Should we all then, John, compound our own pigments, mine and mill
our own stock and alloy our own solders?
I’d love to hear-- and read – more thoughtful discussion about this
"movement".
Andy
Jewelry is not art.
Why such black and white thinking? Can’t jewelry sometimes be art?
such as the southwest death by Kokopelli
Gee, Lee, you think there’s too many Kokopelli’s? I think they’re
probably on a quest to take over the human race, myself…I have to
admit Jo-Ann imported one to our garden in SF bay - looks good but I
suspect it’s pumping out little Kokos in the night…
I'm with you Andrea. Jewelry is not art.
It appears that you are not agreeing with Andrea after all. She is
saying that one MAY make jewelry which is art once one has gained a
degree of competence in the basic technical skills involved. You
appear to be saying that there is no such thing as jewelry which is
art.
Definitions of art-
the products of human creativity; works of art collectively; "an
art exhibition"; “a fine collection of art”
the creation of beautiful or significant things; "art does not
need to be innovative to be good"; “I was never any good at art”; “he
said that architecture is the art of wasting space beautifully”
a superior skill that you can learn by study and practice and
observation; “the art of conversation”; “it’s quite an art”
I say jewelry is art which frequently but not necessarily
incorporates precious metals and gemstones and which is wearable.
This is not to say that all jewelry is good art. While jewelry may
have a utilitarian aspect, there is invariably an aesthetic aspect of
it which is above and beyond function, and it is this aesthetic
aspect which makes the piece itself art, be it good, bad or
indifferent.
Lee
I see that there is a huge difference in the perception of the word
"Craft" outside the USA. In the USA most “craft” is stuff that
hobbyists put together, they can even use sanitary pads to make
"angels" and call it craft. Craft “shows” are generally filled with
inexpensive items such as toilet paper covers, or place mats. I
almost resent the use of the word CRAFT for hand-made, one of a kind,
non- mass produced jewelry because of what I see at "Craft shows."
The meaning of art has different meanings around the world too. To
me, adornment items, which are one of a kind are small sculptures.
Therefore ART applies.
Should we all then, John, compound our own pigments, mine and mill our own stock and alloy our own solders?
Wouldn’t hurt. Most really professional painters and many enamelists
compound their own pigments. Most really professional jewelry shops
(including ours) mill their own stock and alloy their own metals. My
brother the inlayer rarely buys rocks, he goes outside and collects
them. The nearer the source the better…
Jewelry is not art.
Huh? Is Calder’s work art when it hangs from a ceiling but not when
it hangs from a neck?
Beth
Why such black and white thinking? Can't jewelry sometimes be art?
In a word no. It’s that simple.
I'll use the stop sign piece to illustrate. You can go out and get you a stop sign, hack it up, go to a hardware store and get some chain, drill a hole in the piece. That is precisely what the piece in question is. Or, you could get a piece of metal, make an octagon, and inlay a stop sign in stone - or enamel, or pave' rubies and diamonds. I, and the movement I mention (which is very real, by the way) are not saying that we want to go back to pretty pictures by any means. What it is is to recognize craftsmanship, whatever the medium may be. The notion that someone who goes out and picks up stuff and arranges it so, so artfully deserves equal if not greater weight than someone who creates an item which has never existed before is, well, "offensive" comes to mind. I'm not talking about content, or saying that abstraction is a bad thing. I'm talking about plain old everyday craftsmanship, whether metal, paint, beads or fabric.
Hmmmm… I haven’t seen this particular piece, but Andy said it was
made by Boris Bally. I have tried on other pieces by Boris, and I’m
surprised to hear that his craftsmanship is shoddy. The brooches I
tried on had the signage “inlaid” in silver. Here is his web site,
for those who are interested: http://www.borisbally.com/portfolio.php
Boris isn’t a pave’ type. He’s interested in recycled materials. And
although, in person, he seems like a real sweetheart, his work does
express a kind of “bugger them” attitude (am I going to get away with
this a second time?). But, John, so did Picasso’s–never mind
Duchamp’s infamous Nude! Are you sure this isn’t part of what you
find offensive?
As for the offensiveness of considering artful arrangement
“worthy”–how far do you want to go with this argument? Are you
including all forms of collage and assemblage? Picasso? Joseph
Cornell? Andy Goldsworthy? I don’t really believe this is what you
find offensive. Am I wrong?
Lisa Orlando
Albion, CA, US
Hi
Should we all then, John, compound our own pigments, mine and mill our own stock and alloy our own solders?
About 3 years ago, I made a focal for a necklace from a shell that I
found on the beach. It probably took me about 12 hours to weave lots
and lots of tiny beads around the shell. I thought it came out
pretty, so I entered it into a competition for a “found object art”
show.
To my surprise, my necklace was accepted. I bought a new outfit and
went to the opening…I was so excited. I took a walk around the
gallery and looked at some of the other works that were in the show.
