Brent Kee Young

The Fossil Series pieces are made in two stages. The first is the layering of the glass, building up the thickness of the form. As the piece is layered, the imagery is placed in an interior part of the piece. The imagery is made in clear glass, generally lamp worked, as you see it, in positive. Each spine, gill plate, lobe or tail is made separately by hand. The images are then pushed into a softened interior surface so that when the next layer of clear glass is taken over it, the images disappear, leaving their impression. In reality the images remain, but since they are clear, you don't see them, you see through them to their impression. Once the interior surface is finished, including negative imagery, texture and other background structure, several layers of clear glass are gathered to build up the exterior thickness. Mr. Young is also the Professor of Glass and Chairman of the Glass Department at the Cleveland Institute of Art, Cleveland Ohio.

My work speaks of many things: of a respect and reverence for things natural; of ambiguity in space, form, volume and time; and of images that are there and not there. It speaks of the concept of evidence: man's marks, nature's marks – their relation together and apart. It speaks of a respect for tradition, form and craft, and the history of object making. The Fossil Series work exemplifies this. The important imagery, although evident in the form, does not exist visually. What does exist visually is the evidence of what has been. This ambiguity ... "What is important is not seemingly there"... appears in my work in varying degrees and at present seems to be the philosophical and visual thread that keeps the discussion vital. In the Dialogue Series castings, look for images that are positive on one side of the work and are viewed as negative on the other. The importance of my work is not for me to judge. My obligations, commitments, and indeed responsibilities lie in remaining true in thought and observation, and to try to manifest those concerns in my work.

My work speaks of many things: of a respect and reverence for things natural, of ambiguity in space, form, volume, time and images that are there and not there. It speaks of the concept of evidence: man’s marks, nature’s marks, their relation, together and apart. It speaks of a respect for tradition, form and craft, and the history of object making. Ambiguities, both objective and philosophical, are pointed out in a conversation I had early in my career with a neighbor. She had asked what I thought the differences and similarities were between the art of China and Japan. It was easy to point out the similarities, but I found myself at odds to point out many differences that were significant. I came away from the conversation feeling that I had inadequately answered the question posed. The question lingered in my mind for quite some time till I realized that the answer might lie in the philosophy of how an object or image is perceived. I don’t presume to be a critic of Oriental art but I answered the question like this. “In China, importance is placed on what you see; and in Japan, importance is placed on what you don’t see.” Whether or not the response is a correct one, it points out for me that , in my observation, there exists a similar perceptual importance that is ambiguous. The Fossil Series work exemplifies this. The important imagery, although evident in the form, does not exist visually. What does exist visually is the evidence of what has been. This ambiguity ... “What is important is not seemingly there”... appears in my work in varying degrees and at present seems to be the philosophical and visual thread that keeps the discussion vital. In the Dialogue Series castings, look for images that are positive on one side of the work and are viewed as negative on the other. The importance of my work is not for me to judge. My obligations, commitments, and indeed responsibilities lie in remaining true in thought and observation, and to try to manifest those concerns in my work.