Jewelry program or advice on education

Jewelry Discussion
61 
all you want to do is make a living at this craft then you just
need bench skills. If you want to be an artist you need bench and
design skills - and an ounce of madness, a scruple of humor and an
assortment of friends.

It may surprise some that I’m going to come down on Tony’s side,
somewhat, but that’s what I’m going to do… The other side of the
coin is that a great many trade/what-have-you people are weak on
design. I’ve studied d esign quite a lot, and I consider myself a
good designer but by no means a great one…

I have one and only one problem with using academic programs of all
kinds a s a path into being any kind of jewelry maker, and that’s
what they DON’T tell you. You’re a twenty something, or younger. You
enroll in Art Col lege - you want to make jewelry, art or otherwise.
You put in your 4-6 y ears, everybody loves you, and you got all A’s
on the twenty or twenty five pieces you made. They hand you a
shingle that says MFA on it or whateve r it says, and you think,
rightfully so, that you are a jeweler. You put in your time, you got
a diploma, isn’t that what all of that means? We had a couple of art
students (admittedly sophomores) putting in time here i n the shop,
and among our other talks were some about, “You DO understand t hat
you need to make a living, somehow, when this is all over, right?”
And they said, “Nobody’s ever talked to us about that
before…”

My suspicion is that those talks aren’t had (often) because nobody
in the program actually knows. I don’t think the “I graduated and
became a teach er” syndrome is news to anybody, probably. We see them
every day - starry-eyed graduates out to conquer the jewelry world
because they know how to silver solder. Nothing wrong with that, but
they have no perspective or any real sense of what is possible and
what it takes to make those possibil ities real.

If more jewelry programs actually addressed those things, and I have
no doubt that there are those who do - then I’d be happy as a clam
and I’d have no problems with any of it. Knowing more about art is a
good thing, no ma tter what - translating that into a piece of
jewelry and somehow earning your keep is (also) the tricky part…

62 
So you believe that craftsmanship only belongs on what you call
"concept work"? Wow! That what I call REAL SNOBBERY.

Yes, I’m a snob.

I hate run of the mill pieces.

I don’t hang reproductions of paintings of dogs playing poker on my
walls - no matter what their painterliness may be.

I don’t buy jewelry from TV shopping channels, Sears etc.

I’m a snob, and an elitist!

63

This is a great thread !!

Thanks for all the great comments. Regarding modern educations
systems and the killing of creativity in them. Check out this
brilliant 15 minute lecture by Sir Ken Robinson on the subject at a
recent TED conference.

http://ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html

JBF
www.jbfriedman.com

64

Some programs, such as ours, in an art college, do address real life.
We get our students 70% bench capable which is enough to make it with
a bit of sweat (we have grads in every manufacturing shop in
Calgary), and the others construct other careers. (Note I thhink
most art schools get people 40% bench capable) we think 80% stay in
the arts for life one way or another. So there are programs that get
it…

best
Charles
Alberta College of Art and Design

65 
I hate run of the mill pieces.

Sure. And you’ve no doubt got plenty of company here. Who needs
stuff that only makes you yawn and say you’ve seen that before too
many times to count.

Fine. Stick to better quality.

But even so, this does not mean that those run of the mill pieces
should not also be well made. Are you saying that if a producer is
going to produce totally commercial traditional designs, most likely
what you call run of the mill, that they should also not waste the
time to make it properly? Seems to me that if you’re going to
manufacture anything, you should at least do it right. Then, though
it’s run of the mill jewelry, it does not have to automatically be
bad quality trash.

I agree with you that it’s better to make things that are higher
quality, that show originality and quality in both design and
craftsmanship. And if this is important to you, then I urge you to go
with those feelings, and concentrate your efforts in that direction.
Nevertheless, there are also manufacturers, and customers, who either
cannot afford, or actually don’t want, anything other than the usual
traditional designs just like the neighbors have. These customers
may have mundane taste, but they still deserve to have their pieces
made properly and well. A look through the Stuller catalog or that of
other mass manufacturers will show you many pieces of jewelry that
are very commercial, very much mass produced and mass market, and as
such, fit the run of the mill description. But you can be sure that
Stuller takes pains, as do other manufacturers in general, to see
that their customers are getting their money’s worth, and that their
pieces are well made to serve well, even as run of the mill ordinary
jewelry.

Peter Rowe

66

Tony,

I'm a snob, and an elitist!

Leonid called this one dead right.

It doesn’t mater if you are making exotic gold ART or just a plain
copper band. The same level of craftsman ship, as in your best for
everything.

If you are too elitist for a job just refuse it.

