THE GLASS SEED: GROWING WITH THE SOIL OF CHINA

My main understanding of international glass began when I met Andrew Brewerton, the former dean of the Art & Design School at the University of Wolverhampton. The “International Glass Exhibition” held in 2001, at Shanghai confirmed my decision to become a glass practitioner.

“Producing art sometimes one needs to be away from home, to find a suitable soil, ‘growing’ new products.” Having this kind of thought, I started my journey in England. During MA study in Wolverhampton, I became interested in searching for my identity as a Chinese student within glass practice. The rough outline of a cross-culture project about glass gradually came into being. After the masters program, my interest in this area intensified through the association with Professor Keith Cummings and our subject leader Stuart Garfoot; who inspired me through their knowledge and passion for the material to begin my PhD project. My research systemically explores Chinese glass practices (parallels drawn between glass objects produced from Kangxi (1662-1722) to Qianlong period (1736-96), and contemporary experience) with Western influences. Furthermore as a glassmaker, my own work acts as a case study and an investigative method.

The Western influences on Chinese glass practice can be traced back to the trade exchange on the ‘Silk Road’. The compound-eye bead of the Warring State, the blowing industry from Wei-Jin Northern and Southern dynasties (220-581) and the excavated ritual objects from Fa Men temple of the Tang dynasty, all demonstrated the foreign impact. In the Qing dynasty, the imported glassmaking techniques, which were attributed to the frequent activities of Jesuit missionaries in court, resulted in a great development.

An imported material from outside China, glass occupies a special position in the history of Chinese art and craft. Although it stands out of the main stream and its development was under the shade of brilliant Chinese porcelain, jade and bronze. Glass has its own methodology of practice. From the two sides of influences, the West and the traditional Chinese art and craft, Chinese glass has a certain distinctive hybrid character, especially in the Qing dynasty.

In the Kangxi period, officially controlled glass making (Imperial glass workshop) was in a stage of technical experimentation. It took time to balance the Western formula with local ingredients to make a glass batch. Therefore, the glass produced in that period has defects such as “crizzling” . The works represented a compromise of conflict between technique and aesthetic. The hybrid blowing Gu shape glass vase made in the Kangxi period, directly used the shape from Chinese bronze, but with a rib-mould decoration taken from Venetian blown vessels. The reason the hybrid emerged is because, transferring from bronze to glass holds difficulties on a practical level. It is nearly impossible for glass beginners (Qing glass artisans in the imperial workshop) to apply such delicate patterns of cast bronze onto the surface of blown glass. This is technically or aesthetically adapted to the idea of ‘borrow-ism’ in the Qing glass practice. Usually, glass takes the existing form from other craft materials. For example, most of the glass forms in the Kangxi period were taken from Chinese porcelain. After practicing and acquiring mature Western, Chinese practitioners gradually developed their own language of form and decoration for glass material, and aesthetic.



Left: CAMEO PRUNUS JAR, Qianlong period and reign mark (1736-1796), H.7_ ins, Collection of Broadfield Glass Museum.
Right: Glass vase, Qianlong mark and period (1736-95), H: 19.1cm D: 6.2cm (top) D: 7cm (bottom), The Palace Museum, Beijing.

The cameo glass produced in the Qianlong period was the typical example indicative of this kind of development, which reflected the understanding and attitude towards the material and western technology and technique of making and forming glass. In brief, the glass cameo effect was inspired by the Chinese ‘Blue and White’ porcelain. The innovation of the casing technique and its combination with traditional Chinese jade carving was to imitate porcelain in terms of colour and decorative pattern. The new style derived directly from the Western blowing technique and other sophisticated Chinese traditions, this created a powerful Chinese character.

The goblet, one of the most important forms of Western glass is another example. The standard goblet consists of three parts: a cup to hold liquid, a stem with grace in various forms and a round base for stabilization. In Europe, the main function of a goblet is for cold drinks, such as wine and champagne, which is perfect for enjoying and sharing the clarity and colourless quality of glass, and its elegant outline, accentuates the character of wine.

Whereas, the habits of drinking tea in China rejected the function of the goblet. Secondly, the well-developed Chinese pottery and porcelain could fulfill the domestic demands of drinking and eating. Hence, there was no need to introduce new forms made from other materials. Finally, the transparent delicacy of European glass is the opposite of the traditional Chinese experience and aesthetic, which has been developed from opaque jade, stone and ceramic for thousands of years.

Although the luxury and magnificence of the Venetian glass can be illustrated through the thin crystal quality of European glass, it did not however, attract the eye of the main consumers of glass in China. Consequently, only a small number of examples with the influences of Western goblet were produced. Qing glass did not inherit in the application of colour, transparency and function, but its refined style. The multi-colured translucent Chinese goblet realised the subtlety of jade, and replaced the Western cup by using the shape from Chinese porcelain, named as a “glass vase” rather than a “glass goblet”.

Thus, it can be seen that Qing glass practice developed through the stages of absorbing, induction and fusing, not simply practiced straight from the techniques and styles of Western glass. The difference of living habits between the two cultures, the predominance of other Chinese art and craft and well formed aesthetics, resulted in the continuity and inevitability of the development of Qing glass, technically and aesthetically.

