Ranamock Revisted

On Friday we were treated to review, in person of the Ranamock exhibit. The debate was lively and some questions about jurying, display, exhibition hosting, curating, quality, were, if not answered, at least addressed in a way as to spawn further discussion.

One question that stayed with me was “Why don’t the best glass artists in Australia enter?”
One answer was the fear of guilt by association. The famous Nick Mount, whose career is already well established in Australia and abroad, has little to loose, but, it was felt, for a lesser known artist, who takes their work seriously, being in an exhibition of such inconsistent quality can be a really bad career move. The wrong alignments at an early point in your career can be career breaking it was felt. All though there is something to be said for the “no publicity is the only bad publicity” approach; that just getting your work out there was a step in the right direction, a sentiment most likely held by artists whose careers are just beginning.

Another discussion topic was who were the judges and what were their backgrounds?
Questions arose as to whether or not these folks really understood contemporary glass and contemporary art, but without viewing the “Salon des Refusés,” it would be hard to judge, just what the judges could judge, if you get my drift.

The criterion for acceptence into the exhibition were clearly stated in the catalogue “excellence and innovation.” We discussed if these criterion had been met. The subject got a little sticky in the excellence area… ok in the innovation area too. Some felt that excellence would have precluded the inclusion of a piece with a lot of cracks in it, wanting to know “what were the judges thinking when they decided to to show that work?”

The concept of innovation may have been even more troublesome. How do you know if the artist is being innovative within their own career if you aren’t familiar with their work already? If you are not well educated as to what is going on in the world of glass how can you know that a work is innovative within the field? And was anything there innovative as far as the field of fine art was concerned? But it was pointed out that this was a glass award, not a fine art award, or even a glass art award.

One piece that we looked at extensively was the boomerang candle holder “Eternal Gardening” by Dorde (George) Drobac, Nollamara, WA. Previously this piece had been commented on in this blog as a possible spoof on the kitsch of contemporary glass. It was discoverd, in looking at it further and in reading the catalogue that, no it was in fact not a parody piece or a piece commenting on kitsch but was the very embodiment of it.

Another work looked at closely was “Isobar” by Dominic Burrell
Wanganui, New Zealand. Many pointed out that the bubbles in the piece were problematic to them, which made some of the instructors a little week in the knees, perhaps they had been pushing that point a little too hard? Another issue with this work, for those who had seen lots of glass work around the world, was that this work did not stand out as particularly innovative or unique. Lots of people are doing, multi-layered blown vessels, and most of them are selling their work in mom n’ pop craft stores, not in museum shops let alone showing in museums. Some liked the work, for its simplicity of form and zen qualities, and for it’s push and pull of material.

The discussion of the wining piece “Across the Lines” by Lisa Walsh, Waverley, South Taranaki, New Zealand
raised more questions than it answered ( or maybe that was really the case with every piece we discussed?) Was this piece chosen because of it’s Australia specific image? A monument to an important historical event? Did the judges see the work in person before awarding it or did they just go off the photograph? It was agreed that the reading of the two was extremely different: the photo making the work look much more coherent and well crafted, while in person the display had slipped adding some unpleasant angles and showed every pimple. Many positive things were brought up about the piece: the artist’s unconventional use of the material, the work’s folk-craft aspect, the tricky image shift that occurs when viewing through such thick hand worked pieces of glass. But the literalness of the work, it’s blatant use of narrative, was problematic for some: give us some credit we can figure things out, its poor construction and lack of attention to detail, all made many surprised that it was the winner, though many agreed that the artist would probably go on to put the money to good use as she develops her career. We didn’t ask the important question however: If this is Ranamock, what does it mean?

And the final work that time was spent on was “Cocoon” by
Masaki Kawanabe, North Manly, NSW. The final piece was chosen for discussion because some folks felt that it was the likely winner. Unfortunately at this point in time the authors brain shut off, and what was said about this piece is a big foggy. It was nice though, but I think someone said it reminded them of what they don’t like of much contemporary glass, “The Big Paper Weight Aesthetic.

Then we went and had beer.

Please if you have any thoughts, inclusions or corrections , thoughts about the last piece that I slept through, or comments about for the Ranamock Committee, post them here anonymously, or send them to me, and I will post them DOUBLE ANONYMOUSLY. Start your own thread, or not. Enter next year or don’t. But don’t stop thinking about what makes good glass art.