Metalsmith's Exhibition in Print

Jewelry Discussion
61

Hi Laurie,

I actually borrowed the word from many overheard conversations among
certain metalsmiths, gallery people and collectors. I’m not actually
sure what it means, but I have heard it used with an exclusionary
tone. The term, as I understand it, refers to work with an
intellectual or conceptual component, refers to or comments on, in
some way the field, to broader culture and to the world of art. As
it applies to materials, I believe that it would describe work that
is technically innovative, borrows and applies consciously from
industry or other disciplines or thoughtfully examines and innovates
through material.

The problem with a term such as “smart” jewelry, of course, is that
the implication is that work that does not merit this tag line is not
smart.

Take care, Andy
coopermanjewelry.com

62

This thread concerning Metalsmith’s EIP has certainly run the gamut
by anyone’s standards. Personally, I devour Metalmith issues
(including the EIP), as well as Ornament and most emphatically,
American Craft, which is consistently well-ballanced and high
quality. You don’t have to be a metalsmith to appreciate high level
of arts and craftsmanship presented in these publications. I do
not always appreciate or agree with the opinions of the authors or
articles in any one of these periodicals.

There are many publications other than Metalsmith to satisfy one’s
visual and conceptual desires regarding the metal arts. Mere
membership in SNAG does not include or exclude anyone based on
one’s particular background, training, inclination, etc. We derive
from it what we want, or not, as an individual.

Back to the benches!
Elizabeth McDevitt

63

I just reread my post: let me clarify. I believe that it was me who
introduced the phrase “smart jewelry”… This is not a term that I
coined, but one that I have heard over and over from a particular few
high profile metalsmiths and well respected, well known gallery
owners. One such conversation, held around the dinner table in a
collector’s home began as a discussion about the future of “art”
jewelry. Present were several very well known metalsmiths, myself
included, and two leading gallery owners, prominent on the national
scene.

We were all a bit dismayed at the state of the country, the economy
and the viability of the edgier, non traditional side of the field.
I posed the question: “What, then, can save it?” The answer from one
of the gallery owners was (I paraphrase here): “Smart work. Work
that talks about the field and addresses the same type of themes
dealt with by the greater art world.”

In retrospect-- and with a head less filled with fine food and
wine-- I think she answered a question just to one side of the one
that I asked. I was wondering about stratedgies and ideas for
selling thoughtful, non traditional work not necessarily valued for
its intrinsic material worth. I expected a conversation about client/
collector education, marketing ideas, etc. Instead, it seemed that
she saw the hope for “art” jewelry (a sloppy phrase, but it’s what I
have) lying at the academic end of the spectrum. While I was thinking
about different ways to promote the work, she was talking about
raising the appeal, credibility and gravitas of our field by tying it
more firmly to the world of contemporary “fine art” in the minds of
collectors, museums and publications. To do that, she maintained,
we must work “smarter”, instilling our work with, yes, intellectually
stimulating material.

The question in my mind was just at what point formally compelling
or challenging and perhaps even thematic work became “smart”. I
remain unsure.

As an aside, I don’t believe that EIP, Metalsmith or even many
academics would necessarily dismiss or snub work that contains
precious materials-- even highly polished surfaces. It all
depends on the application of these, the reason for their inclusion
in a piece and whether or not they are used in service to a greater
theme, commentary or investigation. Again, there are plenty of
jewelry organizations and publications out there for those smiths who
are interested primarily in gemstones and fine material-- work that,
while perhaps formally challenging, is in service to these materials.
Organizations and publications that do, in fact, dismiss avante
garde, “thesis” jewelry as “artsy fartsy” or --my favorite–
“whimsical”. Why are some people so disgruntled that Metalsmith
chooses to occupy the sparsely populated other end of the jewelry
spectrum? Having spent much time on both ends of this rainbow (and
admittedly, more interested in work somewhere towards the Metalsmith
pole) I find it refreshing in some ways to hear the academics
pompously snub those in the trade. I spent many years after school
sitting at the bench listening to my coworkers-- master jewelers–
and bristling as they condemned any work concerned with issues
beyond material and function.

Time to get out on the roof and shingle. The fog is lifting.

Andy Cooperman
coopermanjewelry.com

64 
    The problem with a term such as "smart" jewelry, of course, is
that the implication is that work that does not merit this tag line
is not smart.

