However, in the academic world, a MFA in jewelry/metals would be
considered a Master level jeweler/goldsmith.
That is certainly amusing, but it's quite far from being accurate.
That MFA degree might be a beginning, but doubtful it indicates
much more than entry level skill in the professional realm of
goldsmithing.
The misconception is that an MFA stands for “master of fine art”,
not a master of the craft or skill of making jewelry. One gets an MFA
with the designation of one’s media, such as “metals/jewelry”, or
whatever a given school calls it, but this is understood to still be
a fine arts degree, with that media being noted as the area in which
you create your artwork. The degree recognizes creative original work
in the field of artists working in that media, as well as assuming
general technical proficiency sufficient to be able to produce the
work the artist wishes to do. In this last, lies the principal
distinction that confuses those in the jewelry industry. To jewelers
and traditionalists, a masters degree should mean total technical
mastery of the field. To the academic, the mastery of over one’s own
creative efforts, such that one has mastered and demonstrated the
ability to produce original creative artwork in a professional
manner.
This may seem similar, but it’s actually fundamentally different. To
the tradition, the whole or most of the field is considered within
the scope of a “master jeweler”, while within the academic degree,
the scope of the field, and the technical requirements to be met, are
defined by the artists own desired and needed skills, as defined by
his or her own direction of work. It’s quite possible to fully meet
the ideals and requirements to earn and qualify for and receive the
academic MFA degree while still having few of the skills one would
expect within the trade of someone calling themselves a master
jeweler. Likewise, it’s equally possible (and quite common) for a
technical master of the craft, a respected jeweler at the top of his
or her profession both in skills and reputation and even respect and
recognition for their jewelry work, to nevertheless not really meet
the expected requirements for creative original artistry that an MFA
expects.
The difference is easily demonstrated just by the nature of this
thread. Plenty have essentially laughed at or denigrated the MFA
degree as being somehow meaningless, perhaps being good as a fine
start at the beginner level. In other words, a complete
misunderstanding of what the degree actually means and is awarded
for. One also sees it within the ranks of the fine artists who may
go to a jewelry trade show, for example, and look at all the
wonderfully made pieces of fine jewelry, and come away with the
opinion that nothing there is especially creative. All is derivative
or copying what has already been done by others, and that there is
little if any real original thinking and artistic exploration going
on.
To their credit, some such artists will also recognize that those
people working within the trade also must take into account the needs
of the commercial market and the needs of what it takes to survive
in this market, thus making it unlikely for work that stretches the
boundaries too much, to be successful. While this then may explain to
those artists why the work may seem limited, those people may not
fully appreciate the degree to which SOME of those trade jewelers and
designers may also be capable of innovating and creating
artistically, even if the commercial work doesn’t show it.
The other side of the coin is easily seen when many typical trade
jewelers and designers see the sorts of work the academic metals
community and art world in general, appreciates and values. What gets
seen are deficiencies in skills, or the use of incomprehensible
materials and designs that make what some commercially oriented
jewelers will quickly dismiss as meaningless, valueless junk. This
then is every bit as elitist an attitude as that of the artists who
dismiss the fine commercial work as not sufficiently creative. In
both cases, it’s an inability to appreciate what the other side is
trying to achieve, and why.
Consider the two opposing likely views of the jewelry created in the
30s and 40s by sculptor Alexander Calder. Most of it, almost all, was
done in cheap materials, sometimes silver and a few times gold, but
just as often, material as cheap as coat hanger wire, or not much
better. Skills involved usually were pretty much defined by whacking
the stuff with a crude hammer, bending with pliers, and otherwise
working with what a skilled trade jewelry might consider to be about
what one might expect of a third grade child, angry at the wire and
taking out frustration with that hammer just to see what it would do
and how lout it might sound. While most of that body of work does
indeed function well as jewelry, which probably exceeds our
hypothetical third grader’s attempts, it nevertheless does so in a
relatively crude and direct manner, with no regard at all for the
usual niceties of finish and skill the trade demands.
Those familiar with Calder’s work as a sculptor, or even those
simply able to view the work from the perspective of what the work
itself was trying to convey, might find that lack of technique to be
deliberate, and essential to the character of the work, which itself
was exploring avenues of design rarely seen in western jewelry (but
often seen in primitive cultures). To these eyes, the work is fine
art jewelry at a high level.
BOTH VIEWS ARE CORRECT, even though they directly conflict with each
other. The reason is simply that each is looking at the work from a
completely different perspective, evaluating it based on needs and
requirements of two totally different worlds. Jewelry is one of those
artistic mediums that straddles two such disparate worlds, and the
result is confusion, when “citizens” of one world attempt to view the
work from the other side, by their own standards, rather than trying
to understand it from the other perspective. (Shades of the ART vs
CRAFT debates…)
It may also help to review briefly, just what the academic degree
designations are intended to represent. A bachelors degree indicates
only that one has completed a course of training in a field. It
doesn’t go so far as to suggest actual competence, only that the
student has taken and somehow managed to pass the courses. They’ve
been given the knowledge. Whether they yet are any good at putting it
to use is another matter. A bachelors degree then, is “professional
training”.
The Masters degree is that next step, indicating that the student
has indeed demonstrated the ability to competently practice and use
that training. It’s a degree that indicates “professional
competency”.
A PhD is the final step. For this, the student not only has to
demonstrate competence, but also the ability to do original research,
thus contributing new and knowledge to expand and add to
the field.
In the sciences, or much of the rest of academia and it’s degrees,
these distinctions are clear enough. A BS in chemistry shows you
passed the exams. An MA or MS in chemistry would suggest you could
work as a competent staff chemist somewhere. The PhD in chemistry
would tell people you’re capable of envisioning, designing, and doing
new research, and publishing it, and all the rest of that jazz.
