The look of hand made

Jewelry Discussion
21 
I am trying to understand this. Can someone explain to me the
meaning of tool marks. What is their aesthetic value?

I was offered a commission to make some suspension springs for a
Cobb & Co. coach (an Australian stage coach).

The customer insisted on hammer marks “to-make-it-look-old”, even
though the original springs were perfect and hammer mark free.

Maybe you’ve seen distressed furniture, made to make the furniture
look weathered, worn, old, and a little beaten up.

It depends on the customer.

Regards Charles A.

22

Hi Richard,

My response–4 words, I counted them :)-- was in agreement with the
post, concerning what I interpreted to be Michael’s dismay at what he
saw to be intolerant attitudes towards different aesthetics. I have
had similar feelings myself when reading some posts on this list but
I have never found your comments to be either dismissive, absolutist
or intolerant in this regard.

When I make work, I make every effort to make it the best way that I
can. But that commitment to craft can be in service to many
aesthetics and sensibilities. In my studio I make work to fill a
variety of niches. The exhibition, one-of-a-kind pieces have very
little to do with the market (I can’t say “nothing to do with the
market” since I’m sure that there is some subconscious market subtext
thread whisping around in there). The decisions that I make when
working on these pieces are driven by a specific concept or content
or more often an intuitive response to something. Intuition, in fact,
plays a huge role in this work as I’m sure it does for many other
makers. But that intuitive process is always tempered by the
commitment to craft. In spontaneous or “happy accident” situations,
where something occurs unexpectedly or room has been left for an
“accident” to occur, the craft commitment lies in the editing: I only
utilize the elements that work and ring all the bells. And then how I
apply the “accident” is purposeful. (I made a series of pieces that I
called “Breach” in which I broke through the center of a sheet of
material–most often gold-- under heat. Sometimes I would have to
make 4 or 5 attempts at “spontaneity” before I got the ragged
dynamics of the hole right. I would just melt it down, roll it out
and start anew.)

I often use these one-of-a-kind pieces as a springboard for smaller,
less involved pieces, pieces that I can sell for less. These pieces
are more open to market forces. They may be more easily worn, utilize
lower cost materials or include stones that I feel will make them
more saleable. They may have came from the same place as the larger
pieces but they have become about something else.

Then there is custom and commission work. Some of that work is based
on the decisions that I would normally and intuitively make regarding
material, finish, etc. The client has asked me to approach it that
way: they want that aesthetic applied within their specific
requirements and, at times, parameters. But there are other clients
who seek my services as a maker who can produce something that they
have in mind or help them liberate and elaborate on an idea that they
can’t quite put shape to. They often have no acquaintance with my
other work, indeed, their whole notion of jewelry may be more
conventional regarding finishes, etc. My approach here is both
different and the same. The aesthetic choices that I make may not
cater to my own preferences (although I will speak up if a design
choice will interfere with what I feel they ultimately want). But I
will apply the same craft commitment to that work. If a high polish
is required-- a finish that I rarely use-- I will make it the best
that I can. Ditto stone setting, ditto symmetry, etc.

There is indeed a difference, as you point out, between different
markets and types of jewelry. But there is also a huge crossover.
Work like Petra Class, Gayle Eastman (look at the new Lark rings
book), Todd Reed and some of the Europeans exhibits a high quality of
craft and materials in service to a more painterly, immediate,
“funky” and even improbable aesthetic. Tool marks can certainly be a
part of this. I just don’t see a harsh line there…

Here’s the thing: I have found that the commitment to craft (have I
used that term enough?) can sometimes actually get in the way of
something that I am aesthetically trying to achieve or convey. It is
a delicate balance at times.

I think that the term “bigot” may have come from the idea that an
aesthetic choice was being judged and characterized rather than the
ability and commitment of the maker. In the case of the glue showing,
I would have had a similar reaction. I don’t find that comment about
“distraction” to be invalid at all. The glue probably did get in the
way of the piece and that was unfortunate. A rustic, weathered or
biomorphic aesthetic is not an excuse for slop. The glue was slop,
tool marks ain’t necessarily so.

When I choose a gallery to approach or to work with it is one that
is in sync with my aesthetic in the first place. Their clientele will
be also. And that is just another market.