Hi Andy;

I can see your point. At first it didn’t bother me, my thinking was
along the lines of: well, of course it would be exclusionary if it
attempted to define any type or category of work. In fact, I think
that about all it accomplishes is to convey a kind of elitist
attitude of exclusivity and superiority. I don’t have any problem
with metalsmiths using their media as a laboratory for ideas. I did
a lot of that myself, all the way through grad school, even though I
have spent most of my career doing work that clearly anticipates a
more pedestrian audience. What does really bother me is when smart
jewelry ain’t so smart outside of it’s own very little pond.

Some of the “art raps” that accompany the stuff are just about
impossible to stomach. One artist’s statement in the EiP said the
same thing, over and over, in about 4 or 5 different sentences, for
the entire paragraph. The first sentence contained everything the
artist was trying to convey, and that wasn’t much. Of all these
artist’s statements, the one that struck me as the most effective was
by Bruce Metcalf. It was so direct and succinct, a sixth-grader
would have understood it perfectly. That doesn’t mean it was
simplistic. It was a masterful piece of editing, after some very
clear headed self observation. I think he’s on to something,
because, boy, that baby stood out like the proverbial diamond in the
dung heap. I’ve read Bruce’s writing, and I know he has developed
his thinking about this stuff. He could easily spin off something a
lot more obtuse if he wanted.

What is happening, in my opinion, is that some of the artists are
creating these little packages of baloney in anticipation of them
being read by a “smart” audience. Well, a really smart audience is
going to realize that these people have very little idea about what
has been developing in the arena of aesthetic theory and art
criticism. And the disjunction between what they are saying and what
the work is or isn’t saying is apparent. They aren’t aware of their
own transparency. They are simply imitating the clich=E9s that have
been floating around or they are emulating the “style” of artist’s
statement they think is hip. If the same thing happened in terms of
their physical craft, they would never get it past the jury. Even
so, there are many visual clich=E9s in this body of work too. That’s
another topic (and I think I beat that one to death too).

My thinking is, if you are going to talk about your work, you need
to really think about what you are doing and then take a chance by
telling people as directly and honestly, even objectively, what you
are doing and why you are doing it. If it comes out that all you are
doing is making something for the sheer pleasure of making, and you
aren’t concerned about great ideas, that’s better than blowing a lot
of hot air. When I see an artist trying ineffectively to impress me
with a bunch of pseudo-intellectual BS, I automatically assume that
there isn’t much to the work either. But here’s the rub and where it
rubs on Metalsmith Magazine. If these folks didn’t have the clout of
a Bruce Metcalf (both in terms of the quality of his images and
technique, and also his high profile in the metalsmithing community),
perhaps they wouldn’t get included in the show if they didn’t pump up
the work with a lot of verbiage. Maybe the jurors got served a mess
of pottage and it tasted just fine to them. But re-read their
statement and you’ll have your doubts that they were very happy with
the turnout. I really wonder if they were able to take this stuff
seriously for what it presumes to be.

Don’t these artists know that a real art critic is going to see this
as an amateur effort? Do they honestly think they are going to break
past the gatekeepers of the “fine arts” venues with that stuff? It
smells like it was written by a college freshman. They should at
least crack the cover on a copy of Art in America. Interestingly,
Keith Lewis, whose work I don’t particularly relish, is doing a
pretty good job of communicating his ideas with the work itself,
although the politics involved have enough weight for most critical
dialogues, even if Maplethorpe and Haring already worked it to death.
That’s the artists primary responsibility in our discipline (but
that’s my opinion). It goes back to my belief that a mature artist
should be ruthless about editing out of their work everything
borrowed or else making it clear to the audience that they know they
are using it in a “derivative” manner. This is equally true of both
the physical work and the literary “contextualizing” around the work.
So, in short, don’t use big words if your aren’t really sure of
their meanings and never assume you’re smarter than your reader. And
please quit picking each others pockets and try breaking out on your
own.

David L. Huffman

65

Hello Andy,

    The problem with a term such as "smart" jewelry, of course, is
that the implication is that work that does not merit this tag line
is not smart.