Your name is on all of your work. Your name is a most valuable
asset, don’t trash it. You will be remembered for both, probably more
for poor quality cheap stuff.

jeffD
Demand Designs
Analog/Digital Modelling & Goldsmithing
http://www.gmavt.net/~jdemand

67 
I don't hang reproductions of paintings of dogs playing poker on
my walls - no matter what their painterliness may be. I don't buy
jewelry from TV shopping channels, Sears etc.

Neither do I, but it is not what I was referring to. You see I, for
the most part, do not like concept jewellery. You see jewellery has
two important restrictions, which some interprete as unnecessary and
old-fashioned, but actually imposing demands on goldsmith to be
technically capable. Jewellery must be wearable, and it must be made
of precious metals. A lot of concept jewelers do away with these
restrictions, but I think that they simply trying to hide their lack
of technical proficiency.

Concept jewellery also used to hide lack of artistic ability as
well. There are very strict rules of design which must be followed
and if broken require justification, but it is much easier to call it
a concept and be done. The most common misconception among designers
is what is “creativity”. Unrestrained creativity is an enemy of good
design, but that is a subject for another day.

So you see, even a simple one stone ring can be a challenging
project, if proper constrained are exercised. Anybody, who doubt this
statement, should attempt a one stone ring with these in mind.

Stone size and shape should correlate with size and shape of the
hand. Height of the setting should properly relate to stone size and
shape. Prongs thickness and configuration should harmonize with body
of setting. Shank should be aesthetically integrated.

The structure should be able to withstand wear and tear. There are
should be a structural redundancy.

Ring should provide maximum exposure to light and at the same time
protect the stone. And of course it must be done in precious alloy.

It is only after all of the above requirements are satisfied, the
creativity comes into play to solve problem creatively and
aesthetically pleasing. Creativity in goldsmithing is integrating art
and technique into one, and not in creating pieces that is impossible
to wear, or require some super alloy to survive simple handling.

Leonid Surpin

68

I can’t quite tell if Tony’s being serious or firmly
tongue-in-cheek. At any rate he touches upon something that’s part of
the biz, whether we like it or not. If you substitute discerning,
discriminating, even jaded for snobbish tastes you might get the
essence of why you will seldom see ad pitches along the lines of,
“jewelry just like your doinky brother-in-law in the plaid leisure
suit would buy”.

I kinda dislike the term but jewelry is often called a statement (I
dislike it because its now cliche’). Its certainly more than mere
product. Everyone may have their own take on that subject but
probably most of us makers try to live up to some kind of elitist
standard, its a matter of relativity and hierarchy though. You might
find people who go “ho-hum” at Van Cleef but go nuts over Oscar
Heymann Brothers. That is critical to designer goods, develop a
collector cult. The same thing works for those much lower on the
totem pole. Maker/retailer A always wants to appear somehow more
attractive to the market than A’s competitor. Natural logic.

OHB still makes simple basic jewelry too. You can be sure though
that a channel band of square sapphires from OHB is going to be
special within its category even if it isn’t as exciting as some edgy
offerings from elsewhere. So a maker is hard pressed to live on jazz
alone, he/she also needs designs with wider appeal. But still, the
maker has to live up to the elitist standard that supports him.

Sneering at poker dogs only puts one above the level of poker dog
lovers. There is soooo much more in the spectrum. How much snobbery
can you afford? How much can you afford to ignore?

Slightly off subject but.

69

Hi Tony,

I actually don't personally know any good artists who haven't
taken a degree course. They may not have finished the course but
they ll went to college.

I’ve found from experience that it depends on the person. The more
impressed someone is with their college degree, the less open they
are to learning new things. The less impressed a graduate is with
their degree, the more learning they continue to do as opposed to
reinforcing their knowledge already decided upon.

Ray Brown

70

Ray:

I've found from experience that it depends on the person. The more
impressed someone is with their college degree, the less open they
are to learning new things. The less impressed a graduate is with
their degree, the more learning they continue to do as opposed to
reinforcing their knowledge already decided upon.

Ray, I’ve found from experience (as have you) that it does often
depend on the person.

But more often than not, I have found that someone with a college
degree (or even a person who has pursued but not completed a degree)
is more receptive to outside learning and different views than the
person without, because the person who has pursued a degree has
experienced the advantage of learning and therefore is more
receptive to additional “outside” learning.

I found in my own studies (which were in no way related to metal
working) that the thing most often impressed upon me was that my
degree would not be the be all-end all - that once finished with my
formal studies I needed to immerse myself in the actual doing and
that would entail a great deal more learning of a different kind. As
a result of having a degree, I am definitely very open to learning of
any kind in any area because I know you otherwise remain static -
and heaven forbid that that happens to me.