I have seen your work in person and I am quite sure the market
does not determine the design or craftsmanship of what you make, or
how it is finished.

I’m not really sure how to read this but I’ll take it as a
compliment… And I’m glad that you were tickled, Richard, by the
unexpected bit you found in my work. That discovery and surprise is
often the point.

Take care,
Andy

23

It has been interesting to follow the thread of this discussion, so I
thought perhaps I would outline my experience for what its worth.
Initially, when I started my craft work, in 1968 I chose enamelling,
as it was something I could do with limited space and equipment.
Having achieved the technical results I aimed at, I took my work to
all the local craft galleries and shops who, said they would be happy
to show my work,but on a sale or return basis. After following up my
initial placement of stock the sales results were poor,to say the
least.

I mentioned this to a friend of mine who had a stall in the open air
antique/tat market in London in the Portobello road.

He offered me some 3ft by 3ft on the end of his booth.

the first Saturday I was there I took more than all the craft shops
had sold over the previous 2 months.

so the decision was made.

Stop trying to get others to sell you work for you, design, make and
market it yourself.

That was in 1968 and I havnt changed this way of working since. The
buck therefore stops with me for everything, I earn what im worth,
and take the profit on all the operations.

This reflects the way I feel about the designs, the finish, the
presentation of whatever Im making.

It was a couple of years before I moved into actual jewellry making,
specialising in wrought work, in the field of the torqe, or
bracelet, with rings to match.

I move onto the Bayswater road in 1970 and did that for 7 years,
earning for that time a very good income from just 1 day a week
selling. I had a display some 4ft by 4ft.

Then i got fed up with 240 miles driving there and back, and was
able to get into a Saturday market in a local town only 40 miles
away. There I had some 10ft of exhibition space, so could expand my
display to fit. I did that for 7/8 yrs aswell.

Another friend suggested I share a booth with him at the glastonbury
festival in 1984 with a gate of 50,000 people!!!.

I had lots of stock and sold out just about everything. So another
desision was made, move into the big show world.

In 1985 I built myself a proper exhibition marquee some 20ft by 10
ft, and did lots of large craft shows on a demonstration basis. IE I
would have a free pitch and parking and power in exchange for
demonstration my skills. I could also sell anything I wanted.

In 1987 I had a call from a one armed silversmith to say there was
another of our kind retiring in a nearby town, all the good stuff was
sold and all that was left was the heavy old rubbish. He thought I was
the sort of idiot who would be interested. When Igot there it was a
complete drop stampers workshop from 1851, nothing was missing, all
the machinery, tooling press tools blanks catalogues and even the old
price lists.

Well I didnt know how I would use it but felt I HAD to have it, on
the basis that tools are the key to making everything.

I hauled it all back in my truck, it was all around my garden on
pallets, some 5 tons of it.

Anyway to cut a long story short, By 1989 I made the minting drop
hammer fully transportable, took it to the Great dorset Steam fair
where I minted a commemorative plaque for the event at the event. I
didnt stop for the 5 days minting and selling off the hammer some
1000 plaques.!! That was the way to go.

that resulted in invitations to mint elsewhere in the UK as well as
throughout Europe.

that was from the 1990’s onwards… With sponsorship at museums and
craft fairs. Currently plans are in hand to recreate the Night and
Day plaques modelled by Thorwaldsen when he was in Rome in the 1830’s
I have the blessing of the Thorwaldsen museum in copenhagen to do
this project and the results will be available at events like Art in
Action, Weinachsmark in Schloss burg Solingen etc.

where ill be minting one of the designs in sterling. I have found
theres no substitue to designing, making and marketing ones own work.
theres always someone behind the current customer who want s what
one had made. Its much appreciated.

The work, of course has to speak for itself.

Ted Frater
Dorset
UK

24

Well said Michael… As a fairly new metal smith (2 years) I do my
best to learn the correct techniques through workshops, Books etc. I
do however use those techniques to make jewelry that is unique to my
style. I have a following that buys my pieces because they want that
style.

Personally, I like the Rustic, hand made look. That usually includes
hammered, roll printed,etched, fold formed etc. Anything that gives
texture to a piece. As a painter who loves mixed media, encaustic
and assemblage artwork, the hand made look is right up my alley. And
BTW, Michael, I am a big fan of your work.

