Is Jewelry Making an Art?

Jewelry Discussion
41

I wasn’t going to get caught up in this but many of us seem to be
going away from the definition of art.

According to my Gage Canadian Dictionary: art as a noun

  1. any form of human activity that is the product of imagination and
    skill and that appeals mainly to the imagination; especially,
    drawing, painting and sculpture, and also architecture, poetry,
    music, dancing, etc.

  2. works produced by such activity

  3. of, for, of having to do with art or artists

  4. having or showing the techniques or characteristics of art

  5. a branch or division of learning dealing mainly with human ideas
    and values and the development of the intellect, such as literature,
    philosophy, and history; one of the humanities

  6. a craft or trade that requires skill and imagination

  7. a particular skill or set of working principles

  8. human skill or effort, as opposed to nature

And further on the Merriam-Webster online dictionary it states:
Function: adjective : produced as an artistic effort or for
decorative purposes

And as the definition for the adjective tells us is not all
jewellery, wearable or not, for a decorative purpose? For that
matter,
Mr. Donivan:), are not (ironically) the rocks even remotely
decorative?

Karen Bahr - Karen’s Artworx
Calgary, Alberta, Canada

42

I don’t believe art needs to have any social significance. Why
should it? In fact, when art becomes “all about” social significance
it often loses the visual qualities (assuming that we are talking
visual art) that distinguish it from, say, a handheld sign that says
"boycott _____". Further, over time “social significance” may erode -
does that mean that the statue of David is no longer art because we
don’t share the context?

43 
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." Andrew Werby

Interesting that some artists that I know work with silver, copper
and brass and their bronze and copper are almost as expensive as the
silver. See Simon Wroot’s jewellery
http://www.albertacraft.ab.ca/simonwroot

Also it depends on what you are doing as another artist friend works
mostly in copper and bronze as he makes his cat and mouse armor that
sells for thousands of dollars each. People are actually waiting till
he is inspired to make his next creation. It is interesting as Jeff
said that if he did armor for people or horses it is not ‘art’ as it
is recreating something from the past. Interesting as the making of
the armor is still artistic in nature. See Jeff DeBoer
http://www.jeffdeboer.com/Galleries/CatsMice/tabid/63/

Both of these artists have beautiful work and as they have been
doing this for a long time also have a “name” as an artist so people
pay more for work from them than they might from me who has not yet
developed a “name” or distinctive style yet. Though I have been
making jewellery nearly as long I did not understand until lately how
to develop these styles and “names” so am just catching up. And that
takes a lot of work and self promotion (which I still have trouble
promoting myself and my work, my very own confidence issue).

Karen Bahr - Karen’s Artworx
Calgary, Alberta, Canada

44 
www.bathsheba.com

Wow! WOW! I spent a half hour on this site. What a stunning array of
amazing stuff ! I don’t begin to understand her process, but it’s
mind-boggling. I loved it, but my wife said it left her cold. It does
involve high-end math and computer modelling, but the result sure
looked like art to me.

Allan Mason

45 
http://www.bethrosengard.com/misc/art.html

Beth- Thanks for putting this together. You put a very interesting
face on this debate. I say it’s all art!

Allan Mason

46

the armor is still artistic in nature. See Jeff DeBoer

http://www.jeffdeboer.com/Galleries/CatsMice/tabid/63/

Whittle that link down to just the jeffdeboer.com part and it’ll get
you there. Nice stuff…

http://www.donivanandmaggiora.com

47 
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

Very nice. I’d say the Pollock-esque ones are almost a knock-off -
that’s a compliment, BTW. Rational thought, too…

48 
Mr. Donivan:), are not (ironically) the rocks even remotely
decorative?

Of course they are, Karen. I have quite a few in my front yard. I
would suggest you read your own post, though: Skill, skills, skill,
works, technique, craft. Every sentence. And the kicker - your own
post:

human skill or effort, as opposed to nature
49 
The confluence of skill, talent and imagination may produce a work
of art.

Mea Culpa. It was me who took the kernel of a thought from the
Smithsonian Results thread and created this other, {wonderful}
monster thread or 2. This is a good place for me to point out, since
there are several misdirected arrows pointed my way, that I never
have said, no do I believe, that jewelry cannot be art. The one and
only thing I have said, beyond general philosophy, is that we as a
society, and especially those “in power” in the art world, should
give more credence to those who actually make things, as opposed to
merely gathering stuff. It’s no surprise to me that not everyone
agrees, that doesn’t mean that I still don’t believe it. As many
others have pointed out, sometimes jewelry is art, sometimes it’s
just design. Where that fuzzy line is is literally in the eye of the
beholder.

