Is Jewelry Making an Art?

Jewelry Discussion
21

Hi Dee

In the words of a Connecticut native who climbed out of his car to
view the sculpture "I am the first to agree that art is in the
eyes of its creator and the viewer", he wrote in an e-mail message,
"but honestly, that thing looks like a bad chunk of Interstate 95." 

And the argument goes on..

Thank you for posting that. There is a similar hubbub going on in
Guilford, CT where a man has erected a life-size replica of the
Stonehenge on his property. The story goes that the owner of this
waterfront home went through so much trouble with his neighbors
complaining about his home-building efforts, that he put up this
instead (until the zoning issues could be worked out).

The motto when you live near the water is…don’t get on the bad
side of someone who lives between you and the view.

Thanks
Kim

22

Grace,

This may be turning the subject slightly, but I am curious and have
a question - to the people who insist that jewelry cannot be Art,
is Photography Art?

I have been silently reading the postings about this, and several
other related subjects, but this one really hit home. I started out
as a photographer. There was alot of discussion about this while I
was gaining a BFA in printmaking since the early photographers cut
into the business of the printmakers,most of the time, it was rather
rabid discussion. I later went into sculpture and jewelry, again
there
was pretty much the same discussion. The conclusion I have come to
through these many years is that an object, whatever the method of
fabrication, can be art but is not always art no matter what the
media. To me, the separation point is the intent, combined with the
ability the technique to present the intent. I have also come to the
conclusion, just as in other aspects of life, too many are willing,
if not needing to have someone else make that decision for them
because making it for themselves demands critical thought.

Peace,
Richard

23

Hi

And how is this different from you or me taking a stone cut by
someone else and putting it in to a ring we make? Or taking a set
a beads and stringing them to make a necklace?

Good point. I’m not going to feel bad about making what I make even
though I do use beads, but I would be the first to say that what I
do is not art. The pendant that I spoke about that was picked for a
“found object art” exhibit was (by my standards) pretty, but I never
wanted to call it art.

Maybe art is a word that one can only use to describe the work of
someone else? When I think of what I have seen of Noel’s work, I
think of the word art. When I think of Mr. Miller and Charles Lewton
Brain, I think art because what they have done has had a certain
effect on me. I am immediately suspect however, of anyone who refers
to himself as “the artist”. It just sounds so patronizing to me.

People call me an artist all the time. It’s very flattering and it
always makes me blush. I don’t go around calling myself “the artist”
though. I call what I do work.

I thought again about the Barbie/Ken sculpture. The difference
between using Barbie in your work or using a stone cut by someone
else is in the legality. Just because you go to Walmart and “find” a
Barbie on the shelf doesn’t make your diorama “found art”.Ugh, I’m
still offended and it’s been about 5 years now.

Yeah, I string beads and it’s not art. It’s what I make because I
know that women will buy it. I like making money, so I figure out
what people want to buy and I make it. It’s what I do for work.

24

Hi - I have been reading all of these posts about jewelry being an
art and the Smithsonian results. I just have to step in and make a
few comments.

  1. Of course Jewelry is an art and it is ridiculous that we should
    even be wasting our time debating that point - the real question was
    originally how that is defined by judges on the Smithsonian Panel.

  2. Regarding the Smithsonian, I think what we as jewelers should be
    seeking is greater accountability in terms of establishing parameters
    for the judging of our work.

In light of statement - what I would like to suggest is that those
of us who care about this should write the Smithsonian Craft Show and
make mention of this.

In my thinking - what we need to ask for are the following three
criteria to be considered in judging jewelry

A. Composition of a piece as it relates to functional art
B. Use of Materials including traditional materials
C. Wearability

I have judged on many panels and done a great deal of research on
the various judging of many competitions and I can tell you that
these things are not considered. Usually 50% of it is in the category
of how the piece fits the organization’s marketing plan.

The reality is this - we will never get acknowledgement for our work
unless we first acknowledge it ourselves.