Regards, gail

25

If am setting a customers gem and I scratch it, I will inform them
that it is an aesthetic tool mark and if they make an issue of it I
will let them know that they are an aesthetic bigot.

Richard Hart G.G.
Denver, Co.

26 
I believe David Pye also wrote about element of risk vs element of
certainty....was also echoed in a lecture by Peter Ross published
in "the anvil's ring" maybe 10 years ago.

If you are a crafts person you need to read David Pye’s “The Nature
and Art of Workmanship” it is short and you will not regret it.

James Binnion
James Binnion Metal Arts

27

For much of human history most man made objects one came in contact
with were “rustic” showing obvious marks of the tools and processes
used to make them. The reasons for this are many but mostly the
tools were not refined and the time needed to make highly regulated
surfaces was not available to someone striving to wrest a living
from the land. One of the main signs of wealth was that one could
afford to have a craftsperson spend the time to create well regulated
surfaces on the goods that one commissioned. Jewelry historically
was one of the items that had this kind of time invested in it. So
for much of human history many people strove to acquire these fine
goods to show their wealth so many of us have a strong historical
bias towards these types of surfaces. In the past hundred years this
has radically changed the industrial mass produced machine age we
live in produces surfaces of a highly regulated nature with ease.
Even packaging that is meant to be thrown away has amazing highly
regulated surfaces. So now there is a desire by some for works that
look rough to indicate that they are “made by hand” because they are
surrounded by perfect mass produced surfaces.

James Binnion
James Binnion Metal Arts

28 
Can someone explain to me the meaning of tool marks. What is their
aesthetic value?

To some, “tool marks” is what separates man from the precise, cold
machine. You do realize that once the machines perfect all of man’s
endevours they will turn to replicating man’s imperfections :slight_smile:

29 
Maybe you've seen distressed furniture, made to make the furniture
look weathered, worn, old, and a little beaten up.

I understand there are a lot of weird requests. I am asking what is
the aesthetic value? Distressing is technique of aging to create
impression that piece is old. It is a device to dupe unsuspecting
bystanders that the piece is antique.

Leonid Surpin

30 
If you buy new car and I add some scratches to the finish
aesthetically. Will you thank me for enhancing aesthetic value of
your car, or will you sue me for damages?

Tool marks CAN be part of the design on rare occasions. If required
I’ll finish up to a rouge level and then put in tool type marks where
I want them. Nothing random is left. Slight control freak here :slight_smile: No
car at the moment but if you ‘enhanced’ a car of mine damages would
be the least of your concerns. Death comes to mind.

jeffD
Demand Designs
Analog/Digital Modelling & Goldsmithing
http://www.gmavt.net/~jdemand

31

Hi Richard,

If am setting a customers gem and I scratch it, I will inform them
that it is an aesthetic tool mark and if they make an issue of it I
will let them know that they are an aesthetic bigot.

Have I missed something here? I think that that the poster used the
term without any malice intended.

It’s clear in my mind that there is a difference between damaging
something and making an aesthetic choice. I am not defending slop or
chipping stones. It’s a balance, I think, between intent and
execution.

I make a wedding band that is a bare bones flat 7mm save for a very
prominent weld bead at the top. Am I wrong for not faring down the
bead? It takes a lot more time to get the weld bead that I want and
that works with the ring. It is most definitely an aesthetic
decision.

Take care,
Andy

32

Tool Marks…?? Wasn’t that Groucho’s other brother? wink!

J Collier Metalsmith

33

Hello Leonid,

In answer to your question

I am trying to understand this. Can someone explain to me the
meaning of tool marks. What is their aesthetic value?

I don’t know if I can explain this to your satisfaction but I’ll
try.

