Within the context of the present day, the process-oriented work in hot glass seems to lack acceptance as a true artistic medium.

As the encyclopaedia notes, aesthetic values in art change over time. Values are rejected, in protest against the Establishment and in an attempt to reach a newer, more up-to-date understanding. That’s the way it has always been – the way it must be…
At the same time, in our prosperous society the number of art historians and agents has exploded, and art analysis has become increasingly academic and philosophical. Today one might see an art show public pay more attention to the gallery blurb than to the work itself, and in some bare-bones cases, the blurb might actually be the work.
And I myself am a part of much of this!

And today, the age-old, outmoded and romantic idea of studio glass as a medium for artistic expression has grown moss – partly because the great stars of the past in this area have run roughshod over artistic concepts in the name of commercial success, and partly because the focus of contemporary art analysis is on the “word”. Added to this is the natural rejection of existing aesthetic conventions as a result of new developments.
A polarisation has arisen with studio glass. On the one hand are those who reject anything having to do with process-oriented work and who try to achieve artistic legitimacy by concentrating on the established language of art as expressed in sculpture, installation, etc. On the other hand are those who concentrate on pushing beyond the bounds of conventional craftsmanship in the name of purely aesthetic criteria, often without daring to infuse their works with the sharpness that could truly move barriers.

I see this polarisation as a misplaced focus on the context of the times – at its worst, a dishonest parrotry. An artistic statement cannot be inhibited by the fact that the world does not take the medium seriously. On the other hand, the process-oriented work can by virtue of respect and devotion to the material infuse a work with the physicality and poetry that modern art rejects, but which is a vital prerequisite for our mental survival.

One might of course ask if it makes any difference whether a work is regarded as art or craft, if the difference lies merely in the spirit with which it was created – a spirit which, by its very nature, is indifferent. But to me it does make a difference!
Knud Petersen wrote in his essay collection Mephistopheles (in which he, among other things speaks of Don Quixote and Jesus) something along the lines of the following: “Good can never win over evil. But if there were no fools/idealists who in spite of everything try for the good, the world would not be worth living in.”
For me, the ideal is to be like that fool!