Sklo Union: Some Views

Fig. 9.
"Osaka" vase, designed by Rudolf Jurnikl for zavod
Libochovice, Sklo Union. 1969. Pattern number 3403/230. Exhibited
Gottwaldov/Zlin in 1972, catalogue number 204.

The glass designs of the early 1970’s were almost as irreconcilable, as Husak and Havel. This was a period of depression, following so closely after the heavy-handed suppression of the Prague Spring uprising, in 1968, by military forces from the Warsaw Pact countries. Just as many Czechs and Slovaks felt the need for introspection, arguably Sklo Union designs may be defined using the Czech phrase "jistoty a hledání", certainty and searching, a dichotomy of confidence and paranoia.

One can see the certainty, in bold, confident optic pieces, such as Jurnikl’s "Osaka" vase, Fig 9, or Šotola’s series of ripple-walled vases. At the same time, fear/paranoia in those designs which became unambiguously surface-decorated, unchallenging, safe. There may well be other explanations than the political climate. Yet how else is it possible to reconcile designs, such as Matura’s supremely bold and elegant "Head" vases of 1972, with arguably poor, surface decorated vases for Rosice? The archetypal modernist designer producing designs of little grace.

Sklo Union advertisement for a range of vases by Adolf Matura, for zavod Rosice, 1975. Advert appeared in August 1975. Note that drawings in the Corning Museum of Glass’ Collection of 20th Century Czech Glass Drawings includes catalogue numbers SF2105, 2106, 2107 "Vase engraved decoration" which appear to have been used on this range as surface patterning.

Or Rudolf Jurnikl, whose "Iceberg" vase range, see Sklo Union advertisement is simply executed, and beautiful, but who produced designs for one of the most twee, florally decorated pieces, pattern no. 1619/M, for Rosice, in 1973/4? See image. (Note: One emerging explanation may be that Jurnikl had been asked to design new items to be added to a range known to have been produced in the late 1930’s and 1940’s.) Does this indicate to some degree, how the designers themselves viewed their conditions? Were there other factors? Was there a change in the selection for production process? Why did seemingly very crude, un-refined, designs, get to the production stage, some of which came from Pavel Pánek, during the early 1970’s. Examples are his lumpy, graceless vase, production no.3469, for Libochovice in 1974, and the equally ugly vase and bowl (nos 2301 and 2305), for Rosice glassworks.

It would be wrong to search for a political motive, as though the less than beautiful were some kind of political protest. Even the graceless may well have been products of a period of experimentation with, and the installation of, new technology, as both Matura and Pánek's vases are not manually pressed. (More accurately, during the mid-1960’s and early 1970’s, the Czechoslovakian glass industry underwent a period of renewal and re-equipment, with new factories built to replace out-dated units, the introduction of ring-less moulds, centrifugal casting, the exploration of blow-moulding technology for other than container and packaging use, and a gradual move away from hand-pressing, to both semi- and fully automatic production lines. Some of these technologies had been around for some decades, for example centrifugal casting, but were not introduced into what was a labour-intensive industry, until market pressure, and the continuing need to earn “hard” currency from exports, dictated the necessity for change. These changes meant that in some cases, no designs by certain artists were hand pressed, for example Miroslav Janků at Rosice. However, certain technologies were never put into main-stream use at Sklo Union, and much of the further exploration of centrifugal casting, for example, took place within the Crystalex production units.

Yet by 1977, the apparent aberrations were a thing of the past, as illustrated in Pavel Hlava’s essay, "Rucní a strojní výroba užitkového skla v CSR" (Hand and Machine worked Utility glass of the Czech Socialist Republic) 1980, showing Matura's last works again in modernist manner. Pánek, along with Šotola and Zajic, had started to produce, some very challenging glass, patterns such as “Spirála” and "Juta" (Pánek), "Dandelion" and "Rose" (Zajic), which tended to free-form, breaking away from the tyranny of the circle, whilst Šotola explored asymmetrical "hob-nailing", both as individual pieces and a table-service (1978). To join these innovative designers, came the successor to František Pečeny (who had died in 1977), Miroslav Kubinec, who became principal in-house designer at Heřmanova Hut’.

