Metalsmith's Exhibition in Print

Jewelry Discussion
21

This thread is making me think about my relationship to Metalsmith
and SNAG, so I can feel a rant coming on. I loved going to the
conference in SF, but the theme was “Making It in Metal” and the
presenters I saw actually addressed the issue of making a living.
Also, there was a “sideshow” on the Bay Area moderns: even merry
renk’s crowns were meant to be worn (and how I love them!).

SNAG gave me a partial scholarship, which was why I was able to go,
and I’m very grateful to them. But I feel no desire to join the
organization or subscribe to Metalsmith–I sit and read it in Borders
and occasionally I buy it. When I do, it’s either because there’s
enough work pictured and discussed that really intrigues me (rare) or
an article that reminds me so much of the “discourse” which dominated
my days in graduate school that I’m bemused enough to “collect” it.

I wasn’t in grad school in art (I was in social theory), but my
colleagues were obsessed with acquiring “legitimacy with an edge.” I
remember sitting in a Michel Foucault seminar with a bunch of
straight male theorists and wondering if they felt that, because
Foucault was gay, he gave them some kind of edge they couldn’t get
any other way. Sort of like “Queer Eye for the Straight Academic.”

I don’t know a lot about how this “edgy academic” thing happened in
metals (and I do know that there are academics, like Arline Fisch and
Mary Lee Hu, whose work I adore, and who seem sublimely unconcerned
with it). But I suspect that the same desire for “legitimacy with an
edge” permeates what used to be called crafts programs–and
Metalsmith is the mouthpiece of the metals programs. I know a lot
more about what happened in ceramics-- partially because a lot of it
happened in California, partially because I used to (sort of) be a
potter (in class, when one of our pots collapsed on the wheel, our
standard joke was, “Look! Now it’s art!”).

Coincidentally, I just went to see the collection at SFMOMA, and
their current show on Pop, and I noticed how I react to the work of
the two “fathers” of “ceramic art”–i.e. people who were trained as
potters and rebelled against functional ceramics and decided to make
"art" instead. Peter Voulkos just turns me off, as do his epigones.
I’d much rather look at the traditional pottery of someone like
Warren MacKenzie, who isn’t rebelling or trying for legitimacy in the
art world and who doesn’t have any desire to be edgy. His work is
just beautiful. On the other hand, I love Bob Arneson’s work, as wild
and sometimes ugly as it is, because it makes me laugh. Bob could
have cared less about legitimacy (disclaimer: I feel a personal
connection to him, because he still feels very “present” in
Benicia–lots of his friends and family around–and I sit on one of
his heads whenever I go to the waterfront).

So maybe that’s part of it. Bob didn’t take himself seriously.
Metalsmith takes itself very seriously. But it’s a certain kind of
academic seriousness–after all, Ornament takes itself seriously too,
and I’d still be subscribing if I had the money. But what Ornament
takes seriously is what I sense a lot of Orchidians take seriously,
even though we may not think about it. I don’t know how to put it,
but I know Robert Lui has written editorials that touch on it. It has
something to do with beauty and raising people’s spirits and touching
their hearts and preserving magic in a decidedly un-magical world and
feeding an ancient soul hunger in human beings. This is not what
Metalsmith is about. So…I admit it, I haven’t even looked at the
issue in question. And, given the comments of people I tend to agree
with, I probably won’t bother.

But I also want to say that I spent a lot of time in front of the
paintings of Rothko and Ad Reinhardt and Barnett Newman and, despite
the “serious” and “non-functional” nature of their work, they felt
more like Warren MacKenzie than like Peter Voulkos–or like most of
what I’ve seen in Metalsmith. Go figure.

Lisa Orlando
Aphrodite’s Ornaments
(maybe soon to return to) Benicia, CA

22

Thank you to everyone who has responded to my question so far - I’ve
saved several of the replies to read again later and hopefully reply
to more thoroughly.

