Thinking out loud.
Today we received two of the new 1000 Rings books. My friend Olga
and I scanned them a bit more than briefly.
There are some remarkable creations in this book, many of them Eye
Candy, but not wearable at all.
What is the criteria for calling it “Jewelry?” Am I naive in
believing it is created to be worn?
Should there be a definition of Jewelry submitted to competitions,
and/or publications? Should there be two separate categories,
wearable and visual or imaginative?
Some seem to be architectural marvels, others appear as able to do
bodily harm. I have known of several persons who refuse to enter
competitions due to unfair judging, I have noticed over two years of
competitions with different judges a vast difference in what scored.
I have a good friend who submitted an exquisite realistic wearable
piece indicating fine workmanship, selection and preparation of
stones and metals. We were both confident the piece would have
recognition. It was never even acknowledged.
When I saw the pieces that had won, few were wearable, the judges
were avant garde. Next year beautiful, imaginative and very wearable
jewelry prevailed, different judges.
Should this happen? Is it fair? Why has there not been a division
for fantasy and not wearable jewelry? Certainly that would give a
chance for all submissions, regardless of the bent of the judges.
Am I thinking with the wrong side of my brain? What am I missing
here? It is after midnight here now, I am tired, and I needed to ask
My hopes all in the storms paths come through this with minimal
damage and discomfort.