To me there is no way of determining if a piece of work is “perfect”
or even “good enough” without taking into account the context. What
is perfect in one situation may be overdone in another, or vice
versa. No, I would not thank you for denting or scratching my new car
to make it look “handmade”, complete with tool marks. But neither
would I reject a new car if its finish was not quite up to the level
of one of your pieces of jewelry. That high degree of polish would be
too costly and would offer no benefit in any case. There are many
areas of work where “good enough” is really good enough, where
refining the finish beyond what is necessary adds no practical value.
In addition, too high a degree of finish might render a piece
excessively vulnerable to damage. One tiny scratch or scrape would
stand out conspicuously and require huge amounts of maintenance to
restore to original vulnerable condition. So it is not that the tool
marks are necessarily beautiful, but the question is whether it adds
anything to go beyond what is necessary or appropriate. Admittedly
there may be some satisfaction in making or owning a work in which
even the unseen parts are polished to a state of perfection - but
that attitude is a choice not made by everyone. As a woodworker I
know the difference between the finish required on a table top versus
what is required on a farm cart. Both may be highly evolved objects,
their form and the techniques used to make them have developed over
centuries, and both can be very beautiful, not only measured by the
excellence of their finish, but by the appropriateness of the finish
to its intended use. I. personally, find appropriateness itself to be
a very large component of beauty. Up to the point when an appropriate
level of finish has been reached the tool marks generally become less
and less obvious to the eye, but even in your most perfect work a
microscope would show how far the surface is from true perfection. On
the other end of the spectrum, in work where toolmarks are easily
visible to the naked eye, they themselves reveal something. I am not
talking about work which has been deliberately damaged to create some
kind of ersatz “handmade” look. But where the tools have been used
deftly and efficiently to reach the stage “good enough” to the
purpose, there is a rhythm and beauty revealed, a record of the
artisan’s movements, themselves a pleasure, almost like a dance
recorded on the surface of the piece. Beauty is to be found in so
many different ways and places.

The movement of skilled hands is something which I find beautiful. I
watched a Japanese woman playing koto recently. The music was
wonderful, but truly, for me, the motions of her hands were at least
as beautiful and i can recall them in my mind better than the music
itself. I might go beyond the limited notion of the toolmarks
themselves, as the koto player’s hand movements left no actual
“marks” but the beauty of their dancing motion was the beauty of the
act of creation. That act, the skills embodied therein, are the
wonder of the human spirit. The music is transitory - it literally
disappears in an instant. The jewelry object itself might also be
considered almost secondary, no matter how rare the gemstone, no
matter how costly the metals. Those dead things, stones, metal, are
the by-product, the evidence of an event which occurred in the past
while they were being made - the event which was the act of their
creation. That wondrous act itself is memorialized in the workpiece,
which is nothing but dead stone or wood or whatever material was the
vehicle for the wondrous event.

That’s as close as i can get to it tonight.

34 
So now there is a desire by some for works that look rough to
indicate that they are "made by hand" because they are surrounded
by perfect mass produced surfaces.

I have never heard, in 22 years of retail, anything like this
articulated by a customer. Is this an assumption, a speculation, or
something routinely heard by customers, and if so, I wonder why it
does not happen at my business? Read my other post as to my
experience in retail. I completely understand that people like the
look of "handmade " jewelry. But to some, mass produced cast pieces
are thought to be “handmade” by the public.

The majority of men that I come into contact with who want textured
surfaces on their rings do work that will ruin the high polish finish
and they want something that will not show the abrasions.

Richard Hart G.G.
Denver, Co.

35

I guess that for me, an example of tool marks left for aesthetics
would be the beautifully even indentations of hammer marks on some
forged pieces, not necessarily in gold, but certainly in silver and
some of the exquisite old Arab and Indian trays and coffee jugs.

To be honest, I can’t think of other examples - and to be able to
see file marks or the end of a saw cut in work is cringe making.

Jane Walker

36 
Have I missed something here? I think that that the poster used
the term without any malice intended.

Prepare for rambling, non-sequiters, anecdotal evidence…

Quote from Michael’s post:

This is why it is so hard for me to bring myself to participate on
this forum. Some lack respect for the differences in aesthetics
that we all may have concerning the way works look or the way
things are done. Some say it is sloppy and lack of skill to show
tool marks, and some say that refined pieces look like mall
jewelry.

(My own post said that solder seams were sloppy.)(My definition of
“tools marks” below).

Aesthetics:

  1. A set of principles concerned with the nature and appreciation of
    beauty, esp. in art.

2.The branch of philosophy that deals with the principles of beauty
andartistic taste.

