[AStrangeMorrow]

I disagree quite a bit. For me the medium, the technique, the process is all part of the art. Yet I still think the end result is also critical. But coming up with create ways to produce art matters.

And I am confused about the “doing it any other way”? I don’t really see other ways to achieve the same result. Say painting and photography will both produce end results that are quite different. The skills are very different. The end material is also quite different. The same way stained glass is quite different from painting

[hresvelgr]

I might agree with you as a knee jerk, but I believe "the medium is the message"[1] and I don't think there's anything particularly meaningful or evocative about shattered glass as opposed to any other planar medium.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message

[jameshart]

There is no meaning in converting a conventionally destructive, random, chaotic act into a directed, aesthetic, meaningful one?

The fact he has a portrait of Kamala Harris called “glass ceiling breaker” and one of the victims of the Beirut explosion called #weareunbreakable suggests that you don’t need to dig particularly deep to find meaningful subtext in the choice of material and technique.

If anything it’s maybe a bit on-the-nose.

[lo_zamoyski]

> but I believe "the medium is the message"

> I don't think there's anything particularly meaningful or evocative about shattered glass as opposed to any other planar medium

These seem contradictory? If the medium is "uninteresting", then how it can be the focus of interest?