hey all,
let’s not beat around the bush about how we really feel about
metalsmith.
when i’ve the time i read ms with a dictionary. where else can i
learn wonderful words like hubris and solipsism?
really though, i love metalsmith because of the pictorial. this
aspect of the publication is great. there is some really
outstanding work to be seen.
i could live without the liturgical regurgatation.
best regards,
geo fox
Like you, I have found the artspeak babble (which spews forth
from so many of the so-called critics) a wonder to behold. Most
of these people have never touched a file or a brush or a chisel
in their lives, but instead have spent years in the ivory towers
of acadame, aquiring degrees and fellowships and grants and kudos
for their scholastic endevours.
Old saying: "Them what can, do. Them what can't, teach."
Tom
Like you, I have found the artspeak babble (which spews forth
from so many of the so-called critics) a wonder to behold. Most
of these people have never touched a file or a brush or a chisel
in their lives,
Now hang on here. Aren’t you a bit free with the tar brush? I
LIKE what Bruce Metcalf writes in Metalsmith. The mag’s nearly
worth it for his ideas, provocations (real word or not?), and
observations. In fact he’s blasted this very issue of art-speak
himself, I’m sure. He makes. He writes. And he can do both really
well.
Frank Lewis cannot construct sentences. Clause analysis is a
foreign land. Obfuscation his daily bread.
Brian
Brian Adam New Zealand
I, for one, find the foregoing article fragment from
"Metalsmith" to be an in depth journey into the psyche of the
artist. It plumbs the very depths of the visceral emotion and
thought extant within the creators very genesis. The panoply of
motives and thoughts exhibited in the pompous verbosity of the
author is astounding at best and mind-boggling in the least. It
is proof positive that excrementia issues from various locations
rather than just the single location so long ago identified by
medical science. In short, might I say, this ain’t rocket
science:)!
Regards,
Skip
Skip Meister
NRA Endowment and
Instructor
@Skip_Meister
10/28/9711:05:55I’ve just come in on this thread, and I’m amazed at the
coincidence! I am disgusted with the writing quality in recent
issues of Metalsmith, esp the most recent one. appalled at the
inept writing. It’s the editor Frank Lewis who’s the mail
culprit. PLUS he can’t write proper grammar! I’m amazed (have I
said that already) how his proofreader can let much of what he
writes out of the office. He cannot write. Period. The gray
verbiage that he thinks explains is so cloudy it obscures the
explanation.
So I quit the mag. I have been urged to write to Bob Mitchell to
register my reasons for quitting but I haven’t. It seems daunting
to write it out on real paper and send it off into the blue to be
(largely) ignored. Here seems a good forum to air my concerns,
and maybe gather reinforcements. Apparently this issue has been
raised in years past but not much action has happened as a
result.
Brian
Brian Adam New Zealand
another old saying " those that can, do Those that can’t
criticise." Frank
<< Pls tell me what a 3 month trail subscription to AJM is??? >>
It’s supposed to be a TRIAL subsription (for freee!)
Anyone into SCUBA can E-Mail their address to me and I’ll make
sure they get 6 months for free to DIVE TRAINING and maybe 3
three months to Undercurrent (a newsletter about scuba diving!)
Ya know . . .although I agree, we have to consider that some of
these people may end up “judging” the stuff we end up submitting
to any national, international, local or state show!!!
Some of the gallery owners I deal with are amazed that "my work"
has been TURNED DOWN after trying to get into a juried show . .
. I think my stuff looks GREAt, the gallery owners think my
stuff looks great, but the persons judging per show, don’t feel
that my stuff is good enuf to put into their show? Yet, when I
visit the “result of their opinion” I’m not very impressed with
those they have chosen? (but, then, I don’t claim to be an
expert in anything that I’ve attempted!)
Ah, I guess my subject here has been the definition of “art
speak” Guess, I just DON’T get it! (But, that doesn’t keep me
from continually trying!)
Is this Bob Mitchell guy the one we should contact (to let him
know how we feel about the lack of knowledge in this magazine?)
I was told (within the last three years “that this was the
magazine to subscribe to!” Yet, every quarter, that this
magazine arrives, I keep thinking to myself
“this is nothing but a rag!” It offers me nothing but ideas
for designing . . . I can purchase BOOKS which offer more
for less than the price of the subscription! Ya,
know, I’m sure that I sound quite crass, but my point in writing
this review is to be REALl! REAL people do not need this
magazine which offers pretty pictures, but not much else (I will
endorse any of the vendors who advertise in this publication.
Many of the vendors are very reliable and inexpensive. )
Just my thoughts and opinions . . flames (and differing
opinions are) welcome!
Thank you!
Tom-- Having been Dean of an Art College and a teacher with a
MFA, and now with my own studio and a business, I really dislike
and disagree with that “Old saying”. Del
No one has mentioned Color Stones magazine. I’ve never seen the
magazine but have been thinking of taking a trial subcription.
Wondering what you think about it? (Any nice pictures?)