Within the fine arts, however, there’s a glitch. Fundamental to the
whole nature of art is the creation of individual new creative work.
Thus, to reach the masters level in the fine arts, simple
“professional competency” requires that an individual has
demonstrated that they are capable of doing their own original and
uniquely creative art work, getting it shown or published, etc. This
is professional competency in the arts, the definition of a masters
level degree, but it duplicates as well, the distinction of original
research needed for a doctorate degree in other fields not literally
defined by creativity. Thus there is no need, in most cases, for a
doctorate degree and it’s separate distinction, as within the fine
arts, it’s already indicated by the masters degree. To help make this
distinction, within the fine arts, there are two levels of masters
degrees possible, the simple MA, or MS, and the MFA. The latter
generally requires more work (and often an extra year of study,) such
as a research project or usually, a solo (or similar in scope, if as
part of a graduate school group exhibition) show/exhibition of one’s
work.
Now, with all that said, recall again, that the skill being measured
for all these fine arts degrees, from the aptly named BS degree to
the MFA, is skill in what the art world values, ie creativity, unique
personal input producing new creative artworks. In ALL cases, while
the technical skills needed will be taught, and may even be
emphasized in individual courses (especially at the bachelors
level), it remains an ART degree recognizing artistic training,
creative thinking, and merit, and is specifically NOT a trade degree
or certification of trade skills.
it is simply unfortunate that the use of common language, such as
“Masters” Degree vs “Master jeweler”, is confusing. The two meanings
are completely different. And indeed, the meanings may vary a lot
even within each meaning, depending on where the degree or training
was earned. Neither of those different interpretations has exactly
the same meaning both here in the U.S., and in Europe, since both
trade training and academic training is not the same, or even
intended to be the same, on both continents.
So then when Mr. Starling calls an MFA amusing and inaccurate, or
any of the other similar statements made by others along these lines
(or by a long line of trade employers or art school graduates
frustrated by the mismatched skill sets and needs), he’s simply
demonstrating a misunderstanding of what these degrees are supposed
to convey.
It’s about like saying that someone’s degree in civil engineering
was a joke and inaccurate because it completely did not prepare
someone for the job in civilian political organizing. “Civil” and
“civilian” are similar, but in this case, have totally different
meanings.
What is also just as unfortunate as the misunderstandings of trade
people of what art school is about, are the similarly unreasonable
expectations, often conveyed by the schools themselves, that students
may be holding as to their own level of technical training preparing
them for the trade.
As well, the inadequacies of the academic programs for teaching
trade level skills is easily understood with a little math. For most
college students, they take metals courses only for the sophomore
junior and senior years. Often, there is only one metals class being
taken per semester, or at most, two. 3 credits equals usually two
days a week, sometimes three, for two or three hours at a time.
Generally six to eight hours a week in the studio, though extra time
is often spent outside of class. But if you figure three academic
years, (what’s that now, about 32 weeks a year unless you add a
summer semester), at somewhere between six and maybe ten or more
hours per week, you end up with a number of total hours considerably
less than a single year at a full time job. This of course is only
the single subject of metals studio courses, and doesn’t consider all
the other stuff the average college curriculum requires. It’s no
wonder that this type of training cannot compete with or compare to
the traditional European trade apprenticeship, or even a typical
European or even U.S. trade school program which will usually be
nothing but the jewelry training, much more intensive and focused on
just this one thing.
And then the masters degree. Well, consider that for the most part,
these degrees are independent, self directed study. Faculty will
assign projects and require work and all the rest, but it’s often
student defined, and the projects will often be of the sort that are
intended to stimulate creative thinking, not anything that requires
learning technical skill. There are many exceptions of course, but
often, this is the general flavor of grad school training. I can tell
you that it’s intense, highly focused, and anything but easy on the
students. But it is NOT, in general, technical training.
I can tell you that the two years I spent working with Stanley
Lechtzin, Vicki Sedman, and other faculty at Tyler school of art,
earning my own MFA, were two of the most intense and rewarding years
of my life. I’ve not worked harder on anything before, or since (and
that’s not because I’ve not worked pretty intensely on things or jobs
before or since grad school). I can tell you it cost me a lot of
money to do, yet was some of the best spent money in my life. I’d do
it again in a second if I had to make those same decisions (to go to
grad school) again, even knowing that the MFA never did quite result
in the teaching job I’d hoped it would lead to. So what did it get
me? It did NOT, for the most part, make me a much better or highly
skilled metalsmith or jeweler. Frankly, I was already pretty skilled
before going to grad school, having spent ten years in the trade
before going back to school, and being in my mid 30s at the time, I
was no longer even remotely a beginner in metals. My work in school
changed radically, and I taught myself new things and methods, and
lots more. Little if any of that would transfer back to work in the
trade. yet I value it much more highly than the trade school type
training (such as GIA stone setting classes, and much more) that I’ve
also had. Even more than changing my work, those two years changed
ME, expanding my world and view of myself, and clarifying for me
questions about what, and why, I do what I do. I learned as much, if
not more, about myself as I did about metals, and that’s saying
something, as I learned a lot about my own work in metals too.
So Michael and others making similar statements, when you call an
MFA an amusing but misleading degree, I can only conclude that you’ve
not yourself been through a grad school program, because apparently,
you have no idea what they really entail or what they are. I’m not
criticizing you or attacking you or in any way attempting to diminish
you, your fine work, your excellent skills, or anything else. I’m
simply saying that while I understand where your (and others)
statement comes from, with all due respect sir, I feel that you’re
mistaken as to the nature of that degree.
Peter W. Rowe
Seattle
BS art education, metals concentration, 1970, university of Wisconsin
G.G. 1979
M.F.A., Tyler school of art, 1989