A similar Western influence is happening in contemporary Chinese academic glass scene, but in a different format. In the Qing dynasty, the way to transfer knowledge of making and forming glass was by direct demonstration of the skills imported by Jesuit missionaries. The extent and frequency of primary practice-based knowledge was rarely recorded in literature. In addition, the distilled and selected knowledge and skills introduced by the missionaries placed Chinese glass practice in a passive position of acceptance.

Nowadays, different to the Qing dynasty, the creative pathway changes. The internet and literature spreads information in a global context, widely extending the route of obtaining knowledge. The Chinese practitioners travel out of their home country, choosing knowledge with great purpose and care, rather than purely accepting the passive position in the Qing dynasty. Studying abroad, students not only acquire skills and techniques of glass, but pay more attention to creating with contemporary concepts and methods. Furthermore, the Western experience of glass education has been brought back to China, spreading into the academic soil and ‘nurturing’ new results. The experimental processes of Kiln-formed glass, in the initial developments of Chinese academic glass programmes, illustrates this idea. The achievement of which is exciting.

Obviously, the purpose of making glass and the method of expression in contemporary China could not be equal to ancient times, and distinct to the West as well. Only if we get a clear understanding of the history and present situation, we can build up a set of feasible methods of practice for the future.

The Qing examples display the way of drawing inspiration and influence from traditional culture, such as jade and ceramic. However, we must be aware of the change. Glass making in the Qing dynasty was the work of a number of artisans with specialist skills in different processes; each of them specialists in their own particular job. Design and making are two separate procedures. This model is not the same that we understand today. Usually, contemporary practitioners go through the whole process from forming the initial idea and then experimenting with material on to the making of the final object. The freedom and feedbacks in each process allow immediate adjustments and creation with individuality. Compared to the Qing dynasty, although we have advantages, we are facing more challenges. In the Qing dynasty, glass making progressed under a strong patronage from the Royal Family. Making glass was primarily for the use of Royalty. There was no pressure on the cost and human resource. This is the reason that the cameo Chinese glass (produced in Qianlong period) took months to fabricate. Glass was ordered, then made in ancient times. Now, we make, and then try to sell.

Nevertheless, in contrast, the cost of material and time, the technique of forming glass, the audience, the value of the final object and its placement directly dominate the practice for contemporary practitioners.

When glass, a craft material in ancient China, crosses the boundary into applied art and fine art, it becomes a separate material of expression. The contemporary Chinese glass contains and implicates its own characters. An updated methodology of glass practice is gestating in academic China, which is distinct to the Western one.

Glass programmes have been established in nine Chinese high education institutions since 2000. These courses have either a direct or in-direct relationship with the glass program at the University of Wolverhampton. The glass workshops at Shanghai University and Tsing Hua University, Beijing were the first ‘two seeds’, which have been grafted onto Chinese glass education since 2000. The Tsing Hua glass workshop in the new campus (Hai Dian) has three working areas, including kiln firing, decorative glass and cold processing. The glass blowing workshops in Tsing Hua will be the first in an academic setting China, which will come into use in early 2009. The glass subject belongs to the department of art and craft, which runs undergraduate and post-graduate courses. Shanghai’s glass program, is attached to the design department. It is mainly for post-graduate study, and centres on the technique of kiln-casting. Setting up long-term relationships with local industries and overseas academic institutions has been energetically encouraged. For example, the glass program of Wolverhampton used to work with Stuart Crystal and Royal Brierley Crystal and is currently cooperating with Watson Glass and Wedgewood. The idea of which has been taken by the Beijing and Shanghai university studios.

More impact from the British glass education could be found in the newly established glass programmes recently established in China. I applied ideas of “cross-discipline practice” from the glass and ceramic department in Wolverhampton to set up a glass workshop in Shanghai Institute of Visual Art (SIVA). According to Professor Keith Cummings , the philosophy of “education through glass rather than education in glass” is put into practice. The glass course separates from other disciplines, through providing a platform for all students from different backgrounds. Accordingly, the application of glass as an expressive medium has widely extended the subject boundaries.

Furthermore, the concept of “cross-disciplinarily” provides an opportunity for this single material to absorb inspiration and technique from various disciplines, to provoke a diverse development, and to maintain our own cultural accent within the strong influence of westernisation.

From China to the UK, artists have found inspiration and methods of expression with glass. From the UK back to China, developing historically reflective but progressive new glass practice. The international exchange will determine contemporary glass with new directions and developments.

New glass routes will continuously developing through the creative engagement with this material.


XUE Lu (Shelly),
PhD Student in Glass,
School of Art & Design
University of Wolverhampton.

Growing With the Soil of China pdf

Reference:
1. Honey, W. B. (1946) Victoria and Albert Museum Glass: a handbook. London: Ministry of Education.
2. Warren, P. (1977) Later Chinese Glass 1650 -1900, Journal of Glass Study, New York: Corning Museum of Glass, pp.84-126.
3. Yang, B. (1983) A brief account of glass of the Qing Dynasty. Journal of Palace Museum, 4, pp.3. (Chinese Version)
4. Frantz, S. K.. (2006) Glass Tiger. Glass: The Urban Quarterly, (102), pp.56-60.

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