Terrie, I actually hadn’t read your comment yet when I posted mine
(I’m several days behind on email) but I think the 1000 Rings
discussion got both of us thinking about similar issues. Now I’ll
have to go through and read all the ‘define jewelry’ posts too.

I’m really impressed by the thoughtful answers to my question. As I
suspected, there are people who loved it and people who hated it,
and different reasons given for loving or hating it. I enjoy art,
and have been to quite a few art museums, but know next to nothing
about it from an academic perspective, so I usually base my opionion
of a piece of art on if I instinctively like it or not. So I was
curious to see what people who have more experience with the
jewelry/art world thought about this particular exhibit, which
included a few pieces that I really liked, some that were
interesting and several that just made me go “huh?”

And one comment caught my attention, but I’m really not sure what to
say. I never saw the porno issue of Metalsmith. It definitely sounds
bizarre.

Leah
www.michondesign.com
@Leah2

23

you could be making pieces that are made of Styrofoam and duct tape,
there are some incredible examples of this genre work, but you can
still separate the better done ,better thought out /and meant
pieces" I agree, that it is not the use OF the material but HOW it is
used that is important. While I do work, for the most part, in
metal, I will gladly incorporate other materials into a piece when
there is a reason to. In my mind, however, that material or its
application needs to fulfill certain criteria as regards durability
and craftsmanship. There is no excuse for shoddy craftsmanship and I
agree that, at times, the polarized side of the field often
represented in Metalsmith is so hungry for concept, content and what
has become informally known as “Smart Jewelry” that it overlooks how
well these qualities are expressed and physically manifested. This
is also a problem with some galleries which are also so hungry for
fresh , new work and materials that they will accept that which is
poorly made and engineered. (They further compound this problem by
failing to educate their clients as to the differences between the
well made and the shoddily made, and as to why price points may
widely vary between the two…)

Still, it seems that part of the problem may be the need to define
jewelry as an object made primarily out of metal. The history of
jewelry is full of examples of alternative materials, combinations of
base and precious metals and the embracing of new “high tech”
materials. (Consider that aluminum --when it was high tech–was once
combined with high carat gold in some extraordinary and at the time
expensive pieces, or that objects as fragile and ephemeral as
butterfly wings were placed in rings.)

That being said, terms like “wearability” and “durability” and
“value” are difficult to pin down. Several people have pointed out
how “unwearable” some of these rings appear to be. Certainly many of
the pieces represented in the book aren’t suitable for daily wear,
but is an opal or tanzanite ring really either? Maybe you can’t wear
a glove over some of these rings but can you slip one over a large
cocktail ring or tall tiffany setting? How many times must a ring,
brooch or neckpiece be worn to qualify as wearable. If the answer
were every day I would have to take exception. Certainly some people
wish to wear a ring every day, but should that be a requirement for
all? Many of these rings can be seen as ritual objects made not to
simply adorn but to affect those who put it on; to change the way
they move or consider their hand , where they cast their eyes or to
engender discourse.

I think the fashion metaphor is a good one. Think also of the
automotive industry where “concept cars” are trotted out to great
fanfare at the shows. These cars rarely enter production, but they
are still developed. Would this industry invest in the costs of
design , developement and protoyping if they didn’t see concrete
value in it (advertising aside). Some of the ideas manifested in
these concept cars make their way into production. The look and
direction of automotive design evolves, in part, due to the pushing
of the envelope. Why shouldn’t our field do the same?

What is exactly weak about “the weak ART and experimental works
that get status of well done art by being presented in Metalsmith.”?
What is quantifiably bad about that work? Are finishes poor,
connections tenuous? Is there slop in the quality of a line? I think
that if we are to dismiss or simply define some work as weak or as
“bad art” then we must describe just why the fatal flaws are.
Otherwise the argument comes across as bitter, petty and generated by
fear: an argument that may in fact be valid is lost in vague rhetoric
and overused, lazy and imprecise terms such as “bad art” and “artsy
fartsy”

Respectfully, Andy Cooperman

Please check out my website at coopermanjewelry.com or
andycooperman.com.

