You have quite thoroughly put most of those on this list, and in
the world as a whole, down as being ignorant and incapable of
appreciating fine smithing.
You know, you are quite right. There are very few who truly
understand what fine goldsmithing is. But that is true of most things
as well. Let my give you few examples. To make eternity ring, like on
my dvd, takes 40 to 50 hours. If you subscribe to Gems and Gemology,
I think in 2003, or 2004 there was an article describing Van Cleef
making a necklace with Peridots. It took 6 months and the whole shop
was involved. I worked once on Paloma Picasso design, which was a
team effort. Shop foreman was working on the clasp, which took him 9
months to complete. That is what fine smithing is, and that is what I
like to do.
Yes, it is true that most people cannot afford it, but so what. How
many can afford to buy original paintings, or custom made cars?
Goldsmithing only developed to the level it is now, due to very few
rich patrons. That is not news. Read the history of House of Cartier.
He was nothing until he secured patronage of Royal Court. Faberge
production was crap, cheap trinkets. It is only when he worked for
Czar family, he was creating masterpieces. Bulgari was put on the map
by Hollywood, so is Harry Winston. None of these jewelers would ever
existed if not the rich.
Copper has not only been used for fine quality work throughout
history, it's actually fun to work with for some of us.
I think, I know copper pretty well. I started in this business by
doing repousse, and I did a lot of it, so I am ultimately acquainted
with this metal. To say fine quality work is to say nothing. We are
talking about jewellery, and copper is not suitable for jewellery.
Whether it is my opinion or a fact could be a subject of discussion.
I will change my opinion when auction houses like Sothebys and
Christies start accepting copper jewellery for consignment, when I
see it on display in Cartier, and others. Until then, as far as I am
concern, it is a fact.
There are no absolutes in the world of art/design. Please consider
the idea that yours is not the only valid opinion,
That is another interesting topic worthy of conversation. Right now I
am in the finishing stages of my next DVD. No release date yet.
Sometime finishing can take a while. When I produce DVD, I like to
use a quote of famous person, which reflect the main idea of the
topic, to set the mood so to speak. For this one I picked a quote
from Oscar Wilde, which happened to be on point:
"Bad artists always admire each other's work. They call it being
large-minded and free from prejudice. But a truly great artist
cannot conceive of life being shown, or beauty fashioned, under
any conditions other than those he has selected."
You see, Art is always absolute. It cannot be any other way. The
process of creation is such that very many things get rejected and
only very few are selected for final version, that expresses the idea
the best. It is that selectivity and absence of compromise that make
Art what it is.
Professional title is chosen to fit the job and the clients
expectations and wants. Gold, silver, dead trees, holes in the ground,
just about anything if quasi legal. Skill sets vary from decades of
practice and fancy tools to just a shovel. All approached with the
same attitude, the best I can do. A good thing no one has asked for
fine jewellery made from frozen cow patties, I do have my limits
Who needs a pretty good goldsmith to dig drainage ditches or do
renovation work ?? I don’t care what they call me as long as they pay,
and call me back for the next job.
I think Leonid is trying to make a point that I’m not sure we’re
seeing.
Simply this: The price of gold we had enjoyed for more than a decade
is an anomaly in the scheme of things.
The current price has now become unaffordable relative to the
spending power of the average jeweler.
Historically, the wearing of gold and rare gems has been reserved
either for the captains (of industry) or the kings (aristocrats) and
the top end jewelers (goldsmiths) focus on that market only.
The rest of us are at best fashion jewelers in comparison, creating
work for either the working class, the middle class, or the noveu
riche.
I try to stay out of all the pointless debate and irrational
maundering as to who has the true insight and superior appreciation
sufficient to make statements as to what “true” art is, how it
differs from bad art and how it is made. You, Mr. Surpin, make some
beautiful jewelry. I admire it. I do not, however, admire your
parochial attitude toward opinions that differ from your own. Your
skill and experienced bench techniques cede you the ability to craft
excellent things. It does not cede you the ability nor right to
dictate the nature of beauty, the quality of art nor the propriety
of methods. From your statements it seems that your palette of
materials, limited to those of the highest monetary value, allows
you believe that your works are superior. This is fallacious. Using
gold simply means that your works are more expensive. Expense is
only indirectly related to quality.