Archie

25

This is not a reply to the thread - more of an essay of things it’s
made me think about. I’m going to refer to this piece:

http://www.wartski.com/Koch%20brooch%20tulip.htm

It’s something I chose because it would be right at home in any art
jewelry show, and something any of you can make. While ya’ll chew on
that, I’ll start. I’ve noticed an us-vs-them attitude in jewelry,
and frankly the “Us” is the academic side, and “them” is fine
jewelry. But, you see, we are all doing the same thing. Fine jewelers
just do it “finer”. Let’s go back to music. The fundamental unit of
music is the “Interval”. That’s the space between two notes. A scale
is 8 notes, the interval between each is 1, in a major scale. “Mary
Had a Little Lamb” goes 3,2,1,2,3,3,3,2,2,2,3,5,5. Now, Jazz can be
defined by intervals, too. Jazz breaks up intervals into tiny pieces.
Instead of going from 1 to 2, it will go 1, 1 1/16, 1 2/16, etc. and
eventually reach 2. That’s called “Color” in music, and how it does
that, musically, is way beyond this thread. What does this mean?
Take the brooch above (thank you Internet Explorer 7, for tabs), make
a xerox of it, go into photoshop, and turn it into line art. It’s a
basket with two flowers and 4 leaves. Take that line art, trace it
onto a piece of sheet metal, pierce it or engrave it, and there you
have the piece that any of you can make. That’s an interval of 1 -
Mary ate a lamb. Or, cut out the individual elements, bump them up a
little, and solder them together - interval of 1/2. I could go on,
but all Koch did, and what fine jewelers do, it refine those
intervals more and more to the point of 1/1000. Why just saw out a
leaf when you can craft a leaf with gold and enamel? In other words,
why stop there? It’s also a matter of vision.

Make a cufflink out of a square piece of metal. Some see that as a
square piece of metal - I see it as 6 surfaces, 8 lines and 4
corners, all of which can be broken down conceptually into smaller
intervals, and that’s just the 2 dimensional view - the same goes for
3D - tweaking the flatness. The point I’m getting at is that people
tend to be awe-struck by the craftmanship of a piece like this -
they’re supposed to be, that’s why it’s successful. It is untimately
no different from what any of you make. It’s just that, instead of
punching out a silver basket, they said, “That’s not enough
intervals. What is a basket? It’s the body, the trim lines, the
handle, and let’s deal with each part on it’s own, and treat each
element as it’s own work of art.” In other words, let’s not just make
it, let’s CRAFT it. You can make a bezel, solder a round wire around
it, call it done and put it out the door. Or you could get that wire
and carve it and enamel it. Or you could expand the concept of a wire
into more than simply a wire in 1000 ways.

I’m not saying, Don’t just use wire. I’m saying expand your mind, use
wire because it’s what you want to do, not because it’s all you think
you CAN do. It’s the difference between simple and plain. A silver
wire is plain. A silver wire with black enamel on it is simple and
elegant. Don’t just make a trim wire, CRAFT one. Finally, I’m not
into Fractals, but they are the same thing. They come from a simple
mathematical equation that I don’t recall, but it’s simple like
E=MC2. You get a picture like a satellite shot of a river delta.
Zero in on one of the nodes, and it will blow up into the same
delta-like image. Zero in on one of THOSE nodes, and it will again do
the same - infinitely. Infinite intervals, deeper and deeper. And
lest you think I’m trying to make your work simply ornate, I’m not.
The same thing applies to simpler, more conceptual work. “We could
just get this wire and twist it into a flowing curve, like a wisp of
smoke.” But what is smoke? What is a wisp? How can we put more and
more intervals into that to make it more than just a twist of wire?
How can we CRAFT it?

Bottom line - the sheet metal basket brooch is the first level of
Fractals. The Kosch basket brooch is just 20 levels deeper into the
image. That’s really the only difference. A deeper vision. Not only
that, but each individual task - Make the basket frame, make a tulip
head, enamel the leaves, is not really all that difficult in itself.
It’s the whole, when it comes together, that seems so.

http://www.donivanandmaggiora.com

26

To quote Steven Colbert…art is like pornography…I know it when I
see it.

Of course jewelry can be art…look to the works of Cellini,
Lalique, Dali and in our generation: Albert Paly, Kevin Coates,
David Thomas, to name a few.

What isn’t art? Contact my lawyer…DeweyCheathemandHowe.com for the
list. But you should know it by now.