24 
    but I know Robert Lui has written editorials that touch on it.
It has something to do with beauty and raising people's spirits and
touching their hearts and preserving magic in a decidedly
un-magical world and feeding an ancient soul hunger in human
beings.

Yes, well, that sounds like my goal. Sometimes making jewelry can
seem like a meaningless activity (to me). But making something that
people really connect with, that has meaning in their lives, well,
that’s my goal.

Currently I’m working on some mourning jewelry for a friend,
hopefully that will have meaning.

Elaine

Elaine Luther
Chicago area, Illinois, USA
Metalsmith, Certified PMC Instructor
Studio 925; established 1992
@E_Luther

25 
    And one comment caught my attention, but I'm really not sure
what to say. I never saw the porno issue of Metalsmith. It
definitely sounds bizarre.

Leah, I wouldn’t call it a “porno issue”. The article inquestion was
about the work of Keith Lewis, who, the writer, Matthew Kangas,
describes as “possibly the most controversial jewelry artist now
working in the United States.” Like anything else, each person has to
decide for themselves what is or isn’t “pornographic”. It is really a
loaded word. I’m not here to defend Metalsmith but I think that it
was within their mission to publish anything germane to the
discussion of the metal arts.

Joel Schwalb
@Joel_Schwalb

26

I don’t read Metalsmith regularly, only occasionally. I did buy
’exhibition’ issue to see what all the discussion was about.
Therefore, I did not see the “porno” issue, but I would GUESS that it
was in the eye of the beholder.

I don’t recall who used that description, and I don’t want to offend
him/her, but I suspect that that person was reacting negatively to
some depiction of something sexual which the majority of folks would
not class as "porn.’

I could be wrong, of course, and Metalsmith may have been purchased
by Larry Flynt Publications <grin.>

David Barzilay
Lord of the Rings
607 S Hill St Ste 850
Los Angeles, CA 90014-1718
213-488-9157

27

Dear Orchidians,

It’s been really good for me to read the conversation about
Metalsmith (and SNAG), and I am very pleased to know Metalsmith
generates such healthy discussion.

As you may know, the Exhibition in Print is alternately juried and
curated, and the issue this year was juried by Sharon Church, Susan
Cummins and Ursula Ilse Neuman. As with any juried exhibition or
show, it’s their perspective on the work they find most intriguing,
that is, their take on the field. In 2005, the Exhibition in Print
is curated by Boris Bally and Rosanne Raab, entitled, “Flatware:
Function + Fantasy.”

Obviously there are many different perceptions and opinions of SNAG
and Metalsmith out there. Our membership and readership spans the
entire spectrum, including work that admittedly stretches and pushes
the definitions of the field. And all of that is our mission and
that of the magazine, actually.

Here’s an interesting bit of Last fall we conducted a
member/reader survey. One of the questions was “How would you
classify yourself” with respect to the metals field, asking for up
to three responses. The top results showed respondents self-define
77.8% Makers, 65.7% Designers, 32.5% Educators, and 20.8% Students.

One thing I believe is worth mentioning: Metalsmith is not the
mouthpiece of the educational metals programs. Its vision emanates
from SNAG’s board of directors, implemented by the editor Suzanne
Ramljak with the assistance of an Editorial Advisory Committee
(comprised of a mix of makers and academics).

Without question it’s true that SNAG was founded by academics, and
that the target audience of Metalsmith historically has been the
academic community. However the membership has grown and
diversified far beyond those roots and even/especially in just the
past six years that I’ve been the executive director and publisher
I’ve seen it change. I find the perspectives more varied, the
subject matter, format and pacing more dynamic, and the editing more
even-handed and consistent. I think Suzanne is better informed
about the field at large. While our mission is to educate, that
does not mean we are limited to “educational programs”; we aim to
address the whole metals spectrum and not just academia. Having
said all that, I did share your discussion with the editor because
it’s so vitally important that we remain aware of the perceptions of
our work.