50

If you spend more time trying to define a thing and less time doing
that thing, you lose. Just make the jewelry, let others define it. A
musician played a piece he had composed. A friend, after listening,
asked him what it meant. For an answer, the musician went back and
played it again.

Have fun. Tom Arnold

51 
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?

Well said, Daniel, couldn’t agree more. Wish I had been able to
express my feelings on the subject so clearly.

Regards

Niels Lovschal
Contemporary and Viking Age Jewellery
Classes in Jewellery Techniques
Bornholm, Denmark

52

Well said/shown Beth! I have a very much simplified (or maybe not so
simple) rule of thumb…works for me:

  1. Craft is the process, technique, skill…used to create a piece
    or a body of work.

  2. Art is the piece or body of work, the gestalt that is more than
    the sum of its processes, techniques, skills (more than its
    Crafting).

  3. Some Art is good, inspiring, enriching, alive.

  4. Some Art is unresolved, uninspiring, dead.

  5. All of the work is Art…it’s what we, as a species, are not only
    good at, but are impelled to do, creating objects and objets that are
    more physically and more metaphorically than the original parts.

  6. Of course, some of this Art is designed to function visually,
    some as wearable forms, some tactile-ly, some aurally…all Art
    functions, so functionality is not a criteria that rules an object as
    not-art. Functionality only adds to the description of a work of art.

Are we so uncertain of the validity of our own work that we must set
up walls between what we perceive as Art and whatever else is made
by human hands? Whatever we call our work, the work will define
itself, to the artist, to the artist’s collectors/customers/clients.
I’ve always felt that an Oak Tree is what we call is a particular
type of tree; it may not be what the tree calls itself! The final art
object has a life of its own and ‘names itself’ to each person who
views/touches/wears/hears it.

Just a brief quotation, “Art is objects that make everyone stop
breathing for a moment.” Rachel Hoffman (“Objects and Acts”, African
Arts)

Oops, more complex than I thought it would be when I began
this…words, words, words!

Linda Kaye-Moses

53 
http://www.bethrosengard.com/misc/art.html

That’s very interesting. I need to say first off that I really don’t
care if jewelry is art or not, and that’s really why I’m writing this
post, is to ask “Why?” The above link IS interesting, but it’s 5 or 6
pieces out of the 100 million in the world. Why is there this
undercurrent of resentment and even righteousness in some, but not
all posts (not pointing ANY fingers - it’s just a recurring mood),
about whether jewelry is art or not? I’m not asking a leading
question, I’m serious, and if anybody has a serious answer I’d be
interested in that. I make a huge variety of work, people in my field
call me “an artist” frequently, but I just don’t care. It’s just my
work, it never occurs to me say say, “This is art, and this is not.”
I, like anybody, will look at something and say, “that’s a work of
art.” Sure. I genuinely do not get where this kind of intense
argumentative thing is coming from, in some quarters, though. There
are lot’s of useful thoughts about the nature of “What Art Is”, for
sure, but then there’s this “Is so, Is not” thing about jewelry in
particular. I am serious - please enlighten me, if you can. Why such
a passionate, ardent need about what is ultimately just a label
anyway?

54 
the painters were using projectors to draft their paintings - that
would be camera obscura in the day.... Art experts (who weren't
artists) who thought... how dare he suggest, Art experts (who
weren't artists) who lied ... but realized it was true. 3) art
experts who weren't artists.. 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?

hey John, i was reading your post and was thinking " Yeah. So? "
before i got to your punch line, so I guess that proves that
jewellers can be artists :wink:

cheers, Christine in Sth Australia

55 
But I believe that your comments can be interpreted as both myopic
and somewhat condescending.

I sense that the poster of this doesn’t want to play anymore -
that’s ok. This is not directed towards him, just the thread. Myopic?
Far from it. Condescending? I can only speak from my point of view,
just like everyone else. The post has consolidated my intent, though,
and I think I can say it clearer. Let’s take it out of the realm of
philosophy, and put it on personal terms. You (or I) spend 4 years
and $25,000 going to school - art, trade or whatever. Maybe you put
more years and effort into honing those skills, and you get pretty
damn good at it. OK, so there’s a jewelry show you’re interested in,
so you spend two weeks coming up with your best design, invest $500
in materials, and 2 weeks making a piece you’re really, really proud
of. You submit it, and then you get a rejection letter in the mail.
OK, “Better men than me, etc.”. But you decide to go to the show,
anyway, just to see. You’re walking around, looking, and there in
the space where your pride and joy could be, is a Barbie doll
lounging on a dime-store sofa, put in a wooden fruit box, nailed to
the wall. That is a real-world example, too. So - no knee-jerk art
philosophies allowed - how does that make you feel? Honestly?
Realizing that the doll is not saying anything especially deep and
profound, it’s just a doll in a box? Think about it as though it were
you in that place. Certainly I also would ultimately say, “Well, you
win some, you lose some.” and walk away. But that’s not my question.
My question is, “How would that make you feel?” And from there I will
say that my intent in this vein has been to consciously and willfully
be an advocate for those of us who are real craftspeople, who
actually make things, at whatever level they operate. Yes, I know
that many things are art in some way - of course I do. Society needs
to have a mechanism, in general terms, wherein people who work harder
get more out of it, or people won’t bother to work harder. And art is
no different. That’s it.