Kim.

27

Art is felt in the soul, in the heart. You have an emotional
reaction to it, and I mean a positive one, not one of shock or
disgust as is felt with what some people call art.

Then again, some people will have that reaction and some others will
not. Generally speaking with regard to the general population, there
is a reaction that reasonable people have to real art.

Art is in the eye of the beholder, but the beholder has to be paying
attention. And not everything produced by an artist rises to the
level of art.

So to define what is art is literally impossible, except to say that
when your soul feels it and the person next to you feels it and the
person across the room feels it, it is more likely to be real art
than if you feel it because you like it and no one else gets it.

Art almost has a soul of its own that lives. And it’s not an
intellectual thing at all.

I think most people would disagree with me. I think the most humble
artist creates the most art. If an artist declares his works to be
art because he declares himself an artist, there is less likelihood
he is creating real art. Art comes from somewhere beyond the person
wielding the tools. I know for a fact I don’t create art, but I
create jewelry. I don’t feel that I get out of my own way enough to
let the magic happen. And art is magic! That’s the answer!

Art is magic.

Veronica

28 
Sounds to me like - If it's easy and takes "no" skill - like
moving a rock from one place to another... and it's cheap, 'cause
the rocks are free... it ain't art?

Certainly the use of inexpensive ingredients doesn’t disqualify
something from being called art in this day and age, although this
might bar it from certain jewelry stores. The question of skill is
another red herring that often comes up in this perennial debate.
Even if the art-making act involves nothing more than moving rocks,
as is supposed here, that can be done with more or less style and
grace. A dancer, after all, is just moving about, but these motions
can convey meaning and may require a lot of practice to get right. It
might be that an artist uses rocks to make a large structure, which
only acquires meaning when seen from the air. Or ones art might
consist in constructing and siting delicately-balanced piles of
rocks in a landscape. There’s a fellow near me who has devoted years
of his life to this - if he’s not doing art, what’s he doing? I’d
agree that a certain amount of skill is necessary to accomplish
specific things one may set oneself to do, but the amount required
varies with the task, and worthwhile results can be achieved without
a whole lot of it. Also, skills tend to develop with practice. Just
because these skills may not be the traditional ones associated with
artmaking doesn’t mean they can’t be used to make art.

Brian has some good points, mostly that the debate of how many
angels can dance on a pin is no more useful than it ever was. What
I'm trying to get at - some would probably say "Pound away at", is
standards. It's just also not useful to say "Everything is art.",
even though on some level it's completely true. When your child
comes to you and says, "Look at the pretty rock I found", do we
need to put that in the Smithsonian? Do we gather every scrawl
that everybody ever did and put them in museums? Art school
idealism sounds good in the classroom, but like all idealism, it
doesn't hold up to examination. Imagine if you paid $50 for a
concert and when you got there there was some kid with an out-of
tune guitar struggling with Stairway to Heaven. Everything is Art!!
Of course everything is art. And of course NOT everything is art,
really. There is a thing that's called "An Artist", just as there
are bankers and shopkeepers. I'm not afraid to stand up and have
people take potshots at me (The Devil's Advocate), but I'm also not
presuming to say, "That is good, that's not".

Can we agree that while everything is not art, everything done with
the intention of making art has some proportion of art in it, however
small? We can certainly disagree about how successful a piece of art
it is, how valuable it is in relation to other works of art, if it’s
competently done, whether it contains a higher proportion of craft
(or commercial intent) than artistic impulse, and of course whether
we like it or not, but if someone simply states that if they don’t
like it, then it’s not art, it’s hard to have a discussion about it
at all. I think it’s much more productive to say, from ones own point
of view: “That is good, that’s not”, because we can then zero in on
what it is that makes art meaningful (or not) to each of us. But if
you simply say “That’s not art”, it’s equivalent to a refusal to
discuss the issues involved. In the example you give of the
incompetent musician, are you really saying that music is not being
made, or that while it’s music, it’s not worth the price of
admission? I’d probably agree with the latter conclusion, but if you
assert the former, then what standards - if not those of music - can
be applied?

I'm just talking about standards, and I'll say it again - a rock
is just a rock. A sculpture of a rock is the artist's VISION of
what a rock is about. THAT is the difference.

