Hi Dana,
Thanks for the very thoughtful reply. You make some excellent
points and they lead me to wonder to what extent the content of
Metalsmith, the EiP and the philosophical leanings of SNAG are
self-limiting. By this I mean … How many non-avant garde,
non-academic, full-time makers submit proposals for the EiP, are
featured in Metalsmith, run for office in SNAG, serve on the EAC and
generally help set the direction of the SNAG vision? My guess is
that the number is quite small percentage-wise. If I’m right, the
next logical question is why, and I imagine there are many
contributing factors.
I would theorize that most full-time makers, like myself, hesitate
to get deeply involved in SNAG because that kind of commitment means
taking a great amount of time away from making a living. As a
volunteer and office-holder in other organizations, I have a very
good idea how much time and effort can be expended in such endeavors.
So I guess it’s fair to say that our lack of involvement is at least
partially our own “fault,” since it’s a choice we make.
On the other hand, if we did decide to get involved, how difficult
would it be to get elected by an academic-leaning membership? And
would we be welcomed if our agenda included broadening the scope of
SNAG? When I read the credentials of potential SNAG board members,
it seems that very few candidates lack either an academic background
and/or a long history of curatorial experience and/or an impressive
list of authored books and articles about the art of metalsmithing.
I believe there are a series of circular cause and effect
circumstances that help explain the present attitudes of SNAG and
Metalsmith. The speculation above is one example and here is
another: Many non avant-garde/non-academic/full-time makers do not
submit work to the EiP because of what they see month after month in
Metalsmith or year after year in the EiP. If the pool of submissions
includes relatively few of this kind of maker, then it stands to
reason that relatively few will be represented in print; and that
leads to even fewer bothering to submit in the future given the
consequent, perceived avant-garde bias. [I wish I knew a better term
than “avant-garde” but I trust that you and others reading this will
know what I mean.]
Granted, SNAG cannot control who chooses to submit work for the EiP,
but it can create an atmosphere, currently lacking, that encourages a
broad spectrum of submissions. The same goes for the content of
Metalsmith: Reviewers and article authors know what is likely to get
printed, and that’s what they submit. This is an oversimplification,
of course, and there are always exceptions, but it is largely
accurate.
I'm sorry that your curatorial proposal was not chosen for 2005.
It is a competitive process and I know that we received many
proposals. The 2005 issue will be curated by Boris Bally and
Rosanne Raab, on "Flatware: Function + Fantasy." From the title,
my guess is that they want to cover both the traditional and the
avant garde.
I knew that our proposal, titled “Stone & Metal,” was a serious long
shot going in – because of Metalsmith’s bias (or so I perceive it)
– but I thought it was worth the effort regardless. [Please note
that my previous post acknowledges “all due sour grapes” :-), but the
EiP we proposed sure would have resulted in a magnificent
publication!]
First, I'm going to list all the EiP's we've published, starting
in 1994, and enumerate who the jurors or curators were. And
mention again that the EAC is comprised of both makers and
academics.
How many of the EAC’s makers rely solely on their work to put food
on the table? As far as I can tell, all or nearly all are also
educators, curators, and/or writers on a full- or part-time basis.
They are also highly capable and committed folks who have made great
contributions to the field of metalsmithing, but that doesn’t change
the fact that the EAC lacks the perspective that full-time working
metalsmiths could bring to the table.
2003, Gretchen Goss and Maria Philips, curators, Contemporary
Enameling
I’m not familiar with these two women but in my opinion (of course),
any compendium of contemporary enameling that does not include
Marianne Hunter is incomplete. Whether one likes her work or not, it
is unarguably unique and innovative. I realize that we could go back
and forth for days discussing the merits of various artists but this
particular omission was hard for me to take. The more traditional
was represented by Valeri Timofeev, Marilyn Druin, Keith Lewis (oddly
enough, in light of another Orchid thread 
and perhaps one or two
I missed – that’s three or so out of 31. Again, it’s a question of
balance.
2000, Juried by Tom Herman, Rachelle Thiewes, Ramona Solberg
This issue has perhaps the broadest scope of all the EiPs I’ve seen
(no surprise to me, given the jurors – and despite the fact that Tom
Herman is the only one who earns a living primarily as a maker!).
But considering that this was not a curated, thematic issue, I wonder
how different it might have looked if the pool of submissions had
included the likes of Judith Kaufman, Vicki Eisenfeld, Ross
Coppelman, Michael Boyd, Stuart Golder, Jeff Wise, Marne Ryan, Carrie
Adell, Harold O’Connor, Stephani Briggs, William Harper, Caroline
Streep … Maybe I’m wrong and it would have looked the same, but I
doubt it.
Metalsmith is one of the "public faces" of SNAG. However, and I
think this is a crucial distinction, it is not the mouthpiece of
SNAG. It must be independent to gain respect and credibility in
the field; it would undermine the content if people thought it was
just a forum for SNAG members or a SNAG agenda. The board of
directors does set the overarching vision for the publication, but
beyond that we stand back and let the editor and the EAC do their
jobs, that is, to implement.
Just what is “the overarching vision for the publication”? And does
it change from board to board?
Thanks again for your attention and consideration.
Beth