Mark
They can spend their whole careers just ordering stuff and putting it together, if they can't order it they just say it can't be done! I see this as a big problem. I can work to address it in my little world but what about everybody else?
There’s a phrase “think globally; act locally” You’re doing
everything possible. Each person you teach will make a difference in
the world.
KPK
i do not like to tell my secrets, because knowlege is not free and should be protected and respected. here in the USA it is not like europe and great brittain where they have a guild and apprentice system, that system protects the jewelers and the buyers. here in the USA any fool can sell jewelry or melt scrap into somthing that is called jewelry and never think twice about being held responsible.
Well said, but the solution of becoming super-secretive is not a
good one. If someone want to copy your technique or design, he will
always find the way to do it. If you show him the right way, at least
there is a chance that quality will be preserved. Otherwise, the
result will be something which looks like your work, but it may not
last or stones may fall out. So clients coming to your shop will
assume that your work is as shabby as they encountered before.
Teaching correct techniques protects reputation of everybody
involved in the trade. Very few outsiders have even a slightest idea
of what is involved in jewellery making so if one charges a $100 to
size a ring, client pays, but many walks away with the filling that
they been had. This is not a good way to develop client relations,
but
the fault is entirely ours. It is the tendency of jealously guarding
our “secrets” which ruins the business.
Leonid Surpin
Despite doing nearly everything the way I do it, they give me no credit. (Yes, those knife marks in my back are getting a touch old.) - Noel, I'm sure that wouldn't be the reason you were criticized for sharing. (I just needed to vent my frustration.)
I think this pretty well summarizes the problem here. We all favor
sharing and passing on techniques, and many of us do it directly by
teaching. Yet we are not happy if it appears that what we teach is
being passed on too directly.
If credit had been given, then it would be OK? I understand the
feeling. In the same issue as my bracelet article, a student of mine
wrote up a technique she learned in my class. She does it very
slightly differently. I was gratified that she thanked me (and
another teacher) at the end. But it wasn’t really necessary-- though
very nice of her. Ideas are like helium baloons-- once you let go of
them, you can’t tell them where to go.
I was critisized, in both cases, for things I did not actually do,
which even if accurate would have been a stretch to claim as any
kind of violation. But the times are tough, many of us feel our
livelihoods threatened, and that can make us territorial.
The answer would seem to be to teach things in a way that will not
be too much of a problem if someone (like Victoria’s student) picks
it up and passes it on directly. Most of the projects I teach are
ones that I do not market myself. (A project, by the way, is merely
a technique-- or several-- in a useful context.) No question, I
would object if I saw evidence of someone teaching that exact class
in an arena where I could be the one doing it, but otherwise, well,
as someone said, if you can’t accept that, don’t teach!
And by the way, of course, if any of you have teaching opportunities
to offer, I would be more than happy to furnish a list of class
descriptions-- off forum, of course! Have tools, will travel.
Noel
I'm not sure that "Let's copy this piece" actually qualifies as real teaching anyway, and if that's not being done, then why the question?
A reasonable question, though it may have been rhetorical. I asked
because I wanted reassurance that my reality-testing was working as
it should, and because I hoped (with justification, as it turns out)
to read some interesting responses.
I think the distinction between technique and design is an
interesting one, but I think it is a virtual impossibility to teach
technique without also teaching design. Both bear teaching, also.
See? Interesting.
Noel
I don't intend this to be insulting, they are just a product of their times (and of course this does not apply to everyone). They are very rarely forced to make the components they need to do the job, this is particularly true of goldsmiths in busy shops. They can spend their whole careers just ordering stuff and putting it together, if they can't order it they just say it can't be done!
No, Mark, this one’s on James…;}
I know a guy who described his store to me as a “Stuller Store”. He
does do special order, but he told me outright that he basically
orders from Stuller as though it were his own line, and that’s his
business. Quite a good business, I might add.