I kept thinking “I must be so far removed form being a real
artist…I don’t understand any of this stuff”. One piece, a a
cardboard diorama of a Ken doll crawling up a staircase and a Barbie
reclining on a chaise left me miffed. I thought, if I can’t
understand it, I can’t be it. I might as well have another goal
because I’m not cut out to be an artist. It never dawned on me that,
possibly, the Barbie/Ken thing shouldn’t be called found object
“art”. Maybe it’s because I’m a veteran. I have been trained to
follow orders, not question any kind of establishment. John, I’m glad
you brought these points up. I know, a couple of your posts haven’t
been responded to favorably ( and I didn’t agree with everything) but
the things you said made me think a bit. I think it should be ok to
question, what is craft? what is art? what is functional, wearable?
Curators and jurors are surely not all-knowing entities with the
power to categorize and quantify everything we produce. There is a
possibility that mistakes have been/are being made. If,
hypothetically, I spent 30 hours or so of my time designing and
creating a wearable/functional piece of my own (work, art, whatever
you would like to call it), I would be a little miffed again if my
piece was passed over for a picture of an arrangement of rocks on
grass. What I’m getting at is, I hear ya.
Then again, I have looked at the Smithsonian show page a few times.
I don’t see where the issues are. I find a lot of the work to be
inspiring, some of it pretty cool to wear, a couple things I would
buy if I had the chance. Someone said, maybe a lot of talented people
are not trying to get into this show…this is why we are seeing
some of the same artists over again. I don’t know. I know it will be
a few years before I can consider trying so maybe I will find the
answer out then.
I’m going to consider this a sign to grow on. If the Barbie/Ken
dioramas and rocks on the lawn pieces can do it, why can’t I?
The notion that someone who goes out and picks up stuff and arranges it so, so artfully deserves equal if not greater weight than someone who creates an item which has never existed before is, well, "offensive"comes to mind. A pile of rocks is merely a pile of rocks. A sculpture carved out of marble, even if you or I don't like it, deserves more from all of us.
Sounds to me like - If it’s easy and takes “no” skill - like moving
a rock from one place to another… and it’s cheap, 'cause the rocks
are free… it ain’t art?
If so, then where/when does it become “art”? When you spend 100
hours stacking them just so? Or when you invest in tools, machinery,
and skills to change the shape of them?
This can lead to half a million other questions. If you are moving
the rocks while doing a ritual or a dance, or perhaps if you roll
them into position using your nose, does this give them added
“value”?
If it’s the only rock in the world of it’s kind - is it
automatically “art” because you got a couple drops of your blood on
it and made a “pattern” - while moving it?
If the rocks are positioned on some exact geographic position
determined by some super accurate global positioner - would that make
it art or math or science?
If the rocks are arranged to cast some kind of fantastic shadow when
the sun is in exactly the right position, maybe once a year?
If the “rocks” are manmade/synthetic to begin with (creating an item
that has never existed before) - does that make them art?
If you position the rocks just so - under a waterfall - and leave
them there for a time that you determine - and thereby change their
shape, but without much of your effort involved - what have you got?
Seems to boil down to the amount of effort expended? Or could it be
that a tool of some kind has to be employed? Or is it simply intent?
So, if you took the very same rocks and crushed them with a
sledgehammer, added sand and cement and poured them into a mold -
that resulting sculptural form is now “art”?
Or if these particular rocks contained gold veins, and you smelted
the metal out them, and made a gold statue of the material that was
once part of the rock - what have you got?
To me all of these are useless questions. I like the earlier post
that deals with cold hard reality. CAN YOU SELL IT? Will it put food
on the table, clothes on your back, and a roof over your head? If so,
you can make more of whatever it is, and live another day
NONE of what we discus/make/repair/“restore” on this forum is
necessary to life. It consumes huge quantities of energy and natural
resources to get the basic materials. It consumes huge amounts of
mental and physical resources to finish the “product.”
In the end you have a shiny bauble that only a minority of people in
the world (who live well above the subsistence level) can afford to
squander their money on… and we live on that money. What does that
make us? THAT might be an interesting subject for another thread.
For some people just having the time to look at “art” and baubles -
much less discussing “concepts” on thousand dollar computers for
hours at a time - is unimaginable. They are busy scratching the dirt
- to plant the crops that will maybe let them live another season…
Brian Marshall
I really disagree with the statement that jewelry is not art. To
take the position that the decorative arts are not art is completely
without justification. Of course we will never all agree on a
definition of “art”, but it certainly includes appropriate jewelry.
My own view is that “art” requires more than the juxtaposition of
objects that no one else has put together, but obviously many people
disagree.
Why such black and white thinking? Can’t jewelry sometimes be art?
In a word no. It's that simple.
Why so? I’d love a more thoughtful and certainly less dismissive
answer. Just saying so doesn’t make it (not) so. I really don’t
think that it is, in fact, that simple.
Question: Can’t jewelry sometimes be art?
Kevin’s answer: In a word no. It’s that simple.
Kevin, I sure don’t get this statement. I’ve already replied to you
once with the Calder example. I said, “Is Calder’s work art when it
hangs from a ceiling but not when it hangs from a neck?”