I really thank you all for your honesty. I also encourage any of
you to write or call me directly.

Dana Singer
SNAG Executive Director
@Dana_Singer
(406) 728-5248

28

There is a vast difference between porn and erotica. Many cultures
have celebrated erotic art for centurys. The illustrated Karma Sutra
and Japanese art come to mind. I’m not an academic in any sense of
the word. Didn’t go to college for any art discipline, but I know
that the field of art in general is a broad subject. Individual
examples will speak to some and offend others. Some viewers will be
bored by an exhibit and wonder Why ? and some will be inspired and
exhilerated.

I personally loved the erotic enamels and metal work of Keith Lewis
and admired Metalsmith for publishing them. We need to be exposed to
different forms and ideas to keep our own imaginations fresh. And if
the only thing this issue did is to stir us to debate, think or rush
to our benches - isn’t that a good thing in and of itself.

Lora Hart

29

Andy I agree with everything you say, the weak Art ? needs to be sat
down around a table with the art work in the middle of the table and
discussed …

H.
Regards
Hratch Babikian
www.Hratchbabikian.com

30 
So I will ask my other question.  Who is jewelry for?  Is it for
the wearer, or the viewer?  Do you wear jewelry to enhance your
image, or do you wear jewelry because you just plain like it. Is
it sentimental, an heirloom with ties to your family? Do you wear
jewelry because there is a secret buried within that only the
wearer knows about...

I think Karen has touched on a critical question about purpose! This
is a paragraph from my “artist’s statement”:

Many of Dave’s works feature “hidden treasures” that are normally
not seen by the casual viewer, but are intended for the pleasure of
the wearer. This brings into question the accepted notion that people
wear jewelry to gain the admiration of others, and suggests that it
is for the joy of being in intimate contact with a unique, and often
precious piece of art.

All the best,

Dave Sebaste
Sebaste Studio
Charlotte, NC (USA)

31

Wow. How can we expect to have a serious discussion about what
constitutes art in jewelry when terms such as “porno” are used? It
disturbs me that work is dismissed with the charged – and
abbreviated-- epithet of “porno” without referring to the artist’s
name. Did the emailer who used the term bother to read the article or
get some understanding about the work beyond the knee jerk? This
indicates to me a myopic and uninformed view on the subject… I
know Keith Lewis and his work well. He is a SUPERB craftsman and has
an active and inquisitive mind. This is a smart man and a fine
metalsmith (he is also a very, very good teacher). While I may or
may not agree with the tenor of the pieces being discussed as
"porno", I am very happy that he made them, that they appeared in
print and --most of all-- that their published images really stirred
the pot.

If we are going to have this discussion, let’s establish the facts
and approach it like adults.

Sincerely, Andy Cooperman

32 
     you could be making pieces that are made of Styrofoam and
duct tape, there are some incredible examples of this genre work,
but you can still separate the better  done ,better thought out
/and meant pieces

I agree, that it is not the use OF the material but HOW it is used
that is important. While I do work, for the most part, in metal, I
will gladly incorporate other materials into a piece when there is a
reason to. In my mind, however, that material or its application
needs to fulfill certain criteria as regards durability and
craftsmanship. There is no excuse for shoddy craftsmanship and I
agree that, at times, the polarized side of the field often
represented in Metalsmith is so hungry for concept, content and what
has become informally known as “Smart Jewelry” that it overlooks how
well these qualities are expressed and physically manifested. This
is also a problem with some galleries which are also so hungry for
fresh , new work and materials that they will accept that which is
poorly made and engineered. (They further compound this problem by
failing to educate their clients as to the differences between the
well made and the shoddily made, and as to why price points may
widely vary between the two…)

Still, it seems that part of the problem may be the need to define
jewelry as an object made primarily out of metal. The history of
jewelry is full of examples of alternative materials, combinations of
base and precious metals and the embracing of new “high tech”
materials. (Consider that aluminum --when it was high tech–was once
combined with high carat gold in some extraordinary and at the time
expensive pieces, or that objects as fragile and ephemeral as
butterfly wings were placed in rings.)