But we all know people who are impressed with themselves whether
with or without a degree, so I don’t think that really has much
bearing on the actual issue.

I think people are either open to learning something different or
not depending on their past experience with the process itself. And
in my opinion, people who have pursued a college education have more
interest in the process of learning, regardless of whether it is
theoretical or practical.

Kay

71 
Sneering at poker dogs only puts one above the level of poker dog
lovers. There is soooo much more in the spectrum. How much
snobbery can you afford? How much can you afford to ignore?

Just one of Neil’s famously pithy quotes ;} My comments aren’t
directed at any of the several good posts here today, exactly.
Interesting and much more fun than, “What color of rouge should I
use?”

Once again, I think there’s an apples to oranges thing going on. I’m
of the school that says that jewelry is not, and cannot be, truly
“Art”. It is craft or whatever words you like. Certainly it can be
arty, but that 's different. Whether that’s true or not is another
topic, but certainly the making of jewelry involves ~design~. That is
subtly different from true art, as they will teach you in art
school. I’ll also point out that there’s really no right or wrong,
better or worse about it. There’s a need in the world for people who
string beads on silver ear wires and sell t hen at flea markets for
$5. And you’d be hard put to find someone who is more elitist than I
can be in my work, yet I’m anything BUT a snob.

It’s easy to make strange things. It’s easy to get a circle of wire
for a ring and stack a bunch of stuff on top of it, and it’s easy to
get a piec e of sheet metal and bang on it and call it a pendant -
maybe dangle some s tray things off the bottom or what have you. It’s
especially easy to use gimmicks - textures, etching and many other
techniques that are useful but often overly depended on. As Leonid
pretty much said, what’s difficult is making a solitaire. He didn’t
say it as clearly as he might have - making a solitaire that’s
elegant and original is difficult and the list of c onstraints is
long. It’s easy to work without constraints, too. Making something
that must be this, and must be that and that and that is what’s
called discipline.

Of course, it all begins with knowing what solitaires are, what they
mean a nd some knowledge of what the millions of designs that have
been made befor e are. How can you make something original without
knowing what’s alread y been done? Mix that with a major dose of
craftsmanship, and you start to have something… One of my
favorite points of view: The best compliment a person can make of a
piece of jewelry is to buy it. If they’re just not that interested,
then what is gained, exactly?

72

Leonid,

it must be made of precious metals. A lot of concept jewelers do
away with these restrictions, but I think that they simply trying
to hide their lack of technical proficiency.

It seems that you have built a very well crafted golden cage that
encloses a prescribed universe governed by very specific and
Draconian rules.

I am glad that my world is not driven by the same physics…

Andy

73

Don’t sweat it Andy,

It’s gross generalisation based on one person’t opinion of what
jewellery is.

It’s like saying “art is ONLY paintings, everything else is craft”.

Regards Charles A.

74

I’d like to respectfully disagree with a recent statement in this
thread, but only to present another viewpoint and perhaps to provoke
some discussion.

"I'm of the school that says that jewelry is not, and cannot be,
truly "Art"

About four decades ago I took a class called “The Philosophy of
Esthetics”. The key thing I remember from it after all this time is
a definition of art: ‘Art is anything made by man that communicates
an esthetic experience.’ The ‘made by man’ qualifier is to remove
beautiful sunsets, flowers, etc. from the realm of art, and to
define art as human-made. I’m sure the phrase ‘that communicates an
esthetic experience’ was the focus of the entire semester’s
coursework that I have since mostly forgotten. Of course art cannot
be described in a finite way because one cannot specify everything
that might constitute an esthetic experience, but if the phrase
‘communicates an esthetic experience’ can be accepted with its
requisite ambiguity, then that leaves only the word ‘anything’.

Consider that. It is generally accepted that the following things
made by men and women can have instances worthy of being called art:
music, painting, poetry, ballet, sculpture. Music- people can make
sounds that communicate an esthetic experience. Painting - people can
arrange colors and textures that communicate an esthetic experience.
Poetry - people can arrange words that communicate an esthetic
experience. Ballet - people can make movements and gestures with
their body that convey an esthetic experience. Sculpture - stone,
clay, steel and other three-dimensional materials may be shaped by
people to communicate an esthetic experience.

Whether or not jewelry normally is art, or whether or not one can
think of instances of jewelry that are art, are separate issues. I
simply cannot see how such a host of things made by men and women -
from intangibles such as a story in the form of a novel, or movements
of feet to the beat of music, can be art; how semi-tangible things
like images captured with a camera can be art; how solidly tangible
things such as chiseled marble can be art; but a piece of metal we
might hang from an ear or around a neck must be ruled out as ever
being able to be called art.