Way back in the old days, before the ubiquitous embedded systems a
term like ‘smart’ meant chic and presentable. These days I would
say the problem with using a term such as ‘smart’ jewellery that was
not ‘Blue Tooth’, had no USB or Firewire connection, would be false
and deceptive advertising.

Tony.

66

Thanks for your little list, Beth. Exactly the point I was making.
And I don’t even know the work of half the people you
mentioned–which is sad. If Metalsmith weren’t so “biased,” maybe I
would.

I was lucky enough to get to Palo Alto, where I could see a number
of Ross Coppelman’s pieces, finally. Wow! And I got to see Marne Ryan
at ACC/SF. Very different from Ross, but very exciting.

And then there are the people you didn’t mention, who would be on my
list, like Sydney Lynch and Cheryl Rydmark. A whole inspiring world
that really isn’t represented by the magazine. Just not "smart"
enough, I guess!

Lisa Orlando
Aphrodite’s Ornaments

(lucky to be someplace without hurricanes–and hoping there won’t be
earthquakes. It’s been really hot–what we call "earthquake weather"
out here.)

67

I admit I’ve gotten a bit fatigued on this subject and haven’t read
ALL the posts, but has anyone reminded us that a large – SNAG, would
like to know HOW large if you know – percentage of the readership of
magazines such as Metalsmith, American Craft, Ornament, etc, are
collectors and jewelry lovers/buyers. Repeat, “buyers.” It’s not
always all about US and what WE like!

68

Hi Andy,

Why are some people so disgruntled that Metalsmith chooses to
occupy the sparsely populated other end of the jewelry spectrum?

I don’t know if I’m one of the people pointed at here, but let me
take the opportunity to clarify my own position regardless. I think
it’s great that Metalsmith chooses to expose the work of “art” or
“smart” or “cutting edge” or “avant garde” jewelers. You’re
absolutely correct that this work needs and merits a public forum and
I’m glad that Metalsmith provides it. What disturbs me, however, is
that the publication largely ignores, and at least appears to scorn,
more mainstream or traditional (though no less creative) work.

If the magazine were called “the Cutting Edge Metalsmith” and if
SNAG were called SNAAGG (Society of North American Avant Garde
Goldsmiths), I would have no quibble at all. But their names purport
to represent all of us and they don’t. There is no balance and
that’s what I object to.

Beth

69

Lisa,

An important thing to remember is that the last EIP was juried. The
only work that can be juried in is from images that are entered. If
certain artists are not present in the issue it may simply be due to
the fact that they didn’t choose to enter their work.

The recently published book “Art Jewelry Today” by Dona Mielach does
not include the work of several very well known and respected
artists. Work featured in the book was selected from images received
from a call for entries. So, while the book’s title may imply that
it is a survey of art jewelry today, it is, in truth, a survey of
only a portion of the field, prescreened by the amount of publicity
the call for entries got and by the choice to participate made by
those artists who saw it.

Beth,

It is not my aim to “point fingers at anyone”. I wish only to
address the topic and respond to those who have expressed their
concerns in regard to it. I understand your point about the titles
"Metalsmith" and “SNAG”. It may become an increasing problem. There
has been a muttered subtext over the years that SNAG may one day have
to become two organizations if the disconnect many have spoken of is
not more concretely addressed. Past president Donald Friedlich has
done more to mend this rift, in my eyes, than any one else.

Take care,
Andy

70

You GO David!!

David Huffman (as usual) writes very clearly, and boldly states what
no one has yet dared to say, “Some of the “art raps” that accompany
the stuff are just about impossible to stomach.”

My personal thoughts as well. If one has to have an “artist’s
statement”, shouldn’t it actually have meaning? Perhaps, the
statement should be limited to 50 words, forcing some real thought
about one’s work instead of an assemblage of buzz words.

My own artist’s statement is short and says more about me as a
person than about my “searching for tactile effrontry to the
inhospitible environment of post-tramatic stressors.” (How’s that
for B.S.!!)

Judy in Kansas, who is obviously growing older and less patient with
foolishness.

71

I been reading this thread with great interest, but have been
hesitant to weigh in thus far since I am a former President of SNAG,
a production jeweler, a former Chair of the Metalsmtih Editorial
Advisory Committee and former curator of the EIP titled, “Studio
Multiples.” I am to say the least, an interested party. At this
point my SNAG term is over and I am speaking just for myself, not
the organization.