Since the early 1990’s, there has been a view, particularly set out by Professor Jan Michl, that:

"There is hardly any doubt about it: industrial design definitely did not belong to the success stories of any of the fully Socialist economies." If Prof. Michl’s sweeping generalisation, includes the arena of Czechoslovakian glass, and in particular pressed glass from Sklo Union, then I remain to be convinced. Yes, the glass was created, during a period of Communist control. That, in itself, does not imply poor quality design, rather, that an ideological emphasis on "design for the masses", was a guiding rule. There has also been some major criticism of ÚBOK, for its failure to get factories to produce designs, and a general feeling that the works themselves were slow to take up the designs, almost a reproach of conservative behaviour. However, this is something that is not the sole preserve of nationalised industries under communism.

The sheer volume of Sklo Union glass designs, for the most part of high design quality, challenging, exploring the limits of what could be produced using manual pressing techniques, and other methods, has left a rich inheritance. Until all that body of work has been properly recorded, it will be difficult to come to a truly informed consideration. On the basis of those pieces I am familiar with, denigration of the design value of that body of work, is pre-mature.

1970’s Sklo Union Trade Advertisements

Click on images for larger view.

Ad. 1. Sklo Union 1973 advertisement, Jiři Brabec.	Ad. 2. Sklo Union 1974 advertisement, Václav Hanuš.	Ad. 3. Sklo Union 1972 advertisement, Pavel Pánek.	Ad. 4. Sklo Union 1973 advertisement, František Pečeny. Vase, pattern 20211.
Ad. 5. Sklo Union 1975 advertisement Václav Zajic.	Ad. 6. 1974 CGR Magazine rear cover Adolf Matura, "Head" vase.	Ad. 7. Sklo Union 1975 advertisement Adolf Matura.	Ad. 8. Sklo Union 1974 advertisement Rudolf Jurnikl.
Ad. 9. 1963 vase by Rudolf Jurnikl, for Rudolfova Hut. Pattern number 13142/200	Ad. 10. Catalogue page from 1970. Vladislav Urban, Rudolf Jurnikl, Adolf Matura and František Vizner. Image courtesy of Mark Hill.	Ad.11. Catalogue page from 1973, Vladislav Urban. Image courtesy of Mark Hill.	Ad.12. Catalogue page from 1975, Urban. Image courtesy of Mark Hill.

Where does this construct, not work? The major limitation is the periods of change. Some glass-works experienced nationalisation, and then at least four and possibly five major re-organisations between 1945 and 1980. Thus Josef Inwald was nationalised in 1946, becoming Sklárny Inwald n.p, until 1958, when VHJ obalobané a lisované sklo was formed, (and the Inwald name disappeared but only after the Brussels Expo ’58) then unified within Sklo Union Teplice, in 1965, which itself was further re-organised in the mid 1970’s. If one were examining solely Vizner’s designs for Sklo Union, then possibly you might be restricted to a few designs, in 1965-67, and couple of later designs from 1971, rather than some of his more well-known designs.

Designers

Sklo Union Teplice - Ashtray

Fig. 10. This ashtray became a Sklo Union Teplice item, by default. On the basis of a contemporary Czechoslovakian source, which identifies this ashtray as a Jurnikl design, dating to 1962, for Moravske Kyjov’s Nemšova zavod being transferred to Rosice zavod later in the 1960’s or early 1970’s.

As the source also shows an image of this ashtray, there is no confusion over its origin.

Of the designers listed above, most played an important part in the success of Sklo Union’s production. As noted above, though Vizner is probably the best known, mostly on the basis of his fine art glass production, and his work for the Škrdlovice factory (Beranek Glass) whose blanks were the basis of his later work, arguably, in terms of both numbers of designs, and possibly the finest comprehension of pressed-glass technology, Rudolf Jurnikl’s importance should not be under-estimated. Rudolf Jurnikl appears to have been principally a key member of the design group within the Centre for Pressed Glass Design and Technology and in effect, an in-house designer for Sklo Union, from 1958. Little is known of his earliest work, and what are currently his earliest identified pieces date to around 1961 and 1962, such as the ashtray in Figure 10. This was designed for the Moravske Kyjov n.p.’s Nemšova factory, the moulds being transferred to Rosice about 1965. To date, only three confirmed designs by Jurnikl for Heřmanova Hut’ exist. The earliest Rudolfova Hut pieces by Jurnikl appear to date to 1963, as one vase at least was already been in production in 1963, which was featured in a British American Glass Ltd advert early in 1964, and recent reading shows line drawings of a vase produced at Rudolfova Hut in 1961. The line drawing has been confirmed from a photograph in another published source: this is possibly the first documented vase Jurnikl designed, and dates to 1960.

What has become known as the "hob-nail" vase range, were issued in 1964, but may possibly be confused with the work of Jan Schmid, who also worked at Teplice, (whilst a sixth year student of Libensky), with hob-nail decoration. Other patterns followed, but the important ones were "Osaka", 1969, (also known as the "Lens" range), "Lotus" 1970, and the "Iceberg" range, 1974. It is an indicator of just how important Rudolf Jurnikl's contribution to pressed glass was, from examination of that 1972 České Lisováne Sklo exhibition catalogue. Only one designer had more pieces exhibited, (Adolf Matura), and fifteen of those were from one range. Jurnikl had twenty-five pieces exhibited, with never more than four items from any one range.

It is quite clear that Jurnikl’s designs ranged from organic, through optics to an arguably stripped classical style. That he was able to do this, without losing something in the translation from paper to realised product, is a testament to his unsurpassed comprehension of, and familiarity with, the techniques and processes of pressed glass production.

Fig. 11. Jurnikl "Hob-nail" vase. An example of a Rudolf Jurnikl vase, pattern/item number 13236, produced by Rudolfova Hut, Sklo Union Teplice from 1964.

Fig. 12. "Candle-wax" vase by Pečeny, pattern number 20245, Heřmanova Hut'.

As noted above František Pečeny started his career at Heřmanova Hut’, in 1946/7, with his first design being a table-ware service "Halifax". He appears to have worked mainly for that factory, (though at least three pieces are known to have been designed for Libochovice,) and his career at Heřmanova Hut’ lasted more than thirty years. Apart from "Halifax" and the compote set (see Fig. 3.) the designs continued apace with the "Leaf" table service of 1967, a unified range of vases and table-ware with a striking candle wax-type finish (see Fig. 12), a range of "prunt and prism" decorated vases, (see Ad.4) and the so-called "Dragon’s Head" vase,
often with several new designs appearing in some years (twelve further new pattern numbers emerged in 1968 alone). There are currently at least 90 known pattern numbers, for designs by Pečeny for Heřmanova Hut’.

František Vizner started work at the Centre of Pressed Glass Design and Technology at Teplice, (T-VS, then VÚSU) whilst still a student at VSUP, (collaboration between industry and the Academy was a normal part of coursework), and his graduation pieces were made at the Heřmanova Hut’ factory. He became a permanent member of staff upon qualification in 1962. For this reason, there is an overlap of dates for certain items, and an element of confusion. His graduation pieces included two flat-based vases, with rounded shoulders. Certainly vase number 20047 (see Fig. 17.) seems to remain one of the earliest pieces, and probably his first design for Heřmanova Hut’, but certain sources give a date for Vizner’s "eye-bath" jardiniere, of 1961. See image. This was rapidly followed by a blocky jardiniere for Rudolfova Hut’ in 1962, (product number 13163, which was produced in three different finishes) the same year as he graduated. (see Fig. 13.)

There were at least two new vases the following year (for one of which, pattern number 13139/210, see Fig. 14). 1964 saw the introduction of the flanged vase, which was made at the Rosice glass-works (see Fig. 6 above) and a range of covered storage jars with complimentary vase (see Fig. 15). 1965 was a highly productive year, with at least 4 individual vases going into production a range of vases and bowls ("Lens" series, see Fig. 17) and another range which included candlesticks and ashtray (see Fig. 18). He appears to have produced between three and five designs which went into production in 1966, but left Sklo Union to become a designer at the Skrdlovice factory in 1967. There is a record of two later vases by Vizner dating to 1971, and these were probably free-lance submissions to Libochovice.

Fig. 13. František Vizner, Block jardiniere 13163. Gottwaldov catalogue number 295. Illustration 71.

Click image for larger version.

Fig. 14. František Vizner, 1963. Pattern number 13139/210 Heřmanova Hut’. Exhibited Gottwaldov (Zlin) 1972, catalogue number 293. Documented in Warmus, W. Vizner: Sklo/Glass 1951-2001 II-10

Click image for larger version.

Fig. 15. František Vizner, dating to 1964. Heřmanova Hut’.

Click image for larger version.

Identification & Colour

See separate page: Identification and Colour here.

See separate page: Attributable designs here.

Epilogue

What of those pieces, whose origins remain unclear? I have been giving this some serious thought. True, some may be pre-war, or indeed war-time launches of designs, which were not well-covered, or advertised, due to hostilities. Examples of these are "Breitecken", "Doris", "Olympia" and "Teplitz" (all table-ware patterns). I have been looking for possible reasons for the almost hang-over of design ideas. The answer may well lie in the period 1945—1960. As noted above, the Centre for the Technology and Design of Pressed Glass, still had as one of its designers, Rudolf Schrötter, who had been designing since the 1920’s for Josef Inwald’s Rudolfova hut’. Thus he was still working, and I would tentatively suggest, the use of many of the motifs of this later glass, can be seen in designs of the Inwald factories of an earlier period. It has emerged in the last few days, that certain ranges, launched before WWII, had supplementary pieces added, extending the ranges at a much later date. This is certainly true of Rudolf Schrotter’s "Pollax" range (with additions designed by Adolf Matura) and Rudolf Jurnikl also is known to have added designs, to be made at Rosice, whilst the original items for that range continued to be made at Rudolfova Hut’.

It is also true that certain designers had almost "hallmark" motifs which may be of use in possible attribution, but this is to introduce the risk of error. Sometimes we lose sight of the fact that many of these designers had careers, (which, in these modern times, may be difficult to comprehend) where they may have worked for the same factory for their entire creative/working life. This in itself may be a possible indication of continuity, and why it can be extremely difficult to say that a design dates to one period or another. More than 600 pattern numbers have been traced, with 250 coming from six designers. I remain optimistic that many of these un-attributed pieces will be identified. This remains a huge task, however, given that Pavel Pánek, during his 24 years as a designer with Sklo Union (in its various guises), had some 400 of his designs put into production.

It is also the case, that many of these un-attributed designs may have no connection with Sklo Union whatsoever. Recent developments suggest that glassworks in both Poland, and the former East Germany (DDR) made glass of similar design quality, often fire-polished, with polished feet, and in a range of very similar colours. Many of these designs remained in production for long periods, and like much of the Czechoslovakian glass, it was widely exported, in order to earn “hard” currency.

I will make these last observations. What should be considered was that two of the factories were principally involved in the manufacture of glass for the licensed trade, Rosice and Libochovice, (as was Heřmanova Hut’ after the installation of automatic production lines) and thus, as with the other factories, many production runs had both longevity, and high volumes. ("Perforal" for example, is still being produced today, a nearly 60-year run). Also, there is evidence that some moulds were moved to different factories, after 1993, which have been used in production since then. Certainly this is the case with "Perforal" and certain pieces of Matura’s "Praha" table-ware service. However, It should be noted that this appears to have been common practice, throughout the period of communist control. Hence items from the “Lord” range, originally made at Rudolfova Hut’ in the 1920’s were being made by Rosice in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s. (This can cause inherent difficulties, when a particular pattern has two differing pattern numbers). Two-thirds of ALL Czechoslovakian glass production was exported to Comecon countries, South America, the Indian subcontinent and China. So it might be rather more common than you think.

Following the "Velvet Revolution" of 1989, the member factories of Sklo Union were re-privatised. Rudolfova Hut’ became a part of Avirunion, an affiliate of Owens-Illinois, and all manually pressed production of domestic glass-ware ceased on the 31st of December, 1996, as the company concentrated on bottle and container manufacture. Rosice left the Sklo Union umbrella, and was retained by Crystalex, to provide Crystalex with some licensed trade/pressed glass capacity. Libochovice was privatised, and became Sklářská Hut’ Libochovice, (SHL) using the brand-name Libs on product labels. Heřmanova Hut became Sklárna Heřmanova Hut’(SHH). As both Rosice and Heřmanova Hut also ceased hand-made production in the late 1990’s, more than 75% of the country’s hand-pressed production capacity had disappeared. Additionally the closure of SHL Libochovice in 2006 means that other than Jablonec-based companies, no hand-pressed glass is now made in the Czech Republic

The name of Sklo Union Teplice, was used as a corporate buccaneering vehicle during Czechoslovakian privatisation, and is now often associated with the allegedly dubious business activities of that period, rather than being remembered as the quality glass manufacturing company it once was.

I hope this has been helpful, Marcus Newhall.

Please note: This is an ever-advancing area of research, and this document is subject to constant revision, as new material becomes available. Any errors of translation from original Czech, German and French sources are mine.

Texts:

Lamarová, M. "Modern Design in the Home", Artia Prague 1965.
Raban J. (ed) "Modern Bohemian Glass", Artia Prague 1963.
Novy Petr "Lisováne Sklo a Krystalerie v Jizerskych Horách", MSB Jablonec, 2001.
Šindelář, Dušan "Estetika Sklárske Tvorby", SPN Prague 1974. Particularly Chapter 4 on pressed glass.
Ricke, Helmut (ed) "Czech Glass 1945-1980: Design in an Age of Adversity", Arnoldsche 2005.

Articles:

Stopfer, E. "Tschechoslowakishes Designer-Pressglas der 1960-er und 1970-er Jahre aus dem Konzernsunternehmen "Sklo Union"", PK2004-1 seite 89-99.
Anon. "The Best Pressed Glass Products in 1974" CGR Vol 30, 6-75, pages 7-10.
Hlava,P. "Rucní a strojní výroba užitkového skla v ČSR" Umění a Řemesla, 1/80, pp13-18.
Simonikova,J."Cesky Fuctionalismus", Umění a Řemesla, 1/79, pp37-43.

Catalogues:

Adlerová/Šindelár "České Lisováne Sklo", Gottwaldov (Zlin) 1972.
Adlerová/Šindelár "Pressglas aus der ČSSR", Leipzig 1973.
Danielis, Jan. "I. Mezinárodni Vystava Skla a Porcelánu" Jablonec 1973
Masin, Jiri. "František Zemek", NCMVU Praha 1963.
Palata, Oldřich. "Václav Hanuš: Sklo 1954-94". SM, Liberec 1994
Šotola, Vratislav. "Pavel Panék". RMT, Teplice 1995 (Includes Alena Adlerová's essay on Panék from 1983)

Other resources:

CGR - Glass Review: Czechoslovak Glass and Ceramics Magazine, Rapid, Prague. English, French, German and Czech language versions. Editors were Glassexport, no longer in print. Images used for educational purposes, in the event of a copyright infringement please contact the webmaster or author.
www.glassrevue.com
www.design.cz
www.pressglas-korrespondenz.de

I would like to make known my heart-felt thanks, to the following friends, for their help and assistance in setting up these pages: Frank Andrews, who has worked so hard on these pages, Anne Nichols, without whom, the images would not have been so easy to store. Ivo Haanstra, Terry Norwood, Tigerchips, Steven Bateman and Mark Hill for making images available. Siegmar Geiselberger (who leads by example) and Eduard Stopfer for checking the list of attributable glass, which has expanded greatly through a mutual exchange of research materials. Peter Morris, for his donation of two pieces of glass for plunger comparisons.

To Petr Novy, Děkuju vám pro váše pomoc, for his copyright advice. Likewise, my warmest thanks go to Eva Pánková, Curator of the Glass Collection, Regionalni Muzeum, Teplice, for the contribution of catalogue photocopies and catalogue, and to Oldřich Palata, Curator for the Applied Arts, at the Severočeské Muzeum, Liberec, for his generous gift of exhibition catalogues.

I would also like to acknowledge the assistance afforded me in 1998, by two organisations, whilst studying for my post-graduate diploma. Manchester Metropolitan University for a grant to cover language training in the Czech Republic, and The Glass Association, whose grant allowed me to carry out research in the Czech Republic, but sadly, for whom I was unable to complete a paper, due to ill-health. Dilwyn Hier and the committee, thank you, your contribution has not been forgotten.

I would like to give special thanks to my wife Hilary, and daughter Michaela, without whom, none this could have been achieved, and whose forbearance and understanding of my pre-occupation, makes me feel very humble.

If anyone requires further information, please flag up your interest. Angela Bowey’s Glass Message Board members know me well, with regard to my views on valuations. Please do not post requesting a valuation, the appropriate place to find this information is the market, be that eBay, auction house or dealer.

Article copyright and intellectual property rights, will be vigorously defended by the author, Marcus Newhall.