Posted 6 years ago
Bambus1920
(53 items)
Welz 'Maze' with decoupage (c. 1900-10), 27 cm tall, 7 cm wide at the base and 5 cm at the top. There is no pontil, just cold cut and nicely polished at the mouth. It has indentations on four sides and two handles and is surprisingly light for its size as the wall of the vase around the middle is quite thin. The decoupage strips come in light yellow, red and dark red/purple on a yellowish/orange ground; it has great iridescence.
This design was incorrectly attributed to Michel & Mayer by Helga Hilschenz in 'Das Glas des Jugendsils' (1973); thanks to the excellent work by Welzebub we now know better.
I would add that my wife hates it ! I say its a matter of taste...
I have lots of glass my wife hates. LOL But she understands why I have it..... :-)
Great vase, in a great shape.
magnificent the colouring texture form etc !!!!!!!!
thanks for sharing bambus
all the very best malkey
1412
Funny Bambus,
I acquired this vase out of curiosity, it was European and expensive for me to get, and yes, I hated it too. So I returned it.
I did not like the odd rough whitish spatter glass surface. I don't agree with the Welz attribution, but that is my opinion, as the decors which are supposed to be the same, were made at a very wide interval of 20 years or more.
This style is Art Nouveau and was produced in several colors, we only have one Welz mini vase geometric shape Art Deco shape to support an attribution.
Part of the process was the fact they both have these angular oxblood glass spatters. Again I don't think Welz solely owned that particular color or usage of it's chards. Documentation goes from unknown to circa 1880+ Michel & Mayer to Welz 1920+. Still think there is room for more research on this one. IMHO.
truthordare - all I know about Michel & Mayer (M&M) is that they were better known for glass light fittings than art glass vases. Of the few M&M pieces I have seen, all have a crackle surface produced by dousing in water before re-heating.
Thanks Bambus, I had never seen or felt this type of glass finish before. For me it ruined the effect of the iridescence surface and the deep amber glass color. You got a very good photography result with this vase, putting it in a semi lighted background.
I would be very careful to attribute to any artist these days unless clearly signed and or marked. This could have easily been a HomeGoods item and just because the supposed “expert” says so..seriously I am glad I am not in high school anymore.
I am with truthordare on this one because I think the point they were trying to make went out the window.
I think its worth pointing out that the handles are typical art nouveau in shape. For an ugly vase it has certainly stimulated a lot of healthy debate !
No, I am correct with the attribution, not because I have 11 years of studying it, but because 11 years of studying it has produced supportable results. I argue with you in particular, because I find you to be breathtakingly uninformed about my research; research that you choose to critique at any given opportunity, and have for many years now. It is very "Alfredoesque".
If I had a buck for every statement you made here and in other locations that was completely false, I would simply buy a boat, sail away, and be done with your ridiculous "crusade" against me and my research. But alas, I don't, and you will likely continue making unfounded, untrue, and blatantly foolish statements about Welz and me in this forum and elsewhere. It is just "what you do".
Truthordare says:
"In 2007 in Seattle, you were not even in possession of the pair of vases in this decor. Whatever you studied was based on the glass groups you belonged to, I don't even think that Welz entered the picture as such that early in your research, had to be when you were working on your website, with all the other Bohemian and Czech producers, and with the collectors who were helping you, The site was published in 2010. Up till then the maze decor was attributed to Kralik by Alfredo as many of the decors were. Facts are Facts."
"About 8 years ago, before I had even heard of Welz, I saw a very interesting vase in a shape that struck me as an Art Nouveau era piece of glass. A golden amber ground with patches of what appeared to be oxblood, and iridescent "patches" in it also. The iridescent patches reminded me mildly of the finish found on Knizek production… The body of the vase had a subtle surface texture which reminded me of a maze. The glass was unidentified, but I found it very fascinating and decided that it was a décor I would keep an eye out for; different example; different colors, and if possible at some point, an identification. Who knows why, but the décor fascinated me, and I saved some pics of it."
The key statement there is "Before I had even heard of Welz".
I find your preoccupation with my Welz research and me, combined with several years of your providing "uninformed critique" to be a little disturbing.
This decor was never attributed by Alfredo, although he did attribute some other similar surface decors to Kralik. Simply put, I was there. You were not.
I am done with your most recent folly. It is truly utter nonsense.
Super vase Bambus - not ugly to me.
Craig is the go to expert on Welz, he will only give an absolute attribution based on his extensive knowledge of Welz research. If he says it's Welz it's Welz.
Understanding just a little of the history of european art, particularly of Cubism, Early Geometric Abstraction, Futurism et al, one can see that they all have their roots in the early parts of the 20th century - pre WWI and therefore movements born in the Art Nouveau or Jugendstil period and are generally believed to be the precursers to the Art Deco movement, once the dust had settled after the Great War.
So let me just add; that because a vase is of a geometric shape, does not imply it was made between the wars and is therefore art deco. Can we really say that geometic shaped objet d'art did not exist in the art nouveau period or before?? - Well Lisa says so, so that makes it true - really?
That is so typical of the comments we see time and time and time again.
Thanks philmac51.
Having re-read Craig's article 'Welz Maze Decor Research' in light of comments above I find no reason to doubt his findings.
Phil makes a valid point, and the opposite is also true. We see certain styles of production, and assign a date range to the production based on our perception of the aesthetic. We do not really take into consideration that some styles may have been designed to appeal to a certain aesthetic..... The good old days, as we often say.....
The vase in the link below is one that people constantly sell as Victorian, Turn of the Century, etc. There is a large family of this style of production, and it is generally associated by many people to be turn of the century production 1890's to 1900's. If the style was produced in that time frame, then it was produced for a very extended period, in that the linked example below is marked Czechoslovakia with an acid stamp, and as a result would have been produced at the earliest, in 1919. It is for this reason that many of my Welz attributions have no date range assigned to them, unless I can find examples marked in such a way as to establish a timeline for the production.
Making assumptions of time frame based only on the style of a piece is a mistake, unless the production timeline is known. Those types of incorrect assumptions lead to incorrect generalities and mistakes...
http://www.kralik-glass.com/images/WelzTwistedPedestalVase.jpg
Lovely vase! Thanks welzebub for actual supported facts and useful information.