It is my firm opinion (yes, opinion) that the excellence of your
work is more closely related to design and execution. I would think
you should be offended if someone stated that the reason they like
your jewelry is because it is gold and not “just silver”. Would you,
personally be able to make a beautiful object from bronze? I realize
that your major objective is centered on sales, and correctly so.
Still, relative to the current discussion, I feel that the question
has legitimacy. From what you have already written, I predict your
answer might be no because the material is too common.
A sad thing if true. Further, though I concede the durability of
gold alloys, your opinion that objects of copper, bronze and brass
are ephemeral is ludicrous. As others have suggested, check it out
in a museum or some such
One of your statements in the last post I read was, to me,
chauvinistic and insulting. In essence you stated that only the
elite wealthy who shopped in the most expensive venues were equipped
to appreciate the golden treasures you routinely offer for sale. Why
is that. Is it because they are more educated (I doubt that), have
better taste or are more sensitive to the nuances of the reflective
spectrum of gold. I say “Bos!”
I have “worked” metal for the larger part of the last century. I
have used steel, brass, bronze, copper, aluminum, gold and silver.
When I choose (and I do mean choose) a metal for a project, I do so
because it has specific characteristics that I wish to exploit, not
because it is cheap or expensive. Cost factors are immaterial to my
concept of design. I suspect that, from your revealed point of view,
I would be a dilettante who skips around sipping from one concept
flower and then another. This may be true but I am also a deeply
trained experimentalist who enjoys trying new compositions, shapes
and designs. I further maintain that if your creations are better
than mine it will not be because I am unequipped to appreciate
"true" art or because I don’t really like gold. It will be because
you are a better technician and labor hard at the workbench. I have
no problem admitting that. I’ll make less money, but, I’ll bet I
have more fun (at my age that is important.
I apologize for getting on your case like this, but I have found
some of your statements in the recent past insulting to me and
others. I don’t debate evolution, politics or religion, because, I
find that the exercise is generally a waste of time. The people who
wish to debate it have such a vested interest in being “right” that
they are not open to counterarguments and are unlikely to change
their opinion. In the same fashion, I doubt that anything I have
just written will mitigate your sense of special enlightenment. You
will hear no more about this topic from this particular observer.
Historically, the wearing of gold and rare gems has been reserved
either for the captains (of industry) or the kings (aristocrats)
and the top end jewelers (goldsmiths) focus on that market only.
That is true, but amazing thing happened in 19th century. American
businessmen were trying to be accepted in European society. Since
they did not have required pedigree, the entry was gained by lavish
display of jewellery. That gave rise to the industry that we have
todays. This is somewhat simplistic, but in a nutshell is correct.
Since, I failed miserably to communicate on the subject, here is
another video.
Set in Style: Gallery Tour with Patrick Jouin
it is not a technique, but simply a description of exhibition, which
I did not see yet, but definitely will, before it ends. I think that
the guy conveys what jewellery is, quite well.
Hello everyone and thank you for this very interesting (if sometimes
heated) thread.
You might find it interesting to note that the Assay Office in the
UK some few years ago permitted the hallmarking of mixed metal
pieces. The precious metal parts are individually marked with their
fineness, and the base metal parts are marked ‘metal’. This seems to
me to be an acknowledgement that work incorporating mixed metals has
value both intrinsically for its precious metal content and
artistically. It also gets makers out of a potential prison term by
allowing them to describe the precious metal in a mixed piece as
being such rather than having to describe a costly material merely as
white or yellow metal. Page through any of the Lark 500 series of
books and you will see many mixed material pieces.