This conversation comes at an interesting time. I’ve just returned
from a jewelry symposium at Mass Art organized by Joe Wood. After
the program was over I went out for drinks with three prominent
academics. They complained that Metalsmith has gotten too
conservative and safe and that there wasn’t enough critical writing
in the magazine. As they say, point of view is everything.

The membership of SNAG has shifted over the years so that the great
majority of the membership doesn’t teach full time. While I don’t
think SNAG has data on this, I do think that it is likely that most
of the membership has been trained in the university system.
Including the President elect, Sam Shaw, three out of the four last
Presidents are studio jewelers. The current President, Ken Bova,
teaches part time as I recall. Most of the Board for the last six
years have been studio jewelers, not teachers. Generally an effort
is made to have at least one production jeweler on the Metalsmith
Editorial Advisory Committee and usually at least one on the EIP
juries. The inclusion of Pat Flynn and Tom Hermann and myself on
past juries are three examples.

One off my challenges to the Board during my term was to make a
serious effort to reach out to the production community, show them
that they have a place in SNAG, and that the organization can be of
value to them. Much was done in this regard. I also felt we could do
more for the academic world and students, and much was also done in
this regard. I see the students as the future of our field and I
think it is vital to encourage and include them.

We are a small field, no matter how you define us (smart jewelry,
art jewelry, production, academic, precious etc.). It always
troubles me when we seem to have a tendency to divide ourselves even
further. While I understand why this happens, I wish it wasn’t the
case. There is room in the tent for all of us. I tried to heal some
of these divisions as President and we made some progress. More
needs to be done. We need to remember that we have much more in
common than we have differences. Respectful but lively debate is
healthy and one of Metalsmith’s challenges is to stimulate
discussion and debate. Judging from this thread, it has succeeded in
that.

As Dana Singer said so well, SNAG is more than Metalsmith magazine.
It does many other things for it’s membership and the field. In
recent years it has gotten more diverse, but some of the older
images of the organization linger. It is hard to change a well
established image. It takes time and the involvement of those that
advocate for the change. As I say frequently in my slide talks, “The
world is changed by the activist, those that take the time to get
involved and do the work.” Some dedicated people have volunteered
their time to make this field better and SNAG better and I thank
them for their efforts. SNAG also has employees, like our Executive
Director, Dana Singer. She is an absolute treasure.

One of the most interesting posts for me was the one from Lisa
Orlando. She said:

Two things surprise me. One is the assumption, made by some
Orchidians, that people who wish that Metalsmith would focus less
on "smart jewelry" want it to turn into a magazine that focuses on
"trade jewelry." Not me--I'm no more interested in Tiffany's than
I am in what David Hufffman suspected were thesis projects. There
really is a lot of jewelry out there that is gorgeous and creative
and even uses unusual materials--and a smattering found its way
into the EiP. Anyone who has seen the Art of Gold exhibit knows
what I'm talking about. I loved the latter so much I could barely
leave. (And I got to see the extra "Art of California Gold" exhibit
that ran with it in Sacramento and was equally outstanding.) And,
by the way, Andy, I think your work is fabulous.

Both Metalsmith and The Art of Gold show are SNAG activities. As
President, I initiated the Art of Gold show, and along with Bruce
Metcalf, worked very hard to make it a reality. One of the reasons
for this show was to provide a little different balance to SNAG’s
activities. We also wanted to engage the public in the seductive
qualities of gold and show them that it is a material with a huge
expressive range, from decorative, to monetary, to conceptual. The
show is currently touring the US and will be seen in 8 museums or
so. Lisa, I’m very pleased you liked the show. I also encourage
other Orchid members to see it if they get a chance.

Anyway, I’ve gone on too long. Let me end by saying that like
anything else, lack of contact with things ( be them gay, avant
guard art, or anything else new or different from yourself) often
leads to misunderstanding, suspicion, and in the worst case
scenario, hatred and violence. While contact and exposure, personal
relationships, care, love, and tolerance, lead to much more positive
outcomes for all concerned. So please come to a conference, make
some new friends, spend time with people who love this field as much
as you do, learn something new, and feel a greater sense of
community. You will see some work you love and most likely see some
work you hate. To me, the interesting process begins when I ask
myself why I hate it or love it. Just as I hated Jackson Pollack and
totally didn’t get the big deal about him the first few times I saw
his work. Now I can sit and look at his work for hours and think
it’s genius. To me one of the best parts of a career in a creative
area is that, if you are open to it, you can have a lifetime of
learning and growth. You can’t get much better than that.