56 
If jewelry cannot be art, then perhaps nothing can.

In 1917 Marcel Duchamp submitted a urinal to a juried sculpture
exhibition, titled the Fountain. It was the first and most well know
work of “found object” and “conceptual” art. Duchamp’s premise was
that anything could be art if it instigated discussion on the nature
of art. If you follow this logic to it ultimate conclusion: if
“anything” can be, therefore also “nothing” must be included for
consideration.

So if anything can be art, therefore nothing is art.

Sorry everyone, just had to throw that in the mix.

Nanz Aalund
Associate Editor / Art Jewelry magazine
21027 Crossroads Circle / Waukesha WI 53187-1612
262.796.8776 ext.228

57

After reading all of the interesting thoughts concerning “Jewelry As
Art” it is obvious that art is different things to different people.
What makes something Art is that it should stir an emotion. It can
be any emotion as long as you feel it. For what it is worth, my
opinion is that jewelry can be art and I have seen many pieces of
jewelry over the years that any artist would be proud to have made
but I have also seen many pieces that were just plain common. It is
not the materials that make a piece art since there have been many so
called artists that have made a larger than life size abstract out
of junk from the scrap yard. I have also seen some very cheap costume
jewelry of figural pieces such as a dog or flower or what ever that
were incredibly detailed. Yes these are mass produced but the
original model had to be made by someone that could create a piece
with beauty. Finally there are many famous Artists from the past that
have crossed over to make jewelry. Where they no longer making art
once they changed to making something that could be worn?

Yes I am sick of the snow in Colorado and I have had a few pieces
that were ordered from my website returned because they arrived late.
Today and tomorrow should be in the 50’s. Finally things are looking
up, I just hope I don’t get snow in my eyes while I am looking.

Greg DeMark
www.demarkjewelry.com

58

Happy New Year to one and all ~

I would like to step back and approach the ongoing
Smithsonian/“jewelry is art” topics from a slightly different angle
because I think we are arguing over minutia to some degree. There is
an expression “In the particular is contained the universal” (James
Joyce); jewelry and its wearability is the particular here.

First angle: they did a “survey” of middle school children. They
were asked several questions. Two of them weRe:

  1. If you could, what would you rather be: a) wealthy; b) smarter;
    c) prettier/more handsome d) famous.

  2. If you could, what would you like to do: a) CEO of a large
    corporation; b) Navy Seal; c) Senator; d) assistant to a famous
    person.

Yes, 1d and 2d won. I won’t go into the details on why they think we
are raising a generation of people who need to be famous, but I am
sure we have all noticed the increasing trend or desperation for
those infamous 15 minutes; irrespective of their quality.

Secondly, there was a NYT article about Chinese artists making
millions on their paintings. The underlying question became - - who
is driving up these markets and when will they fall. The question was
not the quality of the art (although mention was made that it
appeared a group of rural women were actually doing the work during a
visit to an artist’s studio) - it was about lifestyle (these artists
are China’s new elite) and art “markets”. I ended the piece feeling
that this particular market was the art version of the dot.com stock
market.

There is a frenzied level of insanity running through our world
reflected in the two situations above.

Whereas, Picasso had all the skills he needed to completely fit into
the mold - - he CHOSE not to; it was never that he couldn’t. Even
though they were “just photos”, Cartier-Bresson photos were perfectly
balanced as he captured some of the most mundane/universally human
moments. We could understand these pieces of art and appreciate their
simplicity and their nuances. We had the right to not like them, but
by and large, we understood them. Somewhere along the way, however,
failure to comprehend a piece of art became an additional
justification, if you will, on why it was art. That we demurred to
that logic was our first mistake; that no one wanted to be perceived
as “stupid” was probably what has led to us now having to accept a
pile of rocks in front of SF MOMA.