On the historic use of base metals as adornment, long before mankind
learnt to smelt and alloy metals, metals were, in some locations,
found in their ‘native’ state, ie as actual metal rather than ore
that requires smelting. We most commonly think of the gold nugget as
metal in its ‘native’ state being found and fashioned into jewellery.
To a lesser extent we think of silver. However copper is also found
in its native state and has been used to fashion jewellery. The only
example of which I have personal knowledge (I am sure plenty of you
can add to this) is a bracelet fashioned from native copper from the
’Early Woodland’ period (c. 800 BC) that was on display in the New
Jersey State Museum. The bracelet was stolen from the museum display
in the 70’s. Copper was widely used and traded throughout the north
eastern US during this period and clearly deemed a metal of
significant value.
He was also not well liked by most who met him, and it should be
noted that after a series of trials, Wilde was convicted of gross
indecency with other men and imprisoned for two years, held to hard
labor. He died destitute in Paris at the age of forty-six. Only his
frequently trite and self-centered quotes and his writing are really
remembered today.
Be careful whose opinions you hold dear, Leonid. Your words and
choices can easily be the difference between being personally
respected while you are alive, and it being only your work that is
valued when you are dead.
Even though I am but a modest silversmith, catering to the
affordable tastes of folks with non-Bulgari level incomes, I agree
with Leonid. The spur which drives great art, and the attendant
levels of craftmanship is money. Aristocratic, Oligarchic, snotty
elitist competition between the Haves to set themselves apart from
their mates by their excellent posessions is what has allowed and
facilitated artists of all sorts the breathing space to become
skilled and create wonderful works. Opera, sculpture, jewelry,
painting, architecture, etc.; none of merit would exist without the
patronage of wealth. The 20th century egalitarian impulse to
democratize the production and consumption of art just engenders
mediocrity. Lalique, Fabrerge, et al, would have ended up making key
fobs for Alabama car dealerships, or at best, crafting peculiar
pieces for the consideration of their MFA chums at rotating exhibits
at university art museums. When everyone is an artist, no one is an
artist. Give em hell Leonid!!!
It does not cede you the ability nor right to dictate the nature of
beauty, the quality of art nor the propriety of methods. From your
statements it seems that your palette of materials, limited to
those of the highest monetary value, allows you believe that your
works are superior. This is fallacious. Using gold simply means
that your works are more expensive. Expense is only indirectly
related to quality.
I do not dictate anything. I humbly express my opinions. Nobody has
to follow it, pay attention to is, and free to ignore it at will. You
correctly have correctly observed that my palette of materials used
for JEWELLERY, is limited to only precious metals, one of which is
gold. But you are making mistake associating preference for gold with
monetary value. Nothing would change if gold would become 1 dollar a
pound, or a million dollars a pound. One either uses gold, or one
does not make jewellery. Silver has some uses, as well as platinum,
but for general use it is only gold.
I guess I made a mistake in assuming that properties of gold so
obvious, that there was no need to mention it. So let’s go over it.
Gold alloys, especially 18k yellow, have incredible strength to size
ratio. Only platinum is better, but I not a fan of platinum color.
Gold allows to create incredibly intricate structures. Copper, used
in the same manner, would simply collapse.
Gold easily tolerates repeated soldering, which is impossible in any
other metal, except platinum. You complemented my work, and I thank
you for your generous estimate of my abilities. But, I would not be
able to do in copper what I can do in gold. So, if you like my work,
the huge credit goes to gold itself.
Gold has unique color, and that factor should not be over looked. Ask
yourself a simple question. Why all painting, framed in gold? Go to
museum, the curators know what they doing. You will not be able to
find a frame of any other color. Have you ever thought, what is the
reason ? We talking about community of people whose understanding and
appreciation of color is beyond reproach. The reason for doing this
is that surrounding painting with gold enhances color perception. No
other metal can compete with gold in this department.
If we understand that, what else can one use for making settings for
colored stone, where minute difference in color saturation translates
in huge boost to monetary value. A gold setting, which cost only a
few dollars, what ever the price of god is, double and sometime
triples the value of a gemstone.