Gold and other materials shaped by men and women into objects we
wear as jewelry can be art, as well.

Respectfully,
Neil A.

75 
It seems that you have built a very well crafted golden cage that
encloses a prescribed universe governed by very specific and
Draconian rules.

Andy, I am glad that you brought this up. This is not discussed
enough. Goldsmithing has a lot of restrictions, which other trades do
not. As long as it required to hallmark the work, these restrictions
are always will govern all that goldsmiths do.

So let’s look a some of them:

Goldsmith must be able to maintain purity of an alloy thought the
manufacturing process. That means very limited range of soldering
temperatures, which implies uncompromising flame control.

Piece must be able to withstand wear and tear. This limit soldering
range even further. No easy solders, very judicial use of medium
solders. Most of the work is done with enamel and hard solders. Also,
goldsmith must become a structural engineer, because precious metals
are inherently week, especially 18k alloys, where all serious work is
done.

Jewellery must be comfortable to wear, so weight should be controlled
as well. This even further complicated the issue of construction.

Jewellery contains So other functions that goldsmith must
incorporate into it’s work are gemstone protection, gemstone display,
secure mounting, and gem carrying bezels must posses light gathering
property.

All mechanisms used in goldsmithing must be constructed from precious
alloys as well. It is much more difficult to make a spring, or a long
lasting screw out of 18k alloy than from steel. Not been able to rely
on natural alloy properties, goldsmiths employ constructions, which
are very difficult to execute.

I can go on and on. The list of restrictions is very very long. Life
becomes very easy if these restrictions are eliminated. Therefore
there is a vast difference between goldsmith and metalsmith, between
goldsmith and studio jeweler, between goldsmith and many others.
Goldsmithing requires unique set of skills, which takes years and
sometimes decades to acquire.

We, in goldsmith trade, are very much concern about art and
creativity, but first we must insure the survival of our creations,
and that means above all, a goldsmith must be technically proficient.

You are absolute right. The goldsmithing is universe governed by
very special physics, which simply are not present and any other.

Leonid Surpin

76

Most four year programs in colleges and universities are not
directed toward providing the student a career but rather toward a
more general education. There are, of course, exceptions to this
statement. Someone with a B. S. in biology, for instance, will find
chances to be employed in that field very scarce. Most bachelor
degrees prepare one for completing education with a master’s degree
or a doctorate followed, perhaps, by postdoctoral training. To go to
college expecting to be readied for a Profession is, in many areas, a
bit naive. A trade school might be more appropriate. Not everyone
needs all the material provided in a liberal arts education. I
maintain, however, that a “good” artist will be better and more able
for being familiar with general chemistry, mathematics, metallurgy,
literature and so forth. Many of the questions and responses on
orchid relate to lack of knowledge about the complex and dangerous
chemicals, chemical reactions, physical processes and equipment we
employ as goldsmiths and jewellers. For some, the simple arithmetic
involved in diluting an acid for use in a pickle pot is not at hand.
The very serious issue of health and safety in the shop seems to be a
mystery to many. People are afraid to handle metallic lead with bare
hands.but weld, solder and melt all sorts of metals and alloys with
minimal air handling systems. Paying attention in math or chemistry
class (even in high school) might mitigate some of these problems.

Having said all that I must point out that, as I wrote to someone a
few days ago, a formal “school education”, while desirable, is not
totally necessary. All this is available to anyone who
looks for it. Ganoksin provides a source as do many books and the
online search sites such as Google. I have learned a lot from all of
these. There is, however, no substitute for experience at the lab or
work bench. Practical knowledge is best gained through practice!

I hope that I have not offended anyone by commenting on our
collective ignorance. Some may think of me as a hypereducated &%$#@.
I respond that I have been lucky and diligent. I am a dedicated
advocate for education but must admit that most of what I truely know
I have truely, physically experienced in the real world. There is no
way toward knowledge but, instead, a myriad of ways. Pick a couple
and have at it.

Sincerely, Gerald (jerry) Vaughan

77 
"I'm of the school that says that jewelry is not, and cannot be,
truly "Art"

Art is subjective, meaning anything can be considered art. We even
had a Japanese artist apply for a government funded arts grant for
his performance art which was him basically vomiting… can’t
remember if he was successful, but he was considered at the very
least.

It’s the same kind of mentality that says that paintings are the
only true art, it discounts sculpture, and other less transportable
forms of art.

Regards Charles A.