We live in a society of increasing disregard for quality. I suspect
that disdain, or perhaps it is impatience… or both, segues into
other mindsets: If I don’t have the skills to create; then I should
be able to shock. If I can’t come up with a quality design, I will go
over the top and dare someone to question it. Conversely, the “powers
that be”; whether they are fasion houses or curators or agents or
buyers - - build up why that shock is valuable and we quietly accept
it. The only trick is to be the next chosen one; to get a curator or
agent to believe you are the new Basquiat. The trick is to have
established yourself so well as a status symbol that a woman will
wear a purse that looks like a Hefty bag on a chain or buy 12
versions of the same bracelet. So, what is the motivation of the
purchaser of the new Basquiat, the Hefty bag person or bracelet #12?
To belong. To show that they can. To prove that they are in the
Lemmings’ front line.

Jewelry, by its very nature, is personal adornment. If it cannot be
worn on the human body; it is not jewelry. Gold painted rocks or 300
pounds of cut up street signs may be art on a human scale; but it is
not jewelry.

Honestly, I suspect we are all in the parade and at any one given
moment a child is going to say, “The Emperor has no clothes.”

Cameron

59 
I'm one who's posted here about the futility of the the debate at
all, and I don't care to go there. I will confess to subscribing
to the above statement up to the human commentary part, though, in
general, and I wonder if Neil has found the dividing line that
makes many think, "That's art and that's not."

Perhaps it is much more simple. Perhaps it is not definable so as to
be one absolute for all of us.

Perhaps it is relative. Perhaps it can be as different for each of
us, as different as what moves each of us emotionally as we respond to
music, film, life events, or who we choose as a life mate for
qualities not perceivable or understood by our friends or family.
Rather than “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”, it is that the
visual meaning of what we observe can be related to where we are in
the moment of our experience of who we are in the transitional state
of being, never the same person in any moment as we are constantly
changing from our inter-relationship with life and our experience,
changing sometimes ever so imperceptibly as to not notice we have been
affected, and sometimes we seem to find content that shakes us to
the core of our being. Humans seem to have a need to create, and the
process of creating involves using materials to imitate something we
perceive or create something that does not exist naturally. From
reading these posts I realize that for me there is a correlation
between the "first " art of cave painting of animals and Andy Warhol’s
soup cans. To me, anyone at the time of the cave paintings could view
them and understand what the significance of the “art” meant. These
animals were part of their life and they depended on them for
survival. With Warhol’s images of Campbell soup cans, perhaps the
relationship is the context that anyone who was born in the U.S. 40-50
years ago, no matter where you lived, what your ethnic origin,
nationality, or religion, you probably had Campbell soup in your
home. It is an iconic image connecting us all no matter how diverse
our backround. Some cultures have wood carvings, weaving, pottery,
stone sculpture that is part of their cultural identity. These
cultures have been doing the same objects the same way for
centuries.They do not consider these pieces art, but another “tribe”
puts the value on these objects and takes them out of their context
and values them as “art”. In America, we do not have tribal objects
that unify our identity, and our icons have become Ipod and Nike.
Rather than questioning what is art, perhaps we should be aware of
how we relate to the objects of our civilization that we accept as
icons of meaning, where we create meaning where none exists. Last
night I saw Antique Roadshow, and there was a piece of jewelry by Art
Smith. The Appraiser called it a piece of art jewelry.

Richrd Hart

60

I did what I learned in grade school one should never do, use
absolutes as in "jewelry is not art. I meant it as a provocative
statement. The human psyche is inexhaustable who knows what may
surface. For my part I thought of this as an intellectual discussion.
I hadn’t thought of personal applications. Art is such an amorphous
term it’s not very descriptive; it’s more an honorific term.

To clarify my position, I make cut stones and make jewelry; I don’t
do art. I would not presume to decide whether anyone else is making
“art”. I do not critique other people’s work. I love to see what
others are doing, but I don’t judge it. I try to reserve my critical
eye to improve my own work.

Lovely choices Beth. I would consider from top to bottom on the
right: sculpture, painting, painting, metalwork, architecture. The
work on the left, all very attractive, you’ve already labeled. To
determine what is art, as far as one can make that determination,
takes a certain distance.

I live in an area where there’s a lot of “art” activity. Sometimes
there are presentations by people who have a certain standing in the
art world. There is a local person whose work I admire. She’s a
painter Susan Rothenberg. Some of her work affects me in a profound
way that I can’t explain in words. Anyway, she and another artist did
a presentation at SITE Santa Fe. At the end of the presentation
questions were taken. I asked each of them if they were to present
themselves what term would they use. The first choice was not
“artist”. The gentleman, whose name escapes me, went on to clarify
that his response depended on who was asking.

With a nod to Daniel Spirer it’s back to work for me. And I won’t
even discuss what I got my significant other for Xmas

Kevin Kelly
http://www.kevinpatrickkelly.com