O ne can see a real difference betw een
w ork designed for production—and more
often than not released w ithout his ap-
proval—and the unique w orks he w as even-
tually able to do on his ow n. T here is even
a sm all display o f lim ited-edition designs
made at the Skrdlovice glassw orks that
V izn e r did not design but had his name
attached to them . T h ere are a few designs
that are indeed by V izn er, but for some
reason w ere rejected. O n ly a museum like
C orning that can draw upon its ow n col-
lection could get aw ay w ith such an invalu-
able dem onstration. A rtists , collectors and
even curators at other institutions might
not w ish to share m isattributed, artist-
foresw orn or lesser w orks, w hich certainly
lim its the grow th o f connoisseurship to
those w ith access to storage room s.
There are other juxtapositions. T h e
contrast is not only betw een blown glass
and cast glass (which in itself is education-
al) but betw een artistically underdeter-
mined production and rem arkably overde-
term ined, almost fetishistically carved
w ith a grindstone, hand-sandblasted and
-polished, unique signed artw orks by
V izn er him self, from start to finish. T h e
latter, o f course, are the ultrarefined prod-
ucts V izn er is celebrated for. T hus, anyone
w ith an interest in parsing the differences
betw een design, craft and sculpture will
have a field day. O ldknow, to her credit,
leaves these arcane disputes to the view er
and doesn’t even bring them up in her labels
and wall texts.
Although I would ideally like to have
seen more examples o f his designs, V izner
was probably by tem peram ent not a great
designer. W h at he became, instead, is a
great artist. But is he a Minimalist? A void-
ing the vessel issue, one might think so.
Given his cleanly executed, reduced form s,
there might be some justification for this
categorization, but only, I maintain, in com-
parison to others o f his country and rank.
W e w ill not even bother to juxtapose his
exquisite w ork with glass kitsch. V izner’s
minimalism is relative.
T o n y Sm ith’s precedent-setting
D ie,
an all-black, six-foot cube, w as produced
in 1962, the same year V izn er came up
w ith his cube,
Square Vase I.
W h y have w e
not yet seen V izn er’s explorations o f pure
form included w ith in the M in im alist can-
on? Both cubes o f 1962 descend from Bau-
haus and C on stru ctivist sources. A lthough
Below and top right, at
Corning:
R ed B o w l
w ith B o rd e r
and
B o w l,
both 1994, cast, cut,
sandblasted, acid-
etched, polished glass;
Vase w ith T w o H ollow s,
1987, cast, cut, drilled,
sandblasted, acid-
etched glass {h.
jV *
in,
w. 63/iin,d.3 in).
Right, middle to bot-
tom, at Friedman:
T M o w Square B o w l,
T M o w Vase w ith T w o
H ollow s, T e llo w Vase
w ith T w o H ollow s,
all
2008, cut, sandblasted,
polished glass {square
bowl, h. 4% in, w. 9%
in, d. 9
-V
i:
in}.
both are hollow , only one has an opening at
the top; one is steel and the other glass.
O ne is small and can be handheld; the oth-
er requires a fo rk lift to m ove. O ne w as
m eant for use, the other not. O ne sits d i-
rectly on the ground or floor; the other is
for the tabletop.
It m ight be startling to exhibit one o f
V izn e r’s nonutilitarian “ b ow ls” next
to
Die
or, let’s say, a L arry Bell glass cube,
but it would be like insisting that cinq
means the sam e as sank sim ply because
they are sim ilarly pronounced, or that
there is a pressing need to choose betw een
m ountains and lakes.
It is only because so much glass art to-
day is ornate and badly com posed that
V izn e r’s vision may com e across as severe
and anti-glass. Reason seems to triumph
over em otion. G rin ding and polishing
trum ps heart. C old-w orking w ins out over
heat. But glass itself is his subject, and the
results are sublime. +