Well for those of you out there who have been turned down for a
show, take heart. God did not make all judges equal!!! I was
once turned down for a local art show because the piece I
submitted wasn’t good enough…Well after I recieved my
rejection notice, the next day I also recieved a notice from the
Japan Pearl Councel that I had won the Pearl Design Competition
in Toyoko, Japan . It was interesting because I submitted the
same piece to both shows! I learned that the only people who you
should have judge your work and hold any faith in there
judgements are those who are your clients. After all the bottom
line is thet they are the one’s putting bread on your table!
Vernon Wilson
Like you, I have found the artspeak babble (which spews forth
from so many of the so-called critics) a wonder to behold. Most
of these people have never touched a file or a brush or a chisel
in their lives, but instead have spent years in the ivory towers
of acadame, aquiring degrees and fellowships and grants and kudos
for their scholastic endevours
Although you don’t need to know how to bulid a television to
watch one - I prefer not to insist that people who look at my
work be able to make it; I want to know what my viewers think
about the piece, and not about how I could have made it easier
or better. THAT I get from my circle of artists, a group of
peers of varying interests and abilities. We get down to it with
each other about our work. The rest of the world only need to be
interestes enough to comment. If only those who could make what
I make critiqued my work, then I would be missing out on a whole
world of experience that is in many significant ways different
Cheers
Douglas
And then on the other hand… one of the things that Metalsmith
is attempting to do is place jewellery and its associated crafts
into a high art context. By using some of the textual tools of
current art theory, they are trying to explore the ways in which
this practice becomes meaningful.
Yes, you can claim that creativity comes from the soul, but you
are assuming the existence of such an animal. What happens to
creativity when you cannot demonstrate the existence of the
"soul"? Emotional, sure, but how do you get you emotions to file
a joint or set a stone? Which emotion decides that 2 garnets
work with that bit of gold wire, rather than just one?
As far as it being “gobbledegook”, the passage you quoted is
actually rather cogent and readable. It simply assumes a certain
vocabulary of its reader. Which is not that disssimilar from
what takes place here on this forum. Almost every post that I
read here assumes that those who read them are familiar , or in
some cases intimate, with the ideas, methods and processes of
jewellery making. Thats why we are here, no?
As for the lack of a certain type of content, I would put it
that Metalsmith does not intend to provide business or technical
The very format of the magazine should give some
indication of this. It is a high quality glossy magazine, in the
upper-middle price range dedicated to pictorial display of
jewellery that is part of a very specific tradition. Namely,
one that places the object itself first, and issues of
marketability and wearability second. That is what Metalsmith is
about, and that is where a critique should begin.
So here we go. My first question has to do with quality. Has
anyone else noticed that many of the pieces are not finished to a
level that I would accept in my own work. Which, I guess I should
add, exists more in the realm of object oriented art jewellry
than something more marketable. No, I do not make a living as a
metalsmith, nor do I intend to. I make my work because of a need
to see certain objects exist in the world; this means that I am
the one who has to make them. In any case, what happens is that
when you put forth the object as the prime thing, you make
everything about that object important. And excess solder,
filing marks, gaps and the like detract horribly from the
pieces. I have seen all these things in Metalsmith, but I won’t
list them here - this is a general question, not a critique of
individual artists.
The real problem I find with Metalsmith is the pose they often
take. While attempting to hold a position within the high art
world, often the writing lacks the intellectual discipline to
carry its position. Many time upon reading the magazine, I shake
my head as I realise that some of their writers hide within the
obfuscation of partially understood ideas and concepts.
I believe in their mission; it is vitally important to an
understanding of the role of art and creation in the world we
create. I only wish that they were more thourough and strict in
the ways they approach this. Too often the magazine feels
sloppy, and there is no satisfaction to be taken in any endeavor
poorly done.
Cheers
Douglas
several of these “rags” over the years I can tell you that part
of the problem is that the rates and contracts offered writers
are an insult to any professional. One magazine I wrote for
paid me $600 to fill a space that would cost an advertiser 25k.
I guess these publishers think that the public will accept
anything and with that presupposition proceed to feed us pap.
Richard W. Wise ______________________
Hi Richard…
You are right… pay nothing and own everything…
Marty Haske
Adamas Advantage Software: for Gemology, Mineralogy, Inventory
SAS2000 Spectrophotometer Analysis System For Diamond Color Grading,
Diamond Synthetic And Treatment Detection, And General Gemstone ID
Software Demos And Grading Issues at http://www.gis.net/~adamas/
Email Martin Haske mailto:@Martin_Haske for more
Hi - Another gripe to add to this issue is the fact that all of
these magazines seem to feature the same artists - and I get
really tired of seeing the same work and same features about the
same people month after month… Laura
Douglas,
I read with interest your post on Metalsmith.
one of the things that Metalsmith
is attempting to do is place jewellery and its associated crafts
into a high art context.
And the difference between "high art" and "hi-falooten" is...?
By using some of the textual tools of
current art theory, they are trying to explore the ways in which
this practice becomes meaningful.
Seems to me that they try to impose their subjective
interpretation on the artist, the piece, and the reader.