Thanks for the great dialog and thanks for Orchid.

Best regards,
Don Friedlich

72

Just curious, what is this EIP? Several artists mentioned it in
this thread along Metalsmith. (Andy C was the last one I think).

Thanks,
Irina

73

Andy Cooperman brought up the terminology of “smart jewelry” in the
conversation about Metalsmith, EiP, and it’s content. I realize it is
not his term by origination, and I do appreciate his attempt to
clarify or define what he interpreted the use of the term to imply. I
just want to comment that I think “smart Jewelry” is a very poor
choice of expression and it might be best to disengage it as artistic
vocabulary, rather than reiterate or further encourage it’s use.

If a gallery owner or curator wishes to describe something, they can
certainly find a more articulate and descriptive choice of words to
convey whatever it is they wish to say. If the intention is to
classify or categorize an object as “intelligent jewelry”, in the
sense that it engages the intellect of the viewer, then call it
intelligent jewelry. If it is conceptual, then call it conceptual
jewelry. I just don’t see any difference in what is being alluded to
as “smart”, in comparison to other already existent, more descriptive
references to various types of jewelry. (stimulating, thought
provoking, commentative, visionary, etc.)

If the artist refers to their own work as smart jewelry, I would be
inclined to think it is rather egotistical and exclusionary. And, as
Andy has already mentioned, "the problem with a term such as “smart”
jewelry, of course, is that the implication is that work that does
not merit this tag line is not smart. "

I think it is a dubious combination of words, and will undoubtedly
only lead to the question “What is smart about it?” rather than
actually describing any attribute. Goodness knows our language is
deteriorating quickly enough already without the addition of even
more meaningless and trendy phrases.

Michael David Sturlin
www.michaeldavidsturlin.com

74 
    . . ..  The only work that can be juried in is from images that
are entered.

Hi Andy;

That’s a very good point and one that I expressed to Dana. The Saul
Bell Award and the Spectrum Awards both seem to generate very good
response in terms of applicants. Wonder what AGTA and Rio are doing
that SNAG isn’t? Is it the obvious? . . . lack of publicity before
and after?

    . . . . There has been a muttered subtext over the years that
SNAG may one day have to become two organizations

I think that would be a mistake. Back in the 80’s, I was at a
conference for ABANA where the same kind of thing was being
discussed. I and a few others vociferously resisted the idea because
it was our contention that the majority of energy and innovation that
drove the organization came from the amateurs (I’m not using that
term disparagingly in any manner). For that reason and out of a
sense of egalitarian solidarity honoring the origins of blacksmithing
as a working class craft, we also felt that there was something
elitist about forming a special “professional” wing of organization.

David L. Huffman

75 
Just curious, what is this EIP?

EIP, stands for Exhibition in Print.

Karen Christians
M E T A L W E R X
50 Guinan St.
Waltham, MA 02451
Ph. 781/891-3854 Fax 3857
http://www.metalwerx.com/
Jewelry/Metalarts School & Cooperative Studio

76

As regards artists’ statements: I have found them to be very
important tools for both artists and those who wish to gain insight
into the work they are looking at. Writing and editing a statement
is a very useful exercise for an artist that can give him/her a new
perspective on their work and a clarity about it-- even after the
pieces are made-- that can be difficult to articulate simply by
making.

A good statement can also reveal things about the work to those who
look at it: subtexts and ideas that may not be at first apparent.
The work, in my opinion, should always be strong enough to carry the
day on its own, either narratively, formally, etc.; but a good
statement can add an entirely different dimension of appreciation.

That being said, I have read, as an instructor, some incredibly bad,
even juvenile, statements. Sometimes the work is quite strong and
the writing quite bad. A badly written statement relying too much on
“art speak” can be a joke but it does not exclude the possibility
that the work it describes is still quite strong.

What is painfully true is that even a beautifully written statement
cannot justify a poorly made or conceived object.

