Began during grad school in 2103 and continuing until 2016, the New Glass Review project attempted to understand quality in my own, esoteric field of glass artwork through an algorithmic, data-based approach. The result became the subject of my written thesis.
Abstract:
We find ourselves in an age where our cultural preferences can be determined and aligned by computer algorithms. The because-you-like-that-you-will-like-this approach has spanned across areas of music with Pandora, movies and TV shows with Netflix, not to mention our intimate relationships with the multitude of online dating sites. In this context, where inspiration can be reduced down to numbers, I began a project examining whether a similar systematic approach could be applied to the field of glass artwork.
The New Glass Review is an annual publication in which a jury select 100 submitted images of what they feel represents the best work in glass from the past year. The jury is composed of Tina Oldknow, curator of modern glass at the Corning Museum of Glass and three other guest jurors. By taking the New Glass Review as the paramount examples of work in glass, my project began by breaking down every image selected by the jury since 2001 into Excel spreadsheets. Images were deconstructed into 110 categories, ranging from the submitted information of dimensions, fabrication methods and nationality, to the visual attributes of symmetry, dominant colors, referential imagery, additional materials and photographic setting.
With the help of the Statistics Counseling Service at The Ohio State University, I was able to run a series of analyses to determine favorable attributes of glasswork based on my collected data. From these figures I constructed three artworks and submitted them to the 2015 New Glass Review under a pseudonym. Despite adhering to the precise calculations, my submission was unsuccessful. Partially.
In one study, it was determined that the following attributes were “trending”: process shots, referential imagery, installations, kiln forming, found glass objects, projection, and humans. A photograph was composed containing all of these elements and submitted to the 2014 New Glass Review jury:
Untitled
H. 259.7 cm / W. 399.6 cm / D. 201.6 cm
Performance; found, kiln-formed glass, projection.
Thanks to Nick Fagan
It was not accepted for publication.
A distinct quality of the New Glass Review that I have yet to see anywhere else in a juried publication is the voter’s initials at the bottom of the description. One set of initials means that just one juror thought the piece should be included in the publication. Four implied a unanimous decision. In this way I was allowed access to an ever-prevalent metric of internet-age merit: The Like:
Following graduation, this project was continued through a fellowship at the Massachusetts College of Art. Based on Komar and Melamid’s People’s Choice project, I created New Glass Review entries based on my collected data of Tina Oldknow’s voting habits, her initials below the selected work signaling a “yes,” a lack thereof equating an absolute “no.”
What Tina Oldknow Likes (in no specific order):
-
Installations
-
Light as Medium
-
Indoor settings
-
Concrete settings
-
Projection as light source
- Mirrors
- Humans in photographs
- Process shots
Featuring Siena Hancock, Nicole Kepron, Hannah limaa, Angela McHale, Momoko Schafer, Lindsy Marshall
None were accepted for publication.
What Tina Oldknow Does Not Like (in no specific order):
- Design objects (including jewelry)
- Assembled objects
- Grey Settings
- Cast glass
- Cold-worked glass
- Exterior light sources
- Figurative imagery
- Flameworked glass
- The color green
Pendant
and
Rhinorrhea Set
Photos: Chris Stone
None were accepted for publication.
Finally, there was a submission based on the Blue Vessel, an anecdotal cash cow for glassblowers everywhere. The data revealed that there should be an additional material, and the dimensions would be H. 38.12 cm / W. 38.57 cm / D. 35. 34 cm.
Untitled
Blown, drilled glass, processed meat
It was not accepted for publication.
Epilogue:
Though my painstakingly analyzed and crafted submissions were not accepted for publication, my “other” work (submitted under my own name) was. The project made a minor ripple in the academic glass community and was presented by Hyperopia Projects at the 2015 Glass Art Society conference, and mentioned in detail by Oldknow herself in New Glass Review 37. The following year, juror Ben Wright selected the thesis in the “Juror’s Choice” section of the Review, which permitted the opportunity to avenge myself on OSU’s thesis formatting requirements:
Tina Oldknow retired in 2016, providing a much-appreciated conclusion to this project.