That being said, terms like “wearability” and “durability” and
“value” are difficult to pin down. Several people have pointed out
how “unwearable” some of these rings appear to be. Certainly many of
the pieces represented in the book aren’t suitable for daily wear,
but is an opal or tanzanite ring really either? Maybe you can’t wear
a glove over some of these rings but can you slip one over a large
cocktail ring or tall tiffany setting? How many times must a ring,
brooch or neckpiece be worn to qualify as wearable. If the answer
were every day I would have to take exception. Certainly some people
wish to wear a ring every day, but should that be a requirement for
all? Many of these rings can be seen as ritual objects made not to
simply adorn but to affect those who put it on; to change the way
they move or consider their hand , where they cast their eyes or to
engender discourse.

I think the fashion metaphor is a good one. Think also of the
automotive industry where “concept cars” are trotted out to great
fanfare at the shows. These cars rarely enter production, but they
are still developed. Would this industry invest in the costs of
design , developement and protoyping if they didn’t see concrete
value in it (advertising aside). Some of the ideas manifested in
these concept cars make their way into production. The look and
direction of automotive design evolves, in part, due to the pushing
of the envelope. Why shouldn’t our field do the same?

What is exactly weak about “the weak ART and experimental works
that get status of well done art by being presented in Metalsmith.”?
What is quantifiably bad about that work? Are finishes poor,
connections tenuous? Is there slop in the quality of a line? I think
that if we are to dismiss or simply define some work as weak or as
“bad art” then we must describe just why the fatal flaws are.
Otherwise the argument comes across as bitter, petty and generated by
fear: an argument that may in fact be valid is lost in vague rhetoric
and overused, lazy and imprecise terms such as “bad art” and “artsy
fartsy”

Respectfully, Andy Cooperman
coopermanjewelry.com or andycooperman.com.

Why are people so dismissive of and–dare I say-- threatened by
conceptual But the anger and frustration that I have sensed in recent
posts appears to run quite deeply

33

This reflection is based on musings of both the “Metalsmith’s
Exhibition in Print” and “Define jewelry” posts and I’d like to
throw it out for comments.

One difficulty that we have with our chosen trade or avocation is
that is not very democratic; not like film, literature or music. By
in large, I believe that the majority of people here on Orchid are
not the elite of society (though it may be a goal of some). We’re
your average Joe’s and Jane’s working in a field that is exclusive.
It’s possible to go to a book store, a music store or a cinema and
spend $20 to purchase an item whether that item cost millions to
produce or only a few hundred (thousand). But not with jewelry.
Even a molded copy of an original piece still generally takes more
labor to bring to market than it does copying a movie onto a DVD or
printing another hardcover book.

Do we have a problem with that? I think most of us who live in the
West probably do to a certain extent, at least those who aren’t
connected to royalty or the carriage trade. Some try to deal with
it by not using gold (or trying to find “green” alternatives to
freshly mined gold), by using stones and metals that aren’t as
costly and therefore more accessible to the average consumer or by
using twigs, duct tape, Styrofoam and found objects. But in general
jewelers are stuck creating work that is not and probably never will
be vastly accessible. Problematically, items that are the most
accessible are generally (perhaps even overwhelmingly) the most
exploitive: of the labor to create it (in third world countries) or
environmentally (due to over use of resources, damage to natural
habitats or pollution).

Jewelry is personal; Much more personal than any book, film or song
can be. People have the ability to make their own jewelry, but, the
kind of jewelry they could create themselves – most wouldn’t want
to be personally associated with.