You made a lot of points, I wish I could respond to them all, but it
will become a book, so we must abbreviate. I do need to address
another point about “ONLY RICH PEOPLE APPRECIATE FINE GOLDSMITHING”
I am sure that everybody like to see fine jewellery. But simply
expressing verbal admiration is not enough to sustain practice of
goldsmithing. For that to happen, someone has to open his/her wallet
and leave most of it content with me. Unless the appreciation takes
this particular form, nothing else is possible.
I apologize for getting on your case like this, but I have found
some of your statements in the recent past insulting to me and
others.
No need for apologies. This is a public forum and vigorous debate is
expected and very much welcomed, at least by myself. As far as
deeming something that was said “insulting”. Someone said that
insults cannot be given, they have to be taken. So if someone finds
my comments insulting, the real cause is not what was said, but how
it was perceived.
Be careful whose opinions you hold dear, Leonid. Your words and
choices can easily be the difference between being personally
respected while you are alive, and it being only your work that is
valued when you are dead.
I still remember Griboyedov from my school days. In his verse comedy
“Woe from Wit” he writes
Where are those fathers of the nation,
Who are good models for our generation
The ones that roll in looted money
With influential friends and relatives on hand
The ones that feast away their lives of honey
And dwell in houses, magnificent and grand
The houses in which the features of the past
Will never be revived by all this foreign caste.
The Moscow, they will keep your mouth shut
By sending you a dinner party invitation card.
If the price of not prostituting my principals, is been off some
invitation lists - I will gladly pay it.
No need for apologies. This is a public forum and vigorous debate
is expected and very much welcomed, at least by myself. As far as
deeming something that was said "insulting". Someone said that
insults cannot be given, they have to be taken. So if someone
finds my comments insulting, the real cause is not what was said,
but how it was perceived.
I like what Leonid says here.
I too am sometimes a bit disturbed by the sharpness with which
criticisms, verging upon insults, are thrown back and forth. Yet i
would not like to see debating points blunted just to appear polite.
If a point of view is held strongly then let it be expressed
strongly, and with wit, and with logic and facts. Sometimes it takes
a strong impact to get people to either consider one’s opinion or to
re-consider their own opinions. But as for being “insulted”, I like
very much what Leonid has said about insults being taken rather than
given. If someone in this sort of discussion directs a negative
criticism at me personally, at my integrity, I find that fairly easy
to dismiss and laugh off. First of all, a remark like that is already
off-topic. The discussion is not about me, it is about the physical
or esthetic qualities of the work. Second, it is obvious that a
person offering a personal “insult” has run out of real arguments or
Therefore, a fit response to an insult might be any or
all of the following; sympathy, gentle redirection back to the topic
under discussion or, finally plain old laughter. It is not worth
getting your guts in an uproar. Displays of offended outrage just
amplify what is, from the beginning, a wrong turn in the discourse.
I recall reading some of Freuchen’s accounts of Eskimo life years
ago. Their mechanism for dealing with social transgressions
involved, first and foremost, a great deal of laughter. Their society
was too small, too interdependent, for people to allow disagreements
to grow easily into strong hostility. No doubt that laughter might be
sarcastic and the wit might be cutting, but it is better than
escalation towards enmity. Our whole world is too small now for us
to go off in a huff at every possible affront to our dignity. We need
to have a better time while we’re here.
I do enjoy some of the more clever barbs flying back and forth here,
often over matters of mere differences in personal taste. I will
likely never buy any work like what Leonid makes. I probably can’t
afford it and, if I could, my values direct me to spend my
discretionary cash in other ways. Should the very wealthy find it
desirable to buy expensive masterpieces, I hope that Leonid, or
others who receive the contents of their wallets, use the money to
do some human good in the world. Huge clouds of excess personal
wealth hover above us like clouds full of blessed rain. It does very
little good up there. Let us use whatever talents, tricks, and taxes
we can to bring that rain down to Earth where it is needed for
hungry people, for safe and healthy children, and for beauty,
whatever it is made of; gold, copper, wood, papier mache, good food,
sweet music.