Andy Cooperman
coopermanjewelry.com

77

Thank you, Don! I seem to remember that Ettagale Blauer included you
as the only “conceptual” jeweler in her book because your pieces are
beautiful and wearable too. You’re the best evidence that “smart
jewelry” ( but I’ve decided to call it “discourse jewelry”) can be
more than discursive. (Do your Mass Art friends think your work is
too “conservative”?)

I really appreciate all the work you put into SNAG. I also
appreciate your thoughtful addition to this thread. Andy is
right–you did everything you could to mend this rift. (Plus
[disclaimer?] you were really nice to me at SNAG/SF.)

All that I can see working is that Metalsmith become a journal that
tries to please everyone from Beth Rosengard (and me) to your Mass
Art friends (what one might call the center-left to the ultra-left),
and only pleases some of us some of the time. I don’t think it should
try to please the “trade jewelers,” who have plenty of magazines of
their own.

Or there could be two SNAG journals: Metalsmith, for the center-left
and leftward, and Academic Metalsmith, for the hard core discourse
people–the ones who think Metalsmith has become too conservative–so
that they can talk to themselves, instead of annoying the rest of us.
I say this as a recovering discourse addict (who can’t believe I used
to understand, and even write, that kind of stuff) rather than as
someone who is intolerant of things with which I am unfamiliar.

And I certainly hope that all the art departments in the US haven’t
succumbed to “smart.” Somewhere out there, I know there are
academics, and even grad students, who value beauty and sensuality
(this is jewelry we’re talking about) at least as much as
"criticism" and “edge.”

Lisa Orlando
Aphrodite’s Ornaments

78

I have to agree that artist’s statements can be of questionable
validity. That said, having juried lots of exhibitions and
competitions over the years, I can say that occasionally they are
illuminating. The EIP application asks for a 150 word statement, as
I recall. This was instituted after some artists choose to fill most
of a page with very long statements that left no room for the work.
I think the current balance of text to photos is a good one.

All that said, just because something is in “art speak” doesn’t
necessarily mean it’s BS. It also doesn’t necessarily mean it’s
intelligent either. As visual artists, working with words is not
always one of our strengths. I remember most of my RISD classmates
could hardly put a sentence together. I enjoy art writing most when
the author is able to discuss sophisticated topics in accessible
language. Marjorie Simon’s articles in Metalsmith are especially
good. I must admit that occasionally the more dense art speak seems
like some language that two identical twins made up, that only they
can understand.

I’ve often found when I’ve visited universities and spoken with
students, that their ability to talk about their work is ahead of
the actual work. Grad programs place a big emphasis on articulating
your intentions. Most students have been speaking English all their
lives, while metalsmithing is a relatively new activity. Our field
is not immune to the BS that regrettably infects most of our
culture.

For the Exhibition in Print (EIP) the great majority of the jurying
is done based on the slides. Artists statements are usually only
read at the request of the jurors. Most are only seen by the editor.
When I juried the first one, we asked to have a few statements read
as I recall, out of hundreds of applicants and this happened only at
the very end when we were making final cuts. As seasoned
professionals in the field, we preferred to rely on our impressions
of the finished work rather than statements. To me, it is all about
the work.

This EIP was juried by a very strong group of professionals. Sharon
Church is a professor at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia
and a brilliant and skilled jeweler, Ursula Ilse Neuman is curator
of the Museum of Arts and Design (formerly the American Craft
Museum) and Susan Cummins owned the recently closed gallery of the
same name. I considered it one of the best galleries this field has
ever seen in the US and I was very sad to see her close it. They
seemed to place a premium on finding new and innovative work, work
on the edge, that broke new ground. I think they succeeded in this
goal. For me, after 25 years in the field, I get most excited when I
see something new. Unfortunately, it doesn’t happen very often. I
also love to see younger artists getting exposure.

Best regards,
Don Friedlich

79 
    As to Andy Cooperman ,well you know they say any thing you say
or do will be held against you; I did go to your site ,I did read
your Bio /statement. Used to like your work, I now see it in a very
different light...