I want to echo the above sentiment as to this, the left side of this
thread. For myself, it’s not a matter of better or worse or right or
wrong - many people are happy doing whatever it is they do, and I am
one of them. Good for us. The discussion to me is more one of “how
high is high, and how far is far” for those who might aspire to grow
in the field. Are you as a teacher or the teacher you’re looking for
a “James Miller” - a Master Goldsmith which is defined as “one who
is qualified to train apprentices.” Or are they one who took a
setting class and bead set some cz’s in copper and then got a job
teaching it? As in every field there is preschool, grammar school,
high school, college - where do you fit in that, how far do you want
to go, and surely you understand that grammar school is not college?
Just as James calls himself a Master Goldsmith proudly and
rightfully, I can say I got my PhD long ago - the reason I say that
is because, Man it took a LOT of work and years and study… And
callouses and sawblades through the finger…It’s just interesting
to hear everybody, as usual…
I consider myself a pretty competent goldsmith.
Making a mirror set of earings is still not a fun job, reproducing a
lost left one I made years ago usually sends me whimpering into the
darkest corner of my studio.
The skill set required to make a copy of anything worthy of being
copied sort of precludes the need to copy. As to teaching a technique
learned in a class unless there is a confidentially agreement
involved it is fair game. Supplied class notes are excluded since
they really are copyrighted.
Most of everything I know about this trade was learned from others,
does all this mean I can’t teach a friend to size a ring or even
clean it ?
Off to the studio to design, copyright, and patent an un-cut able
ring for lawyers which shrinks 1/4 size a day. Maybe in a non sexist
mode a necklace too.
I live for what I do but there are days when I just snap. Rant off,
just gota go find my meds… 
Jeff
Demand Designs
Analog/Digital Modelling & Goldsmithing
http://www.gmavt.net/~jdemand
Teaching correct techniques protects reputation of everybody involved in the trade. Very few outsiders have even a slightest idea of what is involved in jewellery making so if one charges a $100 to size a ring, client pays, but many walks away with the filling that they been had. This is not a good way to develop client relations, but the fault is entirely ours. It is the tendency of jealously guarding our "secrets" which ruins the business.
Please understand I’m jumping into this interesting discussion with
a naive viewpoint, not 100% related to everything posted, but I could
not agree more with the above post. As a professional teacher I am
not threatened by sharing knowledge, but rather I am thrilled by it.
I agree that it has a value, and perhaps the knowledge should not
come cheaply or for free, but…is a simple technique, or “secret”
what distinguishes a master from another (rather than talent and hard
work and inspiration)? If so, then all masters of their craft should
prepare to be supplanted because what has been discovered once will
be discovered repeatedly. Better that we nurture, prepare and inform
so all who feel the need to create jewelry can do so with respect and
attention to detail (and fair dealing in business).
As a novice, I find it sort of silly to think my skills would
replace those of a highly skilled professional. Yet as a novice, I
also see a responsibility to acknowledge my level and charge
appropriately and steer potential clients to others if I think my
capabilities are exceeded.
Many other points have been made in this discussion, I’m only
speaking to the most general and I am humbled by the skill and
knowledge of the group. Back to lurk mode and best wishes.
I think the distinction between technique and design is an interesting one, but I think it is a virtual impossibility to teach technique without also teaching design.
Yes, Noel there is a way to teach technique without also teaching
design. I plan to include this method in my ‘ever going longer and
longer’ post on teaching and learning. I hope to conclude and post
soon.
KPK
Noel
but I think it is a virtual impossibility to teach technique without also teaching design. Both bear teaching, also. See? Interesting.
Yes, Noel, that is a complete, rational picture. Nothing exists in a
vacuum. But it’s still a truth that once you get into design you
open up the can of, “Hey, that’s MY design!” If someone holds a
copyright they hold it - whether it’s appropriate that it was
granted to begin with is another topic.
I want to stress yet again that I personally have copied many
things, or at least emulated them. And the other side of the coin,
too. I’m not pretending to be an angel with my POV, it’s just the
philosophical question.
This suggests to me that this particular type of individual is relying on external sources for the content of what they teach, rather than realizing it through an internal body of knowledge.
