Tag Archives: self-expression

Clusters: All Together, Now

Posted on by
Reply

cluster example 5
In yesterday’s post, the definition of bevels included the mention of “geometric configurations (called ‘clusters’) for incorporation into leaded glass work.”

Ah, clusters…

The fun thing about clusters is that you have ready-made pieces that you simply fit together (with copper foil or some type of came, i.e. lead), and then fill in the rest of your pattern with pieces to accomplish the desired panel shape (rectangle, square, circle…).

For example, I purchased a bevel cluster with ten bevels that – when pieced together – would look like this ornate design:

cluster example 1

By cutting glass in the shapes of “1” through “8,” as pictured below, one could turn the design into a rectangular panel with the bevel cluster pieces (“a” through “j” in the diagram) centered within the rectangle. A simple example:

cluster example 2

Something I like to do for fun is use the bevel pieces in a more unconventional way and incorporate them into panels to create entirely different patterns. In the example below I kind of “exploded” the bevel cluster and came up with this design:

cluster example 3

And here is the completed panel:

cluster example 4

I need to work on my window photography.

I titled the panel “Ascending.”

The bevels used in the “Manifest” design that appears on the header of this blog is another example of using a cluster in an unconventional way. Can you guess what the design was originally intended to be?

C  C is for Cluster.

Sorting Glass — A Poem

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve turned my energies to poetry for a while, as I take a two-week challenge from The Daily Post. I didn’t write this poem for the challenge, but was reminded of it, so I thought I’d share it here:

Sorting Glass

Sorting stained glass into bins,
careful lest I cut myself.
How does one parse the spectrum of light
into specific and separate boxes?

Blue or green?
Translucent or opaque?
Flashed? Rolled? Blown? 
It even defies the line 
between solid and liquid.

Can’t mold it into endless shapes,
like a potter fondling clay on a wheel.
Can’t sand it smooth like a choice piece of wood,
and wipe the fine dust away with gentle strokes.

No. It’s cold and rigid and sharp and brittle.

But when the light finds it,
it warms and dances and morphs 
into myriad shapes and textures and nuances
that no other medium can rival. 
It comes alive. 

It brings me to life.
And as I sort it into bins,
being careful not to cut myself,
I feel its pulse in time with mine.

m3

Depth Finder

Posted on by
10

 

Close up of light reflection on stained glass panel.

Close up of light reflection on stained glass panel.

In my little corner of the world, it seems that interest in glass work is swinging greatly towards the direction of “warm glass,” or kiln-formed glass. Which is very understandable. There is so much potential for creativity in the three-dimensional forms that melting glass allows.

Even the vocabulary of fused glass is fun: slumping, frit, draping, stringers, confetti…

And the vocabulary of my work with flat stained glass panels? How about “fid?” It’s just not a sexy word, although it works well in Scrabble when you’re really stuck. Or “lead,” which elicits sayings like: get the lead out… lead-footed… lead poisoning. Also not sexy.

Of course, there is some dimensionality in panels – in glass bevels, for example. Or in textured glass. And a flat panel doesn’t exclude the incorporation of three-dimensional objects.

Just because a panel is flat, however, does not mean it lacks depth.

“Depth” has so many meanings beyond the concept of a dimension. From Dictionary.com:

  1. a dimension taken through an object or body of material… [the extent, measurement, or distance downwards, backwards, or inwards]
  2. the quality of being deep; deepness.
  3. complexity or obscurity, as of a subject: a question of great depth.
  4. gravity; seriousness.
  5. emotional profundity: the depth of someone’s feelings.
  6. intensity, as of silence, color, etc.
  7. lowness of tonal pitch: the depth of a voice.

So a flat stained glass panel can be complex – either in design or in abstract meaning, can emote or evoke a sense of seriousness or profound feeling, and can incorporate intense colors. And if it could talk, who knows? It might just sound like Morgan Freeman.

Not bad for only two dimensions.

Weekly Photo Challenge:  Depth

Express Yourself (Weekly Photo Challenge)

Posted on by
20
hammer

“Hammer Shattering Glass Shattering Hammer” What does it mean?

I’ve been pondering the question of “What is Art?” and consequently, what makes an artist?

and what is the purpose of art?

and who decides all of these things?

and what is the meaning of life?

Oh, wait. Nix that last one. I quit pondering that a long time ago.

I’ll be exploring these questions in future posts. Probably…

But today, the Daily Post weekly photo challenge is based on the theme “Express Yourself,” which has led me to musing about art as a means of expressing oneself.

Maybe that’s a basic parameter of art: the artist is creating/performing/producing art as a means of self-expression.

But if an artist creates something in order to express him- or herself, does it matter whether the viewer understands what it is that the artist is trying to express? Or is it the act of expressing oneself all that really matters?

I share photos of my newly completed stained glass panels on FaceBook, a practice which is primarily undertaken because I like to get positive feedback on my work. And since they’re all my “friends” on FB, I can be fairly confident that I won’t get flamed. I’m kind of a coward that way.

I got a FB comment once that did rankle me for a while, though. In response to a photo of one of my pieces, someone wrote, “Cool. But what is it?” It didn’t bother me that this woman couldn’t recognize what I was trying to portray. My intent was more to convey an emotion – or a mood – than to depict a literal object.

What bugged me was that she felt the need to ask. My response to her was along the lines of, “It’s whatever you want it to be.” I know what it means to me, and it’s irrelevant to me as to what it meant to her. Not that I don’t care; it’s always interesting to know what others see in your work. And someone else’s interpretation might give me new insight as well. But whatever her interpretation is, it’s neither good nor bad, neither right nor wrong.

So another thought… does it matter whether the artist him- or herself knows what they are trying to convey? Does art have to have any meaning at all?

Jackson Pollock’s paintings are about as abstract as art can get. A Wikipedia article about him states that, “[In] continuing to evade the viewer’s search for figurative elements in his paintings, Pollock abandoned titles and started numbering his works.”

Pollock’s wife, Lee Krasner, is quoted as explaining the numbering of his works thusly: “Numbers are neutral. They make people look at a picture for what it is—pure painting.”

Pure painting… Does that mean that it is not meant to be interpreted at all? Did Pollock have his own interpretations for the pieces, or was he simply practicing “pure painting?”

And if there is meant to be no interpretation on the part of the artist or the viewer, is it in fact art?

So many questions…

My title for the panel pictured above is “Hammer Shattering Glass Shattering Hammer.” (Or No. 11, if you prefer.) I’d be curious to know how others interpret the piece.

Any comments?
Express Yourself