Consider the potential value of this record as it now stands: every slide ever submitted has been catalogued and is on file in the library of The Corning Museum of Glass. Seventeen years, with two different jurors each year, levels out the subjectivity the accumulation of all the slides submitted, not just those reproduced, makes it possible for any researcher to sit in judgment on the selections of any jury. But two factors counterbalance these flaws: time and growth. The selection is a relative and highly subjective process - relative to the particular submissions surveyed, and subjective because of the experience and personal preferences of the individual jurors. In short, the New Glass Review should be drawn from everybody who takes his or her work in glass seriously. Like a true pyramid, it is designed to last - and the more of the original structure that survives, the better. It is not an awards document it is a historical record of the art of glassmaking in our time. They see it as a sort of annual honor roll, which they either do not need or are too busy to think about. But most, I think, simply misunderstand what the Review is all about. There is, of course, an irritation factor for an artist who is not included after several tries, which probably accounts for some of the dropouts. I suspect that very few of those who do not keep us informed do so deliberately. On the other hand, those who consistently keep the Museum informed include Bertil Vallien and Ulrica Hydman-Vallien, Dan Dailey, Jiri Harcuba, Ursula Huth, Tom Patti, Marvin Lipofsky, Diana Hobson, Susan Stinsmuehlin-Amend, Paul Stankard, the Leperliers, and Dick Marquis, to name another random dozen. For example, we have not received slides from the Libenskys, Gretel or Erwin Eisch, Dale Chihuly, Howard Ben Tre, Lawrence or Simon Whistler, Kyohei Fujita, Ludwig Schaffrath, Robert Kehlmann, Ann Wolff, or Karl Schantz, to name but a dozen, for a long time. Almost half of the movers and shakers from previous years rarely, if ever, submit slides of their current work, even when that work is 'new' in every sense. Why? This phenomenon is evident in the New Glass Review. But others, no less vital or inspiring, remain and are as active as ever. 5 Jury Statements Does the point of an organizational pyramid lose its sharpness as the whole structure expands? It seems to me that some of the leaders at the top of any group drop out as the group gets larger - to the detriment of the whole.

My very own lith 0.28 cheat