It has been my hope in the years that I've participated on Orchid
that this "is it or isn't it jewelry" or the "my kid could have done
Andy, what you say in this post is absolutely true, and to a degree I
apologise for letting my prejudice show, unwittingly. The day that Du
Champ leaned a snow shovel against a wall and called it art was the
day that art changed forever. I think that just for the sake of
discussion and “art philosophy” though, that there is a valid
discussion in play. I personally think that jewelry is to be put on
the human body, and if you can’t it’s not jewelry. You could call me
a
traditonalist or something and I wouldn’t mind that. I recognize that
the rest of the world doesn’t share that view, which I accept. But
then (again, just philosophy) where does it stop? If I get a Honda
Civic and put it in a jewelry store with a pin back glued on the roof
and call it a brooch, does that make it a brooch? I don’t say these
things to be argumentative, just contemplative. It is the wonder of
art that anything goes. I don’t think the question, “When does it
cease being jewelry and becomes just sculpture?” is so trivial,
though.
We went to an opening for the book "100 Necklaces" - maybe the #
is wrong, but it was the necklace one. One of the pieces was street
signs (like stop signs, etc.) cut into marquise kind of shapes,
like 300 of them. That's goofy enough, but they told me someone put
it on and it weighs about 45 pounds. It's art, for sure - I'm not
so much making any point but that it was one of the most extremely
un-wearable things I've ever seen. I won't mention it was poorly
made, that wouldn't be nice at all...
I think that this thread is changing but I have to say something
about the Lark “500” series. I have bought every one that is related
to jewelry. I have submitted to a couple of them. Everytime I buy one
my wife looks at it and asks me why I paid for this crap. She said if
it was her she would return the book to Amazon. I have to admit that
some of this stuff is far flung to be considered jewelry. In this
case I am looking that the 500 Necklaces. But lets be real here for a
minute. I can live with Boris Bally’s piece but what is on page 171?
What am I even looking at here?? Then my big one that I have problems
with is the on page 180. Since when does 200lbs of rocks and gold
paint laying on the ground qualify as a necklace. Also the thing on
page 375 and page 389. There are a few others but I am not going to
get into it.
I am a metalsmith and I make items that are practical to wear. Yes
it is fun to see some far flung items that I would call jewelry but
they are something that can actually be worn. This is half the reason
I buy Metalsmith at the bookstore. So I can see if it is worth my
hard earned money for something worth wild or just flattened silver
serving pieces.
If I get a Honda Civic and put it in a jewelry store with a pin
back glued on the roof and call it a brooch, does that make it a
brooch?
If you put it in a gallery and call it a brooch, then it is an art
piece (whether a good one or not) that is a commentary on some
aspect of jewelry, and possibly other things.
The pieces that are under discussion are not engagement rings, they
are intended as art jewelry, and are therefore subject to different
criteria for judgement than “utilitarian” jewelry that must be
comfortable. I make teapots that cannot possibly be used to make
tea-- they are about making tea (and other things).
Personally, I like my jewelry to be wearable, but if a piece fills
some other function, artistically speaking, like it makes me think
in a new way, I do not insist that it also be practical. I think
that as soon as we make creators or jurors categorize jewelry as
“practical” OR “art” we do ourselves a gigantic disservice. Most of
us on this forum live in that vast space between factory-produced,
standard jewelry and the rarified world of gallery sculpture, some
closer to one shore, some the other. Let’s not put up fences.
Thank you for your thoughtful words. And speaking of childrens’
Creativity: “As a Child everybody is an Artist. The difficulty is to
remain one when becoming an adult.” (Pablo Picasso) I sincerly think
that Picasso would never have changed the World of Art as he
obviously did without ‘daring’ to look beyond tradition and
convention… Wishing you all a fruitful and fulfilling New Year 2007
I do not do shows so I am not familiar with the jury process. If you
think about the criteria for inclusion to a art and/or craft show
like how an actor is chosen for a movie, it might be easier to
understand why some artists are chosen. An artist who’s work has
proven to be popular and who sells well probably is an advantage to a
show. If an artist does well at a show, why should they not be juried
in again? Should the process for picking artists be a lottery?
It seems to me, if I was applying to a show and getting rejected,
first of all there is the fact that there is a lot of competition. If
I was applying and not getting accepted, I would need to try and
understand that while the criteria for selection is not necessarily
quantifiable or qualifiable, I would have to look at my work and try
and figure out if there is something I need to address, something I
can do to make some change, and if the change I would have to make to
get accepted fits in with how I feel about the nature of what I do
and what changing my work to meet the criteria would mean to me.
It is too easy to say that it is politics, that avoids
responsibility on your part for your work or the presentation. It
could be your work or your slides.
It makes no sense to question why another artist was accepted
instead of you, I do not think many of us can acknowledge what
another
artist is doing that makes their work more attractive to the judges.
It does not matter why another artist did get in, it matters why you
did not.
I know all of us have gone to a movie after we knew one of the actors
won an Oscar, and left wondering why they had been chosen for that
performance, when another actor’s performance impacted you more.
I know someone who did the Smithsonian show once and could not get
accepted again. During the show other artists in his medium came up
to him and told him his work should not be in the show.
He has a piece in the Renwick Gallery, the permanent Smithsonian
collection.
If I get a Honda Civic and put it in a jewelry store with a pin back
glued on the roof and call it a brooch, does that make it a brooch?
If you put it in a gallery and call it a brooch, then it is an art
piece (whether a good one or not) that is a commentary on some
aspect of jewelry, and possibly other things.
I basically said I understand these things when I wrote the Honda
part - My business is commercial, my life is not. I’m not a fool. I
do reserve the right to laugh heartily, out loud and publicly when I
wish. No fences…