I am not sure that this is about “aesthetics” by the definition, but
a discussion about preferences that are opinions about craftsmanship
rather than principles or philosophy, but I could be mistaken…

Andy,

Hope you did not think my post was directed toward you in any way.
It was general to the thread, Lenoid kinda responded similarly about
a scratch on a new car.

Tool marks are generally a scratch or a divot in the metal that are
like scars. Using setting pliers and leaving marks on a polished
surface. Not finishing a prong correctly if it was flattened on top
and not having a nice round surface so it does not mushroom and
create a rough edge to catch on clothing. Leaving it might be
considered aesthetic (?), but the customer will not be happy when a
piece of clothing is ruined. Hammering the back of a high polish ring
to size up and not removing the hammer marks? Not seemingly aesthetic
either by the definition.

Do the repair work with no visible sign of what was done might be why
customers say "Oh, I can’t even see where you did it, it is perfect.
These customers are not looking for distinguishing marks to identify
that it was handmade and not mass produced.

I looked at Petra Class’s work and I do not know how that work would
be used as an example pf “tool marks”. Most of the artists work
mentioned use texture, and I understand that texture can be a form of
“tool marks”.

Never heard the term faring down. Not clear on what that means. I
did notice a comment on your ring on Facebook, “you left a glob of
something on the pretty ring” Then a second comment, “just kidding”.
Interesting that it was mentioned that way, in the context of this
thread.

Lastly, my opinion, the customer of someone who works in copper
and/or silver will have a far different expectation than the customer
of a traditional diamond anniversary band, engagement ring, ect. in
gold or platinum. I know Todd Reed’s (and others) wedding and
engagement jewelry. I think this is a extremely small percentage of
the market. And it is driven by intense marketing campaigns. Probably
more spent on marketing than on producing the jewelry.

I have had a retail jewelry store for 22 years. I do repair and
custom. There is talk on this forum about concepts, I live the
reality, I see what people buy and what they bring in for repair that
they have bought. The percentage of jewelry that has texture (or
tool marked) is so negligible as to basically not count other than a
means of expression of opinion in defense for or against on this
forum.

Please look at http://www.ganoksin.com/gnkurl/1pk and anyone can see
that I use texture "tools marks) in a line I make.

Since I do both contemporary high polish and textured work, I am
aware of how different my customers are for each. There is very
little crossover. That is my experience, I am not in a vacuum.n
(brain fog, guilt)

I have the work of 10 local metalsmiths and I have some practical
experience in the marketplace. The work of the local artists is about
20% of our display case real estate. It is not responsible for 20% of
the sales. Most of the work is textured, “rustic”, little if any high
polish. All of the “handmade” jewelry probably counts for less than
5% of our sales. My work does not sell as well as some of my other
artists work. I am the neighborhood mom and pop jewelry store.
Engagement, wedding, Valentine’s day, Mother’s Day, birthdays,
graduation, Christmas.

I see people who develop a clientele for their specific style. I am
not a good business person. i am not good at marketing. I have been
able to recognize the needs of the people in the area I live in and
I have been able to survive doing what I love, and I have not worked
for anyone for over 25 years.

I would say I can have my cake and eat it, but in this economy, it
is not cake I am eating… Best I can do on a good day. Or as the
Grateful dead song goes, “Am I the victim or the crime?”.

37

Hi Everyone,

I use a lot of hammer-forming of sheet metal to make my work. I
usually do not take out the tool marks but use them as part of my
finish. I try to stop when I have captured the character that I want
and when doing more would be unproductive. However, I usually get
obsessed with control and take it further than I need to. As you can
see in some of these examples.

David Luck
http://www.davidluckjewelry.com

38 
I understand there are a lot of weird requests. I am asking what
is the aesthetic value? Distressing is technique of aging to create
impression that piece is old. It is a device to dupe unsuspecting
bystanders that the piece is antique.

Hardly weird, some people things that look old. Some things look
better old, which is what I’m hoping for myself :wink: CIA

39 
So now there is a desire by some for works that look rough to
indicate that they are "made by hand" because they are surrounded
by perfect mass produced surfaces

Just pulled a stray quