations, evolvingnew methods of working, new forms, and new techniques to ensure its survival. The collapse of the Roman Empire, for example, meant that the barilla seaweed required for potash all over the Empire could no longer be brought from Spain. Instead local materials like ferns had to be burnedto make potash, ensuring the continuity of glass, but resulting in a different type of glass. During the Dark Ages that followed the Roman era, glass production reflected the tribalism of the post imperial empire. It was no longer made in centres of manufacture like Rome`s glass district, (the combined smoke of which had caused the first anti-pollution laws in history when the senate banned all furnaces within a mile of the city), but in contrast was produced by peripatetic teams of glassmakers moving from area to area across large distances. The forms they made reflected the local cultural traditions, as evidenced in the fabulous drinking horns and tumblers that could not be put down until their contents were drunk.

While Europe descended into division, the new Islamic centres became the guardians of some of glass`s most important secrets, the use of decolourisers, and enamelling for example; only to hand them on to Venice, through trade in the 14th century; yet another example of the flame of glass moving, by hand, from one culture to another. The fish–scale patterns in enamel dots that decorate Quattrocento Venetian goblets are a classic example of the influences from the Middle East that helped to set Venice on its path to supremacy.

In our own era, the technology that has created McLuhan`s Global village has removed many of the local influences that once gave character to locally produced glass. The basic ingredients are now standardised, and shipped world-wide,
resulting in a universality of glass quality and character. The availability of off the peg glass from sources like Gaffer and Bullseye have put studio production on a par with painting in terms of its ubiquitous material needs. Despite this apparent dilution, the global studio movement has itself been established, and is maintained by, the direct movement of tacit knowledge, albeit in a new way.

The studio movement effectively dates from the Wisconsin workshops of Harvey Littleton in the late 1950s. In this he was inspired by Erwin Eisch, and helped by Dominic Labino. The revolution that resulted was based on the notion that glass could, via the use of small kilns and furnaces, become a true studio medium. In true person to person fashion this concept spread world-wide through individuals like Sam Herman, an early graduate of Littleton`s programme, who came to Great Britain in the early sixties, working at Art Colleges in London, Stourbridge, and Edinburgh.

The establishment of the Pilchuck glass centre and the addition of glass to the syllabi of art schools and universities has ensured the survival, development, and spread of glass as a creative medium of choice for generations of practitioners in the last 50 or so years. The mainspring of this movement has been the personal search for self-expression through making, and this has again accentuated local and individual differences as each practitioner has sought to make his or her works singular. This has, in turn, accelerated technical invention, with a rapid increase in the range and sophistication of glass techniques and processes. For example pate-de-verre was an almost mythical, unknown process to the early studio artists of the 1960s, yet, in a few decades it has yielded its secrets, and is now used by more artists world-wide than it ever was in its original heyday.

The glass facility at Wolverhampton has, in true glass fashion, undergone many changes in its 154 year existence. Originally set up in Stourbridge in the wake of the Great Exhibition of 1851 as one of the new art schools planned by Sir Henry Cole in centres of manufacturing, it basically fulfilled this role for a century, with artists of the calibre of John Northwood and Frederick Carder of Steuben fame, passing through its doors. In the wake of the Government review of Art Education in the early 1960s, and fortuitously coinciding with the birth of studio glass, the course was completely transformed. It became degree level, and, in true sixties fashion, embraced experiment, change, and liberal self-realisation, a case of education through glass rather than education in glass. I joined the course in 1967, and enjoyed the privilege of being able to contribute to the changes and discoveries of this exciting period. By the time the course moved, as a result of government policy, lock stock and furnace to Wolverhampton in 1989, alumni had included David Reekie, Tessa Clegg, Brian Blanthorn, and of course, Stuart Garfoot. Students had come from all over the world to study with us, often returning to their home countries to set up new teaching departments, and, through their personal practice, to shape the future of glass.

Since obtaining University status in 1992 Wolverhampton has added MA, PhD, and Post- Doctoral research to its study portfolio, and in 1999 took its latest important step in the furtherance of glass with the establishment of its ongoing links with China, which began with the exhibition, New Glass Economy organised by Professor Andrew Brewerton.

China is unusual among the world`s great civilisations in that glass does not feature in its history to the same extent as, say, bronze, ceramic, or lapidary carving. This is particularly noteworthy given China`s long and distinguished creative pedigree; the fact that we, in the West, call fine ceramic china speaks volumes. The reasons behind this lack of, to date, an equivalent achievement in glass are probably due to a complex mix of material factors and cultural preferences.

In some ways the passing of the glass torch to China in the last decade is made even more interesting because of this, for it is occurring just as China is moving to the forefront as an economic power, and history tells us that glass produces its brightest flowers within vibrant, leading civilisations. The establishment of University Departments of glass in major cities like Shanghai and Beijing, headed by graduates from Wolverhampton has seen, in just a few years, a vigorous glass contribution to the flowering of Contemporary Chinese Art as a whole, a movement that is recognised as being of global importance, and yet essentially Chinese. The artefacts that make up this exhibition demonstrate the themes of continuity and change that run through this essay.

The international Studio Glass movement is now in its fifth decade, the artists in this show are drawn from the last four, and represent a wide range of outcomes, decorative, sculptural, industrial, architectural, and a huge variation in scale, context, and approach to the material. In addition to the theme of continuity and change that underlies this exhibition two other linked characteristics stand out, diversity and personality. Each contributor has sought to find their own distinctive voice, and in doing so has personalised the material language of glass through their distinctive forms. All of the exhibitors have been part of the story of the glass course at Stourbridge and Wolverhampton, and prove, if proof were needed that the course has prided itself on its avoidance of a house style, preferring to help each student to discover their own path to and from the material.

The latest manifestation of this is evident in the current work from China, and the way in which the individual artists represented here are using glass to express highly personal view of their own country, and its culture and history. This is evident both in terms of technique and subject matter, a particular example being the work of Guan Donghai . Portents for the future are good, with the only sure and certain predictions being the persistence of those engines for progress - continuity and change.


Keith Cummings,
Professor of Glass Studies,
School of Art & Design,
University of Wolverhampton


Continuity & Change in Glass History pdf

FOREWORD
Professor Tim Collins: Foreword

ESSAYS
Professor Andrew Brewerton: Glass Routes
Professor Keith Cummings: Continuity and Change in Glass History
Stuart Garfoot: The Glass Baton, A Personal Overview
Susanne Frantz: Glass Tiger
Associate Professor Xiaowei Zhuang: The Development of Studio Glass at Shanghai University
Associate Professor Guan Donghai: Creating With Glass
Dr Kristina Niedderer: Developing Glass Practice Through Creative Research
Xue Lu (Shelly): Growing With the Soil of China

Stuart Garfoot: Introduction to Creative Pathway
David Reekie: Creative Pathway 1
Katy Holford: Creative Pathway 2