A new way to market jewelry

 Those who consider themselves "artists" tend NOT to work in
multiples or "lines". There have been far better responses on this
overall question than I could ever make but this particular comment
is a little weird given that there are many recognized big name
artists who did lithographs and other types of numbered multiple
reproductions and they were still considered artists.  I believe
someone named Picasso was among them. 

First, I was addressing what the person considers themselves, not
what others define them as. Second, you are quite right, and as a
printmaker myself I DO create multiples (editions) of some prints.
Third, there is a VAST difference between a “reproduction” and an
original print created in an edition. This is an example of my not
having the right words to adequately explain what I mean. When
Picasso, or Rembrandt, or any other artist, actually creates a print
themselves it is NOT a reproduction. A reproduction is something
that was originally created in some other state (usually but not
always a painting when talking about reproduction prints), that has
then been copied, usually photographically, and printed, usually
commercially. It is of no more inherent value than a magazine cover
or photo, the only real difference being the paper it is printed on.
An original print, on the other hand, has NEVER been a painting. It
was conceived and created on the metal plate, or stone, or screen, or
woodblock, etc., and printed. Sometimes by the artist themselves,
sometimes by a master printer (just as many famous stone statues were
conceived by the artist and carved by master carvers). The fact that
it may be “pulled” in an edition, or in a monoprint (one) doesn’t
change the fact that it is original, NOT a reproduction.

Which really comes back to what I was attempting to express. In my
experience, those people I know who consider themselves to be
“artists” are constantly creating new pieces, and expressing new
ideas, in whatever media they use. While sometimes these ideas may
come in editions, as in prints, quite often they don’t - do please
note in the original post I DID say “tend” not “always”!!! Whereas
those people I know who consider themselves to be “craftsmen” tend
(again, not always!) to produce multiples of the same thing. Go to
any craft fair and look at the potters - most will have a standard
shape and color scheme to their work, that they will have at this
show, and the next, and the next, and so on. They are NOT exploring
new ideas, they are producing the same idea over and over. SOME will
have some of this, or none of this, but pieces that may “grow” out of
each other, as the artist explores how they can mold/use the clay to
express their inner vision. This is true in woodworking, and I see
the same thing in jewelry. Some jewelry is a repition of things
already done, some is an entirely new direction, or a totally new
take on an old direction. When someone makes a piece and has it cast
in multiples, I put this in the same class as those who make a
painting and have it reproduced in prints. Only the first one was an
“original”. The rest are copies of that original. Please note this
is my opinion only!

Sorry if my words don’t adequately convey my meaning!

Beth in SC

  Those who consider themselves "artists" tend NOT to work in
multiples or "lines". 

What about bronze sculpture? One of the finest of fine arts. And
most artists, having developed a style, tend to work in that style
for a good while if not their entire career, very similar to a line
for a jeweler. A one of a kind that is well designed and fabricated
is superior to a sculpted/cast piece that is poorly thought out and
created. And vice versa.

IMHO
Debra
Gevant.com

Actually Ken, then you ARE an artist! If you study art history you
will find that most artists spend their lives attempting to express
an inner vision of some sort, and in doing so use numerous media.
They may become famous for only one, but that does not mean they only
USED one! And to be an artist you do NOT have to be at the Monet
level. You just have to have a vision and the urge to follow it (in
my humble opinion). Which is why not all artists are considered by
everyone to be “good” artists! I am better now than I was 20 years
ago, and hope in another 20 years I will be better yet! But I
certainly don’t expect to ever reach “master” status. The desire to
create my vision is really what led me to jewelry, as another media
that I can use to express myself, which permits me to create in ways
that my other media do not.

My family will tell you though that I am MUCH happier when I have
the time to create; and if Momma ain’t happy ain’t nobody happy!!
!

Beth

art is made only with the intention of inventing and creating, as in
the def.- to produce as a work of thought or imagination, bring
into being, etc. Critisism may be distressing at times, but it is
more appropriate than sentimental partisanship which applauds
everything it sees and is unjust in it’s failure to differentiate.
My acrimonious feelings on this topic are not aimed at all those in
the buisness that feel they must create or die poor. I blame it on
the rich(fashion industry) who serve the riche to keep the big bucks
coming in by overpricing what amounts to, findings with stones
thrown in, or visa versa, by using huge media advertising(mags) and
hallmark “names”(chanel etc.). I studied art history on my own(no
college art history), have met very few that have the grasp that i
have, but i do attribute much of my SIGHT to former masters that i
have studied with, and also draw my personal greatness and success
in my work(design and craftsmanship) from 35 years meditating on the
medium and emulating the ones i have mentioned, van gogh, chaim
soutine, victor horta, sullivan and elmslie, hector guimard,
gaudi, riemerschmid, galle, obrist, endell, shang and western chou
dynasties, fauvism, celtic works, hendrix, dylan, joplin
etcetcetc. Can i leave you with a line in a letter from vincent to
theo(with regards to portrait painting), " The question is whether
one starts from the soul or from the clothes, and whether the form
serves as a clothspeg for ribbons and bows, or if one considers the
form as the means of depicting impression and sentiment, or if one
models for the sake of modeling because it is so infinitely
beautiful in itself. Only the first is transitory, the latter two are both
high art . dp