Another difficult aspect is that in order for our field to be
considered an artistic one it must be possible for the average
person to attain the skill necessary to create in the field. It
could be argued that at one time the film industry was more science
than art because it wasn’t really possible for the average person to
create a film. This is important if an industry is to be taken
seriously. The arts need, and by definition are a voice of
diversity; not the mouthpiece of the few who have either developed
the skill necessary to perform a particular technique or have the
money to buy access to the tools, machinery and labor of a
particular industry.

These two aspects alone, and the ability and challenge needed to
work within their framework, make our industry vibrant. It also
explains why we can never “define” jewelry or ask that publications
that deal with the art of our trade to constrain the kind of work
that is promoted in their pages.

There’s so much more that I’d love to talk about: the balance
between the intellectual and manual aspects of our trade, the
emphasis of fashion on art and shifting the paradigm of our industry
relative to education and promotion of metals artist.

But for now, back to setting emeralds!

Larry Seiger
LS Hancock Jewelry Design Studio
Cary, NC

34

Joel, thanks for the clarification. I guess I can google him and see
if I agree or not…I have to admit, I found myself wanting to read
the article simply because I was wondering what on earth might cause
a metals magazine to get that reaction from people.

Leah
www.michondesign.com
@Leah2

35 
  I really thank you all for your honesty. I also encourage any of
you to write or call me directly.

Dana, I am sure that I join many many members of SNAG, and the
Orchid community as well, in thanking you for your tireless work on
behalf of SNAG, and by extension, the metals and jewelry field we all
love.

Peter Rowe

36 
Like anything else, each person has to decide for themselves what
is or isn't "pornographic".

This brings to mind an experience I had years ago when I took a
bunch of underprivileged ten-year-olds on a field trip to
Rockefeller Center in New York City. We were walking through Radio
City, and one boy glanced up at the ceiling which was decorated with
magnificent murals by Diego Rivera… He snickered audibly and
nudged the boy next to him. Pointing to the ceiling, he said in a
stage whisper, “Hey, Danny, looka! Dirty pitchers.” Danny looked up
at the ceiling and responded, “Dem ain’t dirty
pitchers,stupid…Dat’s ART!”

Dee

37

Hi Lora:

I couldn’t agree more that you have to keep an open mind. An artist
especially has to keep those ideas flowing or will end up with
stagnant and uninteresting pieces. You don’t have to agree with what
you see but I think you must see it!

best regards
Harry

38 
 So I will ask my other question.  Who is jewelry for?  Is it for
 the wearer, or the viewer?

Once again, I insert my most humble opinion, and answer each and
every question above with one word: Yes.

	Is it for the wearer? Yes.
	Is it for the viewer? Yes.
	Do you wear it to enhance your image? Yes.
	et cetera, ad nauseam.

Or, no. (Okay, that’s two words, so sue me )

Wherever your reasoning, tastes, preferences, etc., are, jewelry is
art. Just as music, dance, painting and even architecture can be
art. Or not. It is all so totally subjective, that there will always
be more opinions than genres. There are many recognized art forms,
and many not so recognized. If the wearer thinks it’s art, it
is…for the wearer. Same goes for the viewer. Or listener. Or dance
partner.

Even what the so-called “crafters” make is art. There is even a sort
known as Folk Art. Is it art to me? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
Sometimes I see things that only a well-targeted tornado would
remedy. But people love and buy it to wear. Is it for them, or the
viewer? Either/or/both. Depends on the totally subjective opinion of
the buyer.

Wear, view, create, submit for critique to a panel of judges, your
chosen style(s) of jewelry without wonder of who it is for. Only
that person will know, anyway.

On the personal side, most of the jewelry I wear is sentimental or
heirloom in nature. The rest, I just like and can’t explain further.
Maybe that’s an explanation in itself.

James in SoFl

39

I am eagerly reading the on-going discussion spurred on by the
Metalsmith exhibition in print. Including the many comments and
gripes about skill and materials it seems that the earlier so-called
"porno" issue got a few more noses out of joint. It appears as if
those attached to these noses were waiting for an opportunity.