It seems that your rather rigid idea of “standards” is limiting your
vision of what art can be without giving you much in return, unless
it’s membership in this “movement” you hint at. Sure, a rock’s just a
rock - but alter its context (set it in a ring, for example) and it
is perceived in a different way. A sculpture of a rock can be an
artist’s vision of an ideal rock, or it can be a nice chunk of marble
that has been ruined. There’s no automatic privilege that comes from
taking a chisel to it; that has to be earned by the final result -
wouldn’t you agree?

Andrew Werby
www.unitedartworks.com

29

Perhaps it would be better if you all went back to making jewelry
and let the art critics decide whether what you’re doing is art or
not. It’s pretty obvious from the responses that no one is going to
agree on what makes art art. Don’t any of you have work (whether it’s
art or not) to do?

Daniel R. Spirer, G.G.
Daniel R. Spirer Jewelers, LLC
1780 Massachusetts Ave.
Cambridge, MA 02140

30 
check out this page http://www.bethrosengard.com/misc/art.html and
tell me why the works on the left are not or could not conceivably
be art, while the works on the right are or could be!

Thanks, Beth, for providing some excellent examples of art which
also happen to be jewelry. I can’t fathom how anyone can state that
jewelry can’t be art. Not all jewelry is art, of course, but that
which exhibits “the quality, production, expression, or realm,
according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing,
or of more than ordinary significance” (from Dictionary.com) is
certainly art. Thanks, also, for answering some of the “where do you
get your inspiration from” thread for me.

Bonnie

31 
So to define what is art is literally impossible, except to say
that when your soul feels it and the person next to you feels it
and the person across the room feels it, it is more likely to be
real art

No Veronica, I agree with you 100%. An you said what I’ve been trying
to say about the rock example - the sculpture of a rock has the
artist’s soul in it, hopefully.

32

Grace,

Photography, yes, certainly can be Art. Perhaps not the ones I take,
but yes for one close to me.

Recently my almost 22 year old grandson emerged with an incredible
eye for photographic art. He has amazed his father, (my son) his
brother, and me, we and probably he himself, did not know this was
within him. He recently completed a couple of classes with an
instructor who so supported him, that she allowed him to borrow a
camera valued at way over 1K.

His whole persona has changed, and he is filled with confidence, and
now is looking to applying to Art Colleges. Amazing what can happen
when one begins to have belief in oneself.

I know many of Life Magazine’s issues contained photographic Art.
Too bad it folded.

Terrie

33

Hi Beth

It’s all in the eye of the beholder! I personally like the items on
the left better for art than those on the right…I am not a
painting artist, really don’t get a bang out of painting, but the
jewelry/ metalwork really turns me on - I have been pursuing methods
of silver/gold/metalwork for 32 years and may stick with that venue.

Rose

34 
Art is felt in the soul, in the heart. You have an emotional

I already said “Here, Here” to Veronica’s post, but as I thought
about it I remembered that I had outlined similar thoughts lately,
but I never wrote them, and forgot. I suspect that, between her
thoughts and mine, which are mostly the same, there may actually be
an
answer to the What is Art? question, one that I could be happy with,
at any rate. That is that the artist puts some portion of his soul
into a work that is accessible to other people, who feel it with
their souls - a communication between souls, if you will. I don’t
think getting into “What is a soul?” is really very useful, but I
would say it is the totality of one’s being. Some in the psychology
field have put forward that it’s the superego - that deepest place in
us.

And that “definition” doesn’t preclude what Andrew says today, among
others. Maybe the artist puts 100% into it, maybe it’s only 5% or
.05% - we call still sense or feel that.

I would also like to say again how much I have enjoyed this thread,
hearing everyone’s views (until stealing art comes up - I get riled
at that). It is the epitome of blind men examining an elephant, but
it’s still fascinating to hear.

35

I’m not sure if the issue of CNC is in this thread or the Conceptual
art thread (so many threads, so little time! [;>} ) My own view is
that it’s good for what it’s good for. But I have a little story to
tell that’s pertinent to that. I’m sure some Orchidians are familiar
with it. I saw this on TV, and don’t remember the guy’s name or other
details. He wrote a book detailing his findings, which was a major
storm in ART (note THREE capital letters!!) Seems that he found, upon
examination, an inordinate number of left handed people in
renaissance art, letters in tapestries that were mirror images,
things like that. What he surmised, no doubt righfully so, was that
the painters were using projectors to draft their paintings - that
would be camera oscura in the day. For those of you who don’t know
painting, you can sit down with a scene of 8 people, 25 dishes and
glasses, and the architecture, and try to keep them all still and in
place for 6 hours while you sketch it on canvas in place and to
scale, or you can use a projector to put the scene on the canvas, and
then you just trace around the outlines of it right on the canvas.
Without being judgemental (I wouldn’t do that…), it seems there
were 4 camps of people involved. 1)Art experts (who weren’t artists)
who thought that art was a holy shrine and how dare he suggest, and
well, you get the point. 2) Art experts (who weren’t artists) who
lied
to protect the holy shrine of art from a percieved attack on it’s
shrine-dom, but realized it was true. 3) A tiny number of art experts
who weren’t artists but at least had brains enough to say, “Yeah,
looks like it.” Finally, they never, that I saw, asked any artists
what they thought. But I can tell you (the punch line) what they
would have said: “Yeah. So?” Any major art store has projectors for
sale, among many other things beside pencils. There are a very few
artists/craftsmen who like to work in some form of “purity” - no
electricity, truly hand made - whatever turns them on. By and large,
though, it’s “If you ever went in the kitchen you wouldn’t eat in the
restaurant.” Artists do, and have always used any tool or thing at
their command that makes work easier, faster, and more profitable.
CNC is just one of the latest. I know it’s a roundabout way of saying
it, I just think it’s an interesting story… Whatever floats yer
boat, tooling wise.

http://www.donivanandmaggiora.com

36 
Now is the making, the CRAFTSMANSHIP an art? Debatable by some,
for me yes and no. When you go out to a fine restaurant and the
food is arranged perfectly on your plate with color and style, is
it art? If it is beautifully arranged but tastes terrible, is that
art?

You bring up a very good point. I used to tell my friends, “when I
put lettuce, tomatoes, cucumbers,scallions etc. on a plate, it looks
like salad veggies on a plate. When my mother puts those same veggies
on an identical plate, it’s a work of art!” It isn’t just the raw
materials, but what is done with them that lifts them out of the
realm of the ordinary and on to a higher aesthetic plane.

It is my belief that good art earns its status by transcending other
work of the same genre. It will retain its aesthetic appeal over
time. When you look at it you will always say it is beautiful,
because it outlives the era in which it was created. It is timeless,
and has universal appeal.

Flawless craftsmanship is an art in itself, but it can be
unrecognized as such if it is paired with uninspiring design. The
confluence of skill, talent and imagination may produce a work of
art.

Dee

37 
Can we agree that while everything is not art, everything done with
the intention of making art has some proportion of art in it,
however small?

Yes, we can Andrew. As I said in another post, I’m not trying to
dictate here, I’m just trying to open up what has become a touchy
subject in the world of art. The rock example is a good one. My
objection is not to one who uses a rock to a greater end - as a raw
material. My objection is to one who merely picks it up, stages it in
some venue, calls it, “Essence”, and thinks they actually did
something of importance, and the venues themselves that permit that.
That true or greater art bears the hand of the artist. No, I’ve been
trying to keep this in front in my posts - MY vision of art is not
THE vision of art, and I know that. And that “movement” for which I
can show no documentation per se, but which is a growing discontent
public and private of what is being put into major venues, is “There
are 10,000 slots available for dispay, and 10,000,000 works to choose
from, and that’s the best you could do?” A rock, on the floor?

38 
http://www.bethrosengard.com/misc/art.html

Beth: How beautifully you present the evidence - thanks for such an
incredibly powerful response to the all encompassing question as to
whether jewelry can be art. Based on your comparisons alone, it would
be a resounding YES. And it also resonates with those who say it is
in the eyes of the beholder. How can you look at these comparisons
and come to any other conclusion than the fact that this jewelry is
indeed ART. Thanks for your thoughtful and very powerful
presentation.

