Hello,
So just to jump into the fire once again, I want to add some
definitions of art, appearing on various sites on the internet (and,
no, I don’t believe everything I find on the internet) and edited
here by me, 'causeit’s easier for me to bounce my ideas off someone
else’s:
-
The expression or application of human creative skill and
imagination, typically in a visual form. producing works to be
appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
-
The various branches of creative activity, such as painting,
music, literature, and dance [and I would add textiles, jewelry,
ceramics, theatre, cinema, architecture, etc.].
-
The quality, production, expression, or realm, according to
aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more
than ordinary significance.
-
Any field using the skills or techniques of art…
The above really cover it for me. As Andy has said about his own
work, and I would echo, in paraphrase, about mine, my work sometimes
achieves a character that would fit the above descriptions of art.
Sometimes, to paraphrase Sigmund F., a ring is just a ring! But
other times, the jewel achieves "more than ordinary significance"
and I have in that case, through skill application and the luck of
the goddesses, “produced work. of emotional power” and hopefully,
you all have, too.
We are not just talking in this thread about the art jewelry being
made today, we are also talking about jewelry that can be defined as
art object, a much broader subject. And, as I said above, sometimes
as jewelers we get to make work that is adornment and something just
a bit more than adornment. That is not to imply that adornment by
itself is less important. it’s just sometimes a piece becomes
powerful beyond ordinary significance.
Nothing ‘wrong’ with adornment. we love dress-up, we love to see our
collectors wear our work, some of us love to wear our own work, too.
I would guess, though, that when we, each of us, make that special
piece, it is incredibly rewarding and satisfying to us personally,
and that piece is what I’m talkin’ about here. the art object that
elevates our own estimation of what we are capable of. That’s the
art piece. that’s art jewelry.
If what many call art jewelry is objects that purport to be jewelry,
but are unwearable, they may still be considered art objects, but in
a different category. more like sculpture that looks like jewelry.
And what’s really wrong with that? It really doesn’t matter if they
are well-crafted, sloppy (as some have said), carelessly made, etc.
What matters is that the act of creating them is most important, to
the art-ist, and, pay attention to this please, most important to
the person who attends to and ends up owning the piece. It does not
harm us in any way, professionally or personally, for poorly
constructed work to be made. We do not have any wounds to lick,
because we have not been attacked by this work.
Well, perhaps it hurts our personal aesthetics, but really, it does
no serious harm. In our field, if a piece falls apart, no one is
damaged along with it (not like a bridge falling down). It’s not
even fraud, because a badly made piece is obvious from the first
moment of seeing it (I’m not talking about deliberately making a
piece whose only requirement is that it look good. like those gold
chains that are being made and sold that are so thin that you wink
at them and they disintegrate).
Jewelry that is not wearable is confusing, but that’s the worst of
which it can be accused. Personally, I prefer jewelry that is
jewelry, i. e. wearable, but that’s just my preference and at the
same time I am in awe of the expressive freedom in evidence in the
realm of art jewelry.
And, yes, in response to Renoir’s statement about art not needing an
explanation. there are many reasons why he might have said that,
including, but not limited to, perhaps his inability to articulate,
in any way but through painting, what his pieces are about. Or,
perhaps, he was simply unwilling to spend his time on that other art
form: writing.
Nothing wrong with that. that is I’m not implying anything about his
art, only his ability or willingness to describe or explain it.
There is absolutely no reason why explaining one’s work would
diminish the quality, power, beauty or purpose of an art object. And
who better to accomplish this explanation than the artist herself
(me, about my work. you about your work)? There’s no good reason not
to expand the understanding of why a piece is the way it is (how
made, why made, what it means to the artist), but writing a good
artist statement.
OK, now can we abandon this thread,
Linda Kaye-Moses