Yes, you can claim that creativity comes from the soul, but you
are assuming the existence of such an animal. What happens to
creativity when you cannot demonstrate the existence of the
“soul”? Emotional, sure, but how do you get you emotions to file
a joint or set a stone? Which emotion decides that 2 garnets
work with that bit of gold wire, rather than just one?
Certainly you do not mean to suggest that these questions
can be answered "[b]y using some of the textual tools of
current art theory"?
As far as it being “gobbledegook”, the passage you quoted is
actually rather cogent and readable. It simply assumes a certain
vocabulary of its reader. Which is not that disssimilar from
what takes place here on this forum.
The difference being that the vocabulary used in this
forum is that of the metalsmith, while the vocabulary
displayed in the quoted passage is that of the academic.
As for the lack of a certain type of content, I would put it
that Metalsmith does not intend to provide business or technical
Then perhaps they should change the name to "Jewelry as
High Art."
… dedicated to pictorial display of
jewellery that is part of a very specific tradition. Namely,
one that places the object itself first, and issues of
marketability and wearability second.
Is this what the magazine purports to be, or is it
what you want it to be (and thus find it to be)?
In any case, what happens is that
when you put forth the object as the prime thing, you make
everything about that object important. And excess solder,
filing marks, gaps and the like detract horribly from the
pieces.
Assuming, of course, that the artist shares your
formalist construction of beauty. A post-modern
interpretation might suggest that the artist is
demonstrating and sharing her awareness that these
are made-objects, i.e., that "high art" is created
by soldering, filing, and joining objects in ways
that satisfy the soul...
The real problem I find with Metalsmith is the pose they often
take. While attempting to hold a position within the high art
world, often the writing lacks the intellectual discipline to
carry its position. Many time upon reading the magazine, I shake
my head as I realise that some of their writers hide within the
obfuscation of partially understood ideas and concepts.
In other words, they hide behind "hi-falooten
gobbledegook."
I believe in their mission; it is vitally important to an
understanding of the role of art and creation in the world we
create.
This is a circular construction: I believe in my
own subjective interpretation of their subjective
interpretation of the world which I (subjectively)
believe I "create".
I only wish that they were more thourough and strict in
the ways they approach this.
Translation: I wish they would conform more closely
to my subjective construction of meaning...
Too often the magazine feels
sloppy, and there is no satisfaction to be taken in any endeavor
poorly done.
Translation: There is no satisfaction to be taken in
any endeavor from which I do not take satisfaction.
Cheers,
Tom
* Tom's Gems -- Fine Facet Rough *
* @Tom_LaRussa *
* http://www.digiweb.com/~mrlablee *
hi douglas,
you bring up a few interesting ascetic and theistic subjects
here. let’s go for the ascetic points first: apparent solder
joints, alternative finishing (file marks) and the like can be
succesfully implemented by an artist by intent. meaning, if it
is intended, it’s ok. if it’s not intended and detracts from the
’message’ of the piece (in the eyes of the artist, to heck with
the critics), it’ not ok. i personally believe that a piece
should be technically correct as much as possible…that
tehnical mastery should come before the message is considered. a
shoddily constructed art piece may negate the message intended
by an artist. it takes a very strong artistic concept to
overcome crummy construction. i create things, but don’t
consider myself an artist in the sense that ‘artspeak’, or
current art theory describes art. i intend to formulate design
and theme concepts, make it, and therefore it is. ascribe a
meaning or preferably a feeling, if one wishes.
furthermore, i aspire to make perfect things, and ways to
accomplish the piece i’m working. on the other hand, i don’t
aspire to use verbage that only 3% of the population
understands. i’m one of those who read metalsmith (if i read the
articles) with a dictionary close by. it’s not that i dislike
sesquipedalions, it just that most people do find it difficult
to read. and people may also wonder why all the syllables. why
is the mag trying to make things sound like more than what they
are? i agree with bryan adam that bruce metcalf is one of the
refreshing exceptions, good work and good editorial. when i read
many of the artist statements in the previous year of
’exhibition in print’, i could only shake my head and wonder if
the artists themselves believed what they were saying. were they
just trying to emulate what they thought was current art theory?
there were many letters of complaint to ms (printed in ms) about
these run on statements.
the theistic question of whether the soul exists or not, may not
fall under the parameters of this forum so i’ll make it short.
what is the thing inside all of us that is watching us think
that makes us know we are having a thought?
best regards,
geo fox
With regard to your commentary on the quality (or rather, the
lack thereof) of finishwork seen on various pieces pictured in
Metalsmith – might you not suppose the individuals who crafted
these pieces intentionally left the work this way? And that you
can see numerous examples of “roughly-finished” works in
exhibitions, museum catalogs, art magazines, et al? And that
these same individuals might respond that their concept of art
does not include “bourgeois concepts of beauty?” One must
realize that when one can go to a respected contemporary art
museum and see an installation of animal dung covered with
Sweet-and-Low packets and Hershey’s Kisses – one must be
prepared for anything to be called art.