Kay

39 
I think most people would disagree with me. I think the most humble
artist creates the most art. If an artist declares his works to be
art because he declares himself an artist, there is less likelihood
he is creating real art. Art comes from somewhere beyond the person
wielding the tools. I know for a fact I don't create art, but I
create jewelry. I don't feel that I get out of my own way enough to
let the magic happen. And art is magic! That's the answer!

I have been an artist all my life. Sometimes I made a living with
it, sometimes not. It is safe to say I have been artistic in many of
my endeavors, and although sometimes the result was good sometimes it
stank on ice because I had not practiced enough to achieve the craft
of using the materials effectively. Then there are those pieces that
I look at after time has passed and think how I know I was there and
it came from my hands but really I am as surprised as the next guy!

My medium of choice for many years was watercolors and there are
some quite elegant painitngs floating around out there (pardon the
pun) and some are freakin dreadful. Last year I tried doing some
Pollock type of expressionist paintings with acrylic paint. Some of
them came out pretty nicely. The first two came out looking a lot
like multicolored spaghetti. Then I started studying what Pollock did
and started to understand “the brush stroke” needed to be successful.
My “Two Palms” is still thrilling to me and my husband. It hangs in
our bedroom and is as wonderful each morning when I gaze at it,
particularly if the sun is shining. Is it art? I think so but someone
else might look at it and say, “Hell, my kid could do that!”. Of
course I know better after having gone through the months long
process of learning the “process”…but hey, each is entitled to their
opinion.

I have believed for many years that if a piece can keep me coming
back to look at it, causes me to peruse its characteristics and make
it difficult for me to tear my eyes from it…that is art, for me.

I also feel that it behooves any artist the learn his craft as well
as possible in order to express the intention in the best and most
logical way. Progress in one’s mastery of technique usually gives
birth to a more developed artistic expression. Learning a new medium
also begets further creativity.

Is my jewelry art? Some pieces would be a no since I am using some
old clasp castings I bought from a retired jeweler, even though I am
changing it up with the stone selections. For me that is bench work
and I term that as craft. But then the things I design and carve from
wax follow the natural artistic path upon which I have inadvertently
found myself over these last 40 years.

For me the question is not so much is “it” art as to does it spark
that magical response. Hey, I also find that my mouth waters when I
look at loose diamonds and colored stones. All those saturations of
color like candy! Then my imagination goes into high gear.

For most people jewelry is adornment meant to evoke an emotional
response, whether from the wearer or the observer. Often the response
the wearer is hoping to illicit is that the wearer is special in some
way. And some folks try to achieve this same response with paintings
they hang on their walls or from their furniture. Even moreso,
their…wait for it…cars!!! It is a validation of their taste and
worth. If we as artists can bring artistry to those objects it’s a
bonus. If we can precipitate thought and possible possitive change,
even better. But the bottom line is that it is the means by which we
support ourselves and we must create our art to go out into the world
through the exchange of currency.

During the 90’s I worked for a company that made instrument panels
for speed boats, Baja, Sea Ray, Grady White, Wellcraft, etc. I
designed the graphics. Boring ass job! I saw it as design, but they
called me the Artist.

I’m still up in the air on some jewelry being art. I would call most
pieces design work. And if it cannot be worn, it is simply a
sculpture. But then it is art, or could be.

Just my two cents, rambling at bedtime…

http://www.bringsjord.com/NelBio.html Here are some of the paintings
I have done in the past. And in my spare time (yeah, right) I’ve
recently gone back to oils and portraiture that is not shown on this
website…yet. The one I am working on sporadically is not finished
yet but as the design challenges get worked through, it occurs to me
that it is the finest work of art I have created.

And then as midnight drew near, she rested.

Best,
Nel

40

Actually, John, I don’t think that I am confused at all. I was
responding to your example. Sorry, but I think that art,as well as
language, is a fluid thing. While there are certainly classic
exmples of art, I believe that using a found object, even unaltered
and even appropriated, can be art if it is thoughfully responding to
or commenting on the current world in which it exists. I may not
like it and it may not be Craft (with a capital “C”), but it can be
art. You may know quite a bit more about art than I do. But I believe
that your comments can be interpreted as both myopic and somewhat
condescending.

Take care, Andy