Here’s another one. Let’s say a sculptor creates a small scale work
and sells it to a customer who decides to hang it on a chain and wear
it, unbeknownst to the maker. Do you really think that this piece
morphs into non-art the second it becomes jewelry? That makes no
sense at all.
Is it because you don’t believe something can be both functional and
art at the same time? That’s the only explanation I can come up with.
But then you’d have to agree that a stunning piece of art glass
ceases to be art the moment someone fills it with water and puts a
flower in it.
Certainly you’re not saying that if the creative process involves a
craft that the result can’t be art? That makes even less sense.
So what are you saying?
Beth
With all this dialogue about what is/what isnt…let us not
forget…
We all build, make, construct, design, render, fabricate, assemble,
finish items that come from inside all of us, for one reason or
another, it might be to put food on the table, it might be something
we have always wanted to do, it may be something a simple as
expressing a feeling inside…or it could just be something cool
with absolutely no meaning what so ever.
Who are we to criticize the reasons that one does what they do? Its
a drive we all have, some expound on it more than others. Some have
better execution than others with the skillsets they have…
While we may critique what others have done, and we are all entitled
to that, it doesnt change feeling/drive/reasoning the
artist/craftsman had at the time they created it. There are pieces
out there that I love, and there are pieces out there that i dont,
but thats my opinion…and that is what this whole topic is
about…OPINION…everyone has one, including me.
I do what I do because it makes me happy, all opinions aside…
P@
One piece, a cardboard diorama of a Ken doll crawling up a staircase and a Barbie reclining on a chaise left me miffed
Not only that, it’s rampant plagiarism. Or did they have a notice
saying, “We wish to thank Mattel Corp. for their gracious permission
blah blah”? They didn’t make the dolls, or even think about it, they
“stole” them. OK, the recent Barbie thing (It’s here, too) is cute,
to
some (not to my taste, but who cares?), but does anybody in the
juror/curator/arbiter of what is displayed dept. actually think? It’s
the very definition of plagiarism. Picking up a rock (again) is one
thing. Taking someone else’s art and plugging it into “your own” (as
though that’s art) is unconscionable.
but Andy said it was made by Boris Bally. I have tried on other pieces by Boris, and I'm surprised to hear that his craftsmanship is shoddy
I’ve never heard of the man before, but I don’t get out much, so to
speak. I went to the link you had, and I can tell you that the piece
in question is nothing like what’s on the web site. And the piece in
question is not really so much in question as it is a “Poster Child”
for a genre. But I was talking to Elizabeth and Mike (Velvet Da
Vinci) and, well, let’s just say that Mike thought it was quite
humorous, and yes, it weighs just about 45 pounds. It is not the
clean
work on the web site. It’s street signs cut into marquise shapes,
like on the web site, but these are old and crusty looking, with
sanding marks all over the perimeters, and it is strung on a hardware
store chain. It’s just thrown together.
Sounds to me like - If it's easy and takes "no" skill - like moving a rock from one place to another... and it's cheap, 'cause the rocks are free... it ain't art?
Brian has some good points, mostly that the debate of how many angels
can dance on a pin is no more useful than it ever was. What I’m
trying to get at - some would probably say “Pound away at”, is
standards. It’s just also not useful to say “Everything is art.”,
even
though on some level it’s completely true. When your child comes to
you and says, “Look at the pretty rock I found”, do we need to put
that in the Smithsonian? Do we gather every scrawl that everybody
ever
did and put them in museums? Art school idealism sounds good in the
classroom, but like all idealism, it doesn’t hold up to examination.
Imagine if you paid $50 for a concert and when you got there there
was
some kid with an out-of tune guitar struggling with Stairway to
Heaven. Everything is Art!! Of course everything is art. And of
course NOT everything is art, really. There is a thing that’s called
“An Artist”, just as there are bankers and shopkeepers. I’m not
afraid to stand up and have people take potshots at me (The Devil’s
Advocate), but I’m also not presuming to say, “That is good, that’s
not”. I’m just talking about standards, and I’ll say it again - a
rock is just a rock. A sculpture of a rock is the artist’s VISION of
what a rock is about. THAT is the difference.
I like to use the terms “functional art” and “visual art”. It
distinguishes between the two but links them. When I describe the
type of craft shows I exhibit in I refer to them as “fine functional
art shows”. People seem to understand easily that I am describing a
high quality show rather than one of the “gingham and geese” or
“country craft” variety.
Best regards,
Jayne Redman
jayneredmanjewelry.com
Beth I want you to know that I’m not ignoring your post. I’ve got
much work to do and not much time. Briefly, to present a cogent
response would take some time that I don’t have at the moment. This
applies to Andy C. also (note I didn’t use ‘as well’) whose work I
respect. I didn’t mean to be flip. One point: why is it that the
appeal is always to a figure outside of the world of jewelry i.e.
Caulder, Picasso.
I love this kind of argument, in the classic sense, but it’s been
going on at least since Aristotle and has yet to be resolved.
Nonetheless the discussion is always enjoyable and sometimes
illuminating.
Kevin