Marty - who goes out in his boats - which took a LOT of time, work,
skill, money, and fine material to build - and he sits out there on
the water wondering “Why did I do this?” and it always comes down to
the fact that people need to see what beauty we humans can make.
...amazing thing happened in 19th century. American businessmen
were trying to be accepted in European society. Since they did not
have required pedigree, the entry was gained by lavish display of
jewellery. That gave rise to the industry that we have todays. This
is somewhat simplistic, but in a nutshell is correct.
There is another factor here.
My late friend Eskil Lyons was a VP at a large NY wholesale Jewelry
firm back in the 60s and 70s. When I visited him in 1969, he noted
that one of the DRIVING forces of all the GOLD jewelry in the US was
that it was illegal for US citizens to own gold, but you could have
all the gold jewelry you wanted.
Thus as in medieval times precious metal and Gold specifically art
was a convenient way to store wealth.
But, I would not be able to do in copper what I can do in gold.
I haven’t (still don’t) want to get into this perennial, nonsensical
debate. There IS somethng that’s important to understand, all the
time.
That is that gold possesses unique qualities - no other metal has
the qualities of ductility, malleability and “nobility” - it’s
resistance to just about all oxidation in normal life. Factor in
it’s (also unique) color and you have the perfect storm.
Gold is not valuable because it’s valuable, it’s valuable because
it’s gold. Since the dawn of mankind people have sought it ~for the
reasons cited above~. The recent value of gold, using “the gold
standard”, making money out it, etc. is because gold became valuable
over many millenia, and it became valuable because of it’s unique
properties, not because somehow people just decided to make it so.
Mercury metal is the only one that’s liquid at room temperature - one
of it’s values. Uranium has it’s own properties, and gold has IT’S
properties. That’s the bottom of it - it has evolved into what it is
because of what it is.
Goldsmith does not sell metal, he/she sells craftsmanship. Metal
represents only a background for a display of goldsmith's skills,
and it must be expensive.
The subject of copper in the arts seems to revolve around two basic
questions; who am I, and what am I selling. There are many ways to
become a creator of fine things, the following ideas focus on just
two examples.
If you commit to a traditional, and classic apprentiship with a
master jeweler, and accept all of the rules, standards, and
principles that go with that commitment, then you begin to know who
you are. When you perfect what you have been taught, you have become
a new agent of excellence, status, and prestige. Your choice of
material would logically be a premium metal like gold, as something
which reflects the excellence that you create, and the prestige that
you sell.
The native people of the Pacific Northwest developed an art form
over 10,000 years; their culture was obsessed with status and
materialism. The Northwest natives used copper in their jewelry; it
was the premium material to them and brought maximum status to the
few that could afford it. The native artist tradition developed world
class design, and craftman skills; and taught strict rules, and
convention. When the Europeans came with gold and silver the native
artists switched to coin silver, and then gold. The elite native
artists knew who they were, and what they provided (or sold) to their
people, and when they found a superior material it was logical for
them to change.
God knows, modern western society is immensely complicated, and
people buy into many things other than the traditional, establishment
“gold standard” version of status and prestige. Once you decide who
you are, and what you are selling, then the material you work with
follows logically from those decisions, regardless of other opinions.
Wonderful post, thanks! I’m often surprised at the tone with which
people respond. As an amateur metalsmith, I have much to learn. Of
course part of that experience comes from forums like this, which
reminds me that the creative process is very personal. But we
shouldn’t take it personally!
Gold is not valuable because it's valuable, it's valuable because
it's gold.
So, if there was something better at being gold than gold was, we’d
all be gravitating toward it?
“Mithril! All folk desired it. It could be beaten like copper, and
polished like glass. and the Dwarves could make of it a metal, light
and yet harder than tempered steel. Its beauty was like to that of
common silver, but the beauty of mithril did not tarnish or grow
dim.” From “The Fellowship of the Ring”, by J.R.R. Tolkein.