I said this before in another context, but it’s appropriate here,
too. Here’s a 6" long piece of 3mm square wire - show me what you
can do with it…There’s something very familiar, solid and
comforting about that wire - it can be bent, twisted, cut, squashed,
stretched. All sorts of things. That is, if it is actually a wire,
which it’s not, really. What it actually is is gold in the shape of
a square wire. It is a block of clay. Once a person gets over the
concept of shapes, infinity opens up in front of them. The rolling
mill rises to supreme importance, hammers become sculpting tools,
files are no longer just to finish surfaces, and a new arsenal of
flex shaft tools, gravers and what-have-you comes into play. And
literally anything is possible.
You can teach somebody to become a doctor - you can literally hand
it to them on a silver platter. “This is a liver, this is a spleen,
take this pill for this, nip here, tuck there.” The same goes for
engineers, biologists and MBAs. You sit in a classroom, and somebody
fills your head full of the requisite knowlege, and you walk out a
psychiatrist. That’s not to say that you don’t have to work or to
belittle education, but by contrast you cannot teach goldsmithing.
Music and the fine arts also cannot be taught. Yes, you can go to
school and study harmony and color theory and metallurgy and which
pliers make good jump rings. That doesn’t - and can’t - train your
hands to mold metal or tweak a violin string in just that certain
way. That is skill.
So, with the realization that there is no wire, there is only clay
with infinite possiblilities, and the realization that skill can’t
be handed to one on a silver platter, enters the time-honored system
of apprenticeship, whether it be formalized or not. And part and
parcel of that system in the field of goldsmithing is the innate
realization that it MUST be perpetuated - that it is up to us to
bring up the next generation. There is no school - not one where you
walk in and walk out a “real” goldsmith, like medical school. We are
the school. We are a part of a heritage and tradition that’s
thousands of years old. I could theoretically sit anyone down and
explain everything to them - “Here’s how a ring shank is made, look
at this nifty way to do that task.” and they’ll be no more goldsmith
than when we started. That’s also not to say that mental knowlege
isn’t important, too, because of course it is, but craftsmanship is
by definition in one’s own hands. And that’s why goldsmithing is
family…
There are a couple hundred of my students from these workshops in circulation wearing the same rings on their fingers.
Reading this, I had to smile. right at this moment I am wearing a
ring I made in one of Michael’s workshops.
Wanda
www.WandaKalbach.com
I think this pretty well summarizes the problem here. We all favor sharing and passing on techniques, and many of us do it directly by teaching. Yet we are not happy if it appears that what we teach is being passed on too directly. If credit had been given, then it would be OK? I understand the feeling. In the same issue as my bracelet article, a student of mine wrote up a technique she learned in my class. She does it very slightly differently. I was gratified that she thanked me (and another teacher) at the end. But it wasn't really necessary-- though very nice of her. Ideas are like helium baloons-- once you let go of them, you can't tell them where to go.
Ethics aren’t black and white. That’s why this dialog is such a good
thing. Noel, it sounds like by learning other types of stone setting,
you were trying to expand your skill set to better serve your
students’ needs. Still, one can’t be everything to everyone, and if
you get hassled to teach things you don’t normally do, you can always
refer students to those who do. It doesn’t necessarily mean those
students won’t still take your classes.
Let me clarify the circumstances I was referring to earlier by
explaining that the center in question had a strict policy about
duplication amongst instructors that predated my teaching there. If a
more advanced or more specialized technique could be better taught as
a dedicated weekly class or workshop, then it was not to be taught on
the fly in a general beginning or intermediate class (even by the
instructor whose specialization it was.) That’s just plain good
business and potentially better for learning. Unfortunately between
my stepping down as dept. head years back and the vast turnover in
administrative staff, the policy has not been supported.
In order to expand the program, I brought in and hired from within
instructors, whose areas of skill and specialization added to what
the department could offer. - University departments are set up that
way. Philosophy department don’t usually have two Aristotelian
philosophers, but profs with different specializations, who teach
those along with the occasional section of Phil101. (insert Monty
Python’s Philosophers’ Beer Drinking Song here.)***
I set up the beginners’ program to ensure that students taking from
different instructors learned the same fundamental skills so that
they could go on to more advanced classes without our having to play
catch up. If one instructor came up with a project that really helped
students learn a basic skill, then other instructors could use it in
their beginning classes with permission. We referred students to
various classes of each other’s based on needs and interest. We
fostered an atmosphere of sharing and growth, where learning came
first.