It may or may not be worth suggesting that Keith Lewis’s work is a
renewal of the historical tradition of erotic jewelry. If you
recognize that one of the central functions of jewelry is to attract
a sexual partner or celebrate a reproductive union then Keith
Lewis=92s work is in many ways very conventional. How ironic then is i=
t
that the complaints often seem to come from those who would defend
tradition?

A cursory survey of ancient Greek and Roman goldsmithing as well
Indian and African traditions will reveal abundant examples of
graphic and abstract erotic imagery. Go to any decent Museum or one
of the auction houses dealing in antiquities or peruse their
catalogues and you’ll see. Even cultures, which sublimate overt
erotic depictions, commemorate and invite fertility and fecundity.
Everyone who has ever worn a flower brooch or a pendent participates
in and commemorates this tradition. It may seem reductionistic and
the “Bible thumpers” won’t like this but aren=92t all the teenagers
wearing choker chains from Target, and Wal-Mart saying in effect
"Hey, look at my face and eyes. Aren=92t I (sexually an otherwise)
cool?

Perhaps the cause celebre in Lewis’s work is its overt homosexual
themes. The negative reactions and comments seem to arise from phobic
attitudes and impulses from people who can=92t deal with the realities
of sexuality let alone celebrate it. If Metalsmith had published a
survey of Roman gem carving replete with lustful images of Pan and
erect phalluses surrounded by gold granulation (much now in vogue)
would there have been a complaint?

I can=92t help but be reminded of the troubles that D.H. Lawrence,
Henry Miller, An=E4is Ninn, William S. Burroughs, Robert Mapplethorpe
and countless others got into for celebrating sex, and gilded youth.
How tiring these troubles are. To me the more pertinent questions
about an artist=92s work include, does its execution and formal
qualities best reveal the artists intent and while doing so reflect
or challenge the concerns of its community and time’ Generally, I
would like to see Lewis distorting anatomical proportions more
through caricature or by staying truer to them. But in the mix with
his poignant statements and challenges though, these formal concerns
are trifling. To simply dismiss his work as =93porno=94 reveals more
about the personality of the writer (maybe this is the point) and
is meaningless to the craft.

Just my two cents worth. I gotta go back to work.

Bruce Raper
Studio Goldsmith

40

One more thought on this whole Exhibition in Print, 1000 Rings,
wearable, weak and bad art ball of wax.

For years and years the VAST majority of publications covering
jewelry was decidedly trade based and conventional in its scope. In
the years that I worked at a variety of benches in jewelry stores and
the occasional trade shop I was subjected to the comments, rants and
dismissive grunts from the jewelers and store personnel who were
exposed to the type of work-- more thoughtful, expressive and
conceptual-- that I was interested in. I learned very quickly to
keep quiet about what I was doing in my studio or about where I hoped
to go with my work.

SNAG, local guilds, Metalsmith, American Craft, etc. have been an
oasis for those jewelers and smiths who wish to extend the traditions
of their media beyond what is accepted and expected by the
established guard. Their’s are small voices when compared with
publications such as JCK, Modern Jeweler, etc. which define the
industry and marketplace. (And it is arguable that the sensibility
of those magazines have changed because of the work expressed by
these “small voices”.)

There are plenty of publications and venues for those makers who
wish to be grounded firmly in the conventional traditions of
wearability and function. Why are some so angry that others wish to
walk a different path? “Exhibition in Print” was not titled or
subtitled anything like “The State Of Jewelry Today” or “What Jewelry
Needs To Be”. It is one organization’s platform to express the views
of their selected jurors. If the genre of work featured is not your
cup of tea, than simply don’t submit your work or flip through the
pages of the magazine. But, if you choose to criticize it, take the
time to read and examine it.

Respectfully, Andy Cooperman