Hi Hratch;

I’m not sure this is fair for you to say, but I say this to you most
respectfully. I’ve been to your site, and I enjoyed the work; it
was very elegant with great responsibility to design and
craftsmanship. Your philosophy is both straightforward and personal,
and reminded me that one of my first teachers in the “real” world of
the jewelry trade was one of your countrymen. Arman Guldalian, to
whom I owe a great debt, came from Lebanon. I have also been to
Andy’s site, and I think his work is very beautiful too. It is
technically excellent and his love of exploration is evident
throughout the work. I read his Bio and artist’s statement about
one of the sculptures, and I thought that both these writings were
very responsible to what he is doing and what he thinks about his
work. I found them understandable, well written, and they lead me to
want to take his word for what the work is about and to participate
in his idea of the viewer’s interaction with the art. I don’t
remember that Andy was particularly critical of SNAG in a thoughtless
manner, so I was puzzled by your post. On the other hand, if he was
critical of SNAG, I feel it must have been intended to make them
aware of a shortcoming, not to simply tear them down. I myself was
pretty harsh with my criticisms of the EiP, but I did write to Dana
and express to her that I still believed SNAG was doing a very fine
job and that I was glad to be a member. Sometimes I enjoy Metalsmith
magazine a great deal, other times I am frustrated with it, but I am
a moody person and opinionated too. I try to counter these
characteristics by being very generous with my time and knowledge.
But more importantly, I don’t mean to say something as trite as
“let’s just all try and get along” . . . but I feel a little
responsible that if while I was busy throwing gasoline on the fire, a
couple of metalsmiths, both of whose work admire, might forget the
fact that they have a lot in common and that probably, in some way,
we all have something to thank the folks at SNAG for. I know it is
said that it is asking for trouble to talk about Sex, Politics, or
Religion. I hope we don’t ad Art to that list.

David L. Huffman

80 
  As to Andy Cooperman ,well you know they say any thing you say
or do will be held against you; I did go to your site ,I did read
your Bio /statement. Used to like your work, I now see it in a very
different light...

Wow,

Have I done something to really anger you, Hratch? The tone of your
post, in regards to me, seems irate and a bit nasty. I’ve reread
your other responses to this thread and we seemed in the past to be
in agreement. What has changed-- besides reading my statement and
bio.?

I’m glad that you used to like my work. Frankly, I’m a little
confused as to why you now feel differently. It seems that you see my
statement-- and bio-- as belonging to that class of pretense, "art
speak’ and “BS” that have been referred to in this thread… Am I
correct in assuming this? And, if so, how do my bio and statement
change what my work is?

The statement on my website is the most honest statement about my
work that I have to date written. It is unfortunate if you see it
as anything else. I believe the writing to be clear and relatively
free of art speak cliche’s.

I also believe that what I have posted on Orchid has been clear and
fairly centrist in its stance. I stand behind what I’ve said
regarding artists’ statements: They can be an important exercise and
tool for the artist and can give added dimension and a deeper insight
to those who view the work. (For an artist, writing a statement can
be a great way to examine an idea from a different angle and in a
different modality. Like keeping a journal, there is no need to even
show it to anyone.) Again, as I’ve already written, the work must be
strong enough to stand on its own. A statement should be an honest
reflection of intent and motivation and, perhaps, an explanation of
technique: an added benefit .It should be written clearly and
without pretense. It should never be seen as a means to justify weak
or lazy work. Again: Work may be strong or weak independent of the
statement accompanying it.

For the record: I firmly believe in the validity of Exhibition in
Print and the importance of Metalsmith magazine. There are more than
enough publications out there to service the jewelry trade, from
mall store design to studio and atelier. Metalsmith, as it is today,
covers the other end of the spectrum. I may not like much of what I
see in the magazine or even its editorial direction, but I am glad
that there is something out there pushing the envelope, stirring the
pot and starting conversations such as we’ve had.

Also, for the record, I’ve never been included in EiP although I
have submitted work.

If SNAG and Metalsmith are to be changed-- if the conferences and
publications do not represent the membership-- it will only happen
with the participation of those who are unsatisfied and feel
marginalized.

My hope, like Don’s, is that the organization can remain whole and
embrace all members’ preferences. The tent is big enough if we all
communicate openly and respectfully.

Hratch, I’ve been to your website. Very nice. I don’t see all that
much difference in our statements. If you wish to continue this
conversation for the benefit of Orchid members that would be great.
But let’s do so without venom. Otherwise, please email me off the
list.

Take care, Andy Cooperman.
coopermanjewelry.com