The instructors I referred to before have certainly been free to
teach the techniques they’ve learned from me at other centers, even
local ones. (I put a lot of stuff out there, and am happy for people
to make use of it. That’s all part of teaching!) It’s only within the
same dept. that it’s an issue, and it hasn’t just happened to me. It
causes me serious doubt and regret when I hear from students, “She
told me not to sign up for the ________ workshop, that she’d just
show me how to do that in her weekly beginning/intermediate class.”
I can’t imagine doing that to another instructor anywhere especially
one who taught me.
***All together now...
"Immanuel Kant was a real pi**ant
who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
who could think you under the table.
David Hume could out consume
Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel,
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
who was just as sloshed as Schlegel..."
Stepping off the soap box,
VIctoria
Victoria Lansford
http://www.victorialansford.com
You can teach somebody to become a doctor - you can literally hand it to them on a silver platter. "This is a liver, this is a spleen, take this pill for this, nip here, tuck there."... but by contrast you cannot teach goldsmithing.
As a surgeon I find this statement ignorant and offensive. This
blanket statement perpetuates public misconceptions that really get
under my skin.
Normally if I disagree with a post I just shrug and move on. I can’t
let this one go, though.
There is very little black and white in medicine. It’s not a matter
of memorizing a book and applying the cut-and-dried If
that were the case there would be no doctors, only data intake clerks
punching in and printing out treatment recipes. Hence
the phrase “the art of medicine”.
It took a quarter of a century of education and formal training to
do what I do yet most of the skills that I need on a daily basis come
from experience gained after that period.
So, if you want a grandiose analogy for learning goldsmithing,
perhaps a more accurate statement is that it is similar to learning
the art of medicine-- with less dire consequences of mistakes, of
course.
Sorry, John-- I generally find your posts interesting and
informative but this one missed the mark…
Julia
I’ve been teaching for 19 years. I’m not comfortable with the titles
‘teacher’ and ’ student’. We’re all teachers and we’re all students.
I learn something new in every class I teach and every trade show I
do. I meet many many people in the classroom and at trade shows who
run circles around me, their work astonishes me. I love seeing their
faces light up when I show them a new technique or tool.
I have the great pleasure of being exposed to tons of new ideas and
techniques that I can cobble together and pass on. It would be
impossible to mention everyone who has influenced me, in every
class, but I try to give credit to those who enriched my creative and
teaching processes. These names come up often: Lazar Portnoy, the
Merdjanians, Blaine Lewis, Charles Lewton Brain, Hanuman Aspler, Jim
Sweaney, Kerry Smith and Yvonne Foster.
Everyone has a unique learning style. Not everyone is comfortable
working in a group environment, at a new bench, or learning new
techniques. Sometimes learning a new technique AND coming up with a
design idea on the spot is overwhelming. I only demo projects that I
am comfortable having a student do exact copies of.
I’m happy when students pass on what they learn from me. I only ask
that they don’t make copies of my worksheets and booklet- as they
are copyright protected.
My job is to meet each student, at their level, with the utmost of
respect; help them improve their skills and creative process and
help them attain their goals. (And have lots of laughs along the way-
because I’m convinced that we learn more when we’re laughing- as
we’re more likely to make mistakes and try something new when we’re
in ‘play’ mode.).
I’ve got the best job in the world! Being around people who love to
learn makes me very very happy.
Thank you!
-Kate Wolf in Portland, Maine. Hosting wicked good workshops by the bay.
www.katewolfdesigns.com www.wolftools.com
you get hassled to teach things you don't normally do, you can always refer students to those who do. It doesn't necessarily mean those students won't still take your classes.
Yes, but here in the Chicago area, there’s not really anywhere else
to go. There are only two art centers that have teachers who have the
experience and skill to teach stone setting (beyond your basic
bezel). One is where Noel is and the other is Lillstreet Art Center.
Other than Lillstreet, there is no one else for Noel to refer
people to. And because of traffic patterns, people will tend to go to
one place or the other, not both.
Hi John,
by contrast you cannot teach goldsmithing.
This is an interesting point of view and one which confirms my belief
that it’s okay to “teach” yourself metalsmithing because by doing so,
you’re learning by doing. You’re making your mistakes and learning
from them. Learning how to dig yourself out of a hole. You try a
technique the first time and you’ll get so so results if you’re
lucky. You look at it and think “that solder joint could be better.
Why is it not satisfactory? Perhaps next time, I’ll spend longer with
the files and sandpaper to get a better fit so that the join will be
invisible”. You do it the next time and take heed of your own advice
to get the fit better and all being well, the results will be better
than so so. You carry on and keep doing things over and over and over
again. You get better at it and quicker at it and more confident so
that you get to the point where you don’t even have to think about
that technique - it just comes naturally. This process happens for
each and every new thing you try. If and when it doesn’t work out as
you like it the first time, you analyse, move on and do it again
until it works. You’re training your hands as much as your brain, as
John implies in his post. Such experience and practice in a technique
can’t be learned in a one-off workshop. But there is obviously a
place for them.
Helen
UK
http://www.hillsgems.co.uk
http://www.helensgems.etsy.com
Hello Orchidians,
I do take issue with the following:
If you learn a technique in a workshop or seminar or symposium, or through private instruction, the primary intention should be on incorporating the technique into your body of work for your own personal use. If the primary intention is to add the technique to your teaching repertoire and then in turn teach it yourself, that is a questionable motive.
A fairly recent example - metal clay. How else to teach the
techniques necessary to work successfully in the metal clays? Many
workshops and seminars have been given specifically to enable others
to teach those techniques. The same can be said for Argentium.
Teaching at all levels is how civilization progresses - saves the
time that would be used by each individual to reinvent the wheel.
Judy in Kansas, who really does treasure those “aha” moments when a
student understands and advances.
A better solution is to create practical exercises for workshop projects which do not have proprietary content to worry about. No point in trying to teach students to make "your work" if you want to assist them in learning how to make their work.
Exactly, it also relieves the participant of the stress of coming up
with a design. I’m assuming a workshop would be about technique, not
philosophy.
I took a two day workshop with Marcia Lewis in Tucson during the
annual gem shows. Marcia is a wonderful teacher. I wish it had been a
seven day workshop, rather than just two.
Marcia teaches chasing and has just about a perfect exercise to
illustrate the process. Everyone does (chases)a fried egg starting
with a sheet of copper. Everyone is provided a set of chasing tools
to use during the class. She also teaches how to make chasing tools.
Everyone has seen an egg done sunny side up in, say, bacon fat, or
some vegetable shortening with the edges crisp and curled up. Doing
this exercise uses every tool; you develop a yolk, the egg white
part, and the edge that curls up. Genius!
Marcia also takes control of the classroom. I love to talk to other
participants; where they’re from; what kind of work they do, etc. At
a certain point without pointing me out personally, she said
something like: “we only have two days to cover a great deal of
material; please keep your focus. Socialize during breaks.”
The other part is that Dept. of Parks and Rec. in Tucson has a
wonderful studio set up.
Noel, this is what I would call technique without design. I still
have my egg.
I put up a ‘How I do it’ on my website. I make a plique-a-jour 18kt
gold fairy.
If a person is trying to find their content through a process of "outsourcing" and is not summoning it up from within by relying on personal fluency and the accomplishment of their own work, anything they teach will be of limited value and of questionable origin. In this case the title of teacher is just a label of what they want to be, not a description of who they are.
I think this is the core of this thread. There are an significant
number of folks out there who have taken a class or workshop and
then turn around in a very short time and start teaching the
technique. They have not bothered to master it they just regurgitate
the same demo that they learned without gaining the understanding
that comes from employing the technique to produce real, varied work
a few hundred times to develop that fluency in working vocabulary.
There is nothing wrong with sharing (uncompensated!) what you have
learned in a class with others. To take a contract to teach that
technique without having mastered or at least having developed a
strong working vocabulary in it is unethical. When you take a
contract to teach a class you are asserting you are qualified to do
so. If your sole experience is a single class or workshop with no
significant bench time practicing the technique to back it up then
you are not qualified.
James Binnion
@James_Binnion
James Binnion Metal Arts
360-756-6550