78

Workshops hosted by experts in their field are a great way to develop
skills. I just attended Kate Wolf’s 5 day Wax Carving Workshop and
enjoyed every packed minute. She used a magnification camera and
video set-up to demonstrate design and layout techniques; carving and
lathe skills to create bezels, channels and prong settings, hollow
forms, mirror images and a wide range of decorative surface
treatments using wax build-up techniques. She covered finishing,
common repair and custom requests, even toolmaking. Every demo was
followed by one-on-one time with students working on related
projects. Kate’s sense of humor in delivering all this technical info
may be the biggest bang for your buck, though. I’m looking forward to
taking more workshops with Kate and all the other experts willing to
share their time and expertise. Gotta say, though, Kate Wolf set the
bar pretty high!

79 
respectfully disagree with a recent statement in this thread, but
only to present another viewpoint and perhaps to provoke some
discussion.

First I’d like to compliment Jerry Vaughan’s thoughtful posting
today - it’s pretty much what it’s all about, eh?

And since Neil’s quote above is about my own statement, I’ll say
that I don’t much care- you can agree, you can disagree, it’s not
something I’m all righteous about - what is, and what is not, art,
that is.

The problem I see is one of discernment, though. In America,
especially, education has really taken a downturn in the last several
decades. We have people who don’t know the difference between moths,
butterflies and dragonflies… If everything is art, then art
loses all meaning and there is no point in even thinking about it. I
personally prefer to have a loftier thing called “Art”, which is
something to strive for, and let the design of a fire hydrant, for
instance, be called something else… By Neil’s logic, a fire hydrant
is equal to a Picasso, in some fundamental way, and I don’t agree
that we should erase the lines that say otherwise. A firehydrant is
NOT the same as a Picasso in any real sense beyond being made by
man. And “esthetic” is your basic vague, indefinable word, also. By
that logic, the vinyl tiles on my floor that I’m looking at are
“Art”. Sure, why not?

It goes on and on, if one wants it to. Ultimately I don’t disagree
with Neil at all, nor is his writing news to me. I just don’t agree
that we should say that “Everything is Art” beyond some generic,
philosophical discussion. We need to have lines and hierarchies as a
way of understanding and quantifying things in the real world -
without them it’s all just one big tangled mess.

80 
By Neil's logic, a fire hydrant is equal to a Picasso,in some
fundamental way, and I don't agree that we should erase the lines
that say otherwise.

Not by my logic, nor by anything I said. I offered a defensible
definition of art and I said that jewelry can be art, should not be
pronounced as being unable, ever, to be art, and I said why.

I don’t want to put words in anyone’s mouth. There are those who say
that if something is functional, it cannot be art. Is that what you
mean? Is that a line you don’t want erased? If not, what lines do
you mean? Why?

And "esthetic" is your basic vague, indefinable word,...

Absolutely true, and there is nothing to be done about it, but that
is no reason to avoid the idea. In the class I mentioned, ‘esthetic’
was given a working definition, something about the perception of
beauty conveyed through some medium, shared educations and
experiences, ‘taste’ being folded into the mix… The best example I
can think of is this. A music professor played two chords. Everyone
in the class thought the first chord sounded consonant (sweet) and
the second chord sounded dissonant (sour) except for one person and
me, who had the exact opposite reaction. He was a jazz musician,
and I have heard jazz from birth, since my father was a jazz
musician. Those who can’t ‘hear’ jazz chords the way jazz people do
can’t have the esthetic experience that the artist intended or that
those who can hear them do. But an artist can communicate something,
some people can experience it esthetically, and that something is
what we call art. And it doesn’t have to be dried paint on a
stretched rag on a wall.

I just don't agree that we should say that "Everything is Art"
beyond some generic, philosophical discussion. We need to have
lines and hierarchies as a way of understanding and quantifying
things in the real world - without them it's all just one big
tangled mess.

I deny the “Everything is Art” characterization. What I did say was
that art can be anything people make that communicates an esthetic
experience - poetry, dance, painting, sculpture… jewelry. There is
a whole world of difference between ‘can be anything that
communicates an esthetic experience’ and ‘Everything is Art’, period.

I’d really like to know what walls you think there should be to
separate jewelry from other artistic creations and why. What
hierarchies there need to be and why. Why must jewelry never be
called art? If you believe that, might you explain it with reasons?
There are people here who create beautiful things I consider art.
I’ve seen them on their websites. Might some of you comment?

It isn’t that I think anything I have done is art. I just don’t
think arbitrary constraints should be imposed on the field of
jewelry, on jewelers here, or perhaps some day on me.

Best wishes,
Neil A.