• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

VILNIAUS DAILĖS AKADEMIJA VILNIUS ACADEMY OF ARTS INDRĖ STULGAITĖ-KRIUKIENĖ Meno projektas STUDIJINIO STIKLO JUDĖJIMO TRANSFORMACIJOS: NUO FUNKCIONALAUS IKI KONCEPTUALAUS MENO KŪRINIO Art Project STUDIO GLASS MOVEMENT TRANSFORMATIONS: FROM FUNCTIONAL TO CONCEPTUAL ART CREATION Meno doktorantūra, Vaizduojamieji menai, Dailės kryptis (V 002) Art Doctorate, Visual Arts, Fine Arts (V 002) VILNIUS, 2020 Meno projektas rengtas Vilniaus dailės akademijoje 2015–2020 metais KŪRYBINĖS DALIES VADOVAS: Prof. Valmantas Gutauskas Vilnius dailės akademija, dailė V 002 TIRIAMOSIOS DALIES VADOVĖ: Doc. dr. Raimonda Simanaitienė Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, menotyra H 003 Meno projektas ginamas Vilniaus dailės akademijoje Meno doktorantūros dailės krypties gynimo taryboje: PIRMININKAS: Prof. dr. Vytautas Kibildis Vilniaus dailės akademija, humanitariniai mokslai, menotyra H 003, dizainas V 003 NARIAI: Prof. dr.art. Inguna Audere Latvijos dailės akademija (Latvija), humanitariniai mokslai, menotyra H 003, dailė V 002 Dr. Arūnas Gelūnas Lietuvos nacionalinis dailės muziejus, humanitariniai mokslai, filosofija H 001, dailė V 002 Doc. dr. Stanislovas Mostauskis Vilniaus dailės akademija, humanitariniai mokslai, menotyra H 003 Dr. Lijana Natalevičienė Lietuvos kultūros tyrimų institutas, humanitariniai mokslai, menotyra H 003 Meno projektas ginamas viešame Meno doktorantūros dailės krypties gynimo tarybos posėdyje 2020 m. lapkričio 6 d. 14 val. Hilton Garden Inn viešbučio konferencijų centre. (Gedimino pr. 44B Vilnius, LT-01110) Su disertacija galima susipažinti Lietuvos nacionalinėje Martyno Mažvydo, Vilniaus dailės akademijos bibliotekose. 2 The Artistic Research Project was carried out at Vilnius Academy of Arts during the period of 2015– 2020 ART PROJECT SUPERVISION: Prof. Valmantas Gutauskas Vilnius Academy of Arts, Fine Arts V 002 THESIS SUPERVISION: Doc. dr. Raimonda Simanaitienė Vytautas Magnus University, Humanities, Art History and Theory H 003 The Artistic Research Project will be defended at a public meeting of the Academic Board of Fine Arts at Vilnius Academy of Arts composed of the following members: CHAIRPERSON: Prof. dr. Vytautas Kibildis Vilnius Academy of Arts, Humanities, Art History and Theory H 003, Design V 003 MEMBERS: Prof. dr.art. Inguna Audere Latvian Academy of Arts (Latvia), Humanities, Art History and Theory H 003, Fine Arts V 002 Dr. Arūnas Gelūnas The Lithuanian National Museum of Art, Humanities, Philosophy H 001, Fine Arts V 002 Doc. dr. Stanislovas Mostauskis Vilnius Academy of Arts, Humanities, Art History and Theory H 003 Dr. Lijana Natalevičienė Lithuanian Culture Research Institute, Humanities, Art History and Theory H 003 The public defence of the Artistic Research Project will be held on November 6, 2020, 2 p.m., at Hilton Garden Inn hotel conference centre. (Gedimino av. 44B Vilnius, LT-01110) The art project is available at Martynas Mažvydas National Library of Lithuania, and the library of Vilnius Academy of Arts. 3 SUMMARY INTRODUCTION In 1962, in America, the studio glass movement was born in the garage of the Toledo Museum. The garage was allocated to the artist Harvey Littleton as a workshop. In it, experiments were carried out to see and prove whether artists would be able to create works from melted glass not in factories, but instead in small studios set up by themselves.” This is how all publications on the history of glass begin the story of the studio glass roots. Why is this phenomenon becoming so important for glass artists? Why is this type of studio activity regarded as the beginning of a new era? Why do people who create exclusively from glass material insist on calling themselves glass artists, and communities of glassmakers from different countries claim kinship ties? Today’s glass artists strive to keep up with global art tendencies and prevailing trends, breaking the boundaries of traditional art and looking for a creative medium in the contemporary art world. However, the terms “glass artist” or “glass art” remain in the postmodern context for one particular material-related reason. This is due to the properties of the glass, such as transparency and its optical properties, which are not characteristic of other materials and which give the glass both visual and conceptual distinctiveness. These properties are obtained by processing glass using traditional technological methods. However, it must be acknowledged that glass often finds itself on the fringes of contemporary art and exists as a distinct (separate) branch of art, although both technologically and ideologically it has many points of contact with various other fields of art. We are often confronted with art critics or art connoisseurs’ fear or unwillingness to analyze a work made of glass precisely because of their lack of technological knowledge. And because of the same technological importance of a glass work, it is often equated simply with a craft, categorized as applied art, which has long been untrue, as the movement of studio glass - as well as the spread of visual media - has fundamentally changed the meaning and importance of glass in the world of artists. Following the widespread point of view that the so-called conceptuality is most hindered by the material itself, because for a conceptual work of art the physical piece of art itself is not necessary, as the idea is the most important, we pronounce a harsh sentence to glass art, ruling out the possibility that it can indeed be conceptual. However, perhaps in this case, it is not so much important to strive to make sure the piece of glass is able to express conceptuality as to discover its possibilities as it departs from functionality. When assigning a work to a category specific criteria are used which, in a broad sense, are arbitrary. It still has to be agreed on the criteria according to which we would classify an item as a piece of applied art or as a conceptual work of art. According to the universal dictionary of art, we would consider an item an piece of applied art if it can be practically applicable for various purposes, 4 in contrast to those pieces that do not have a clear functional purpose. And how would we categorize a conceptual piece of glass? Is it possible to categorize it at all? For a conceptual work of art, "an idea or concept is the most important aspect of it." Art is "dematerialized", and in this sense it is believed that art must have "occurred" before its materialization in any object. "Art is the power of an idea, not material," said Joseph Kosuth, one of the creators of conceptualism. In his words, "ideas are the actual works of art." In his work “One and Three Chairs”, Kosuth creates nothing new except a new meaning: he takes a chair, its photographic image, and a piece of text from a dictionary explaining what a chair is, thus creating a new conceptual relationship between the original and its copies. Thus, according to the first conceptualists, it could be said that the art of glass cannot, in principle, be conceptual because it is grounded or particularly related to the material - i. y. it is literally material. Then let's look at this a little more philosophically - after all, the final visualization of any idea, or even the image at any stage of the process, basically has some kind of form, which means materiality, except for the sound and sensory-only arts. Following this path we should broaden the field of perception of concepts and play a bit with the meanings associated with glass material, albeit in terms of an idea, such as reviewing the technological process of glassmaking before the work merges (or does not emerge). Then we should single out two essential differences in the positions of the creators, which, in the author's opinion, become important among the artists who create from this material. Obviously, some artists choose glass material for a particular piece of work. The work is certainly created, but the question arises, to what extent does the materiality of the glass help to reveal the idea of the work, and to what extent it hinders it? Other artists conceptualize the material itself (process, physical and chemical properties of the material). According to the latter approach, there are cases when the final work simply does not emerge (it is not created, gets destroyed in the creative process, etc.), because having it “made” is not the artist's goal. Another factor in analyzing glass works in terms of applicability or conceptuality would be their status in different countries, where glass art objects are in many cases treated very differently. The same object, depending on the country or region, can be named a sculpture, object, or example of a design. The research revealed that many evaluation factors are determined by the experiential situation of glass art in the country (region) - a historically formed school. All these aspects led the author of this work to shape the text in such a way that it combines historical and more problematic, conceptualized material. Research hypothesis After clarifying the approach to contemporary glass art abroad and in Lithuania, it is assumed that a work in the process of making or already made from glass in the contemporary art world exists 5 as equivalent to other types of contemporary works, i. y. it can be a postmodern, conceptual work of art attributed to various fields, directions or trends of art. Objective To study and evaluate the transformation and change of glass art, moving from a functional to a conceptual type of art. Tasks 1. To discuss the need for the emergence of the studio glass movement. 2. To analyze the historical development and peculiarities of the studio glass movement in the 20th – 21st centuries. 3. To study the specifics of glass studios in the 21st century and their influence on contemporary glass art processes. 4. To name and substantiate the significance of glass as a material in the works of contemporary foreign and Lithuanian glass artists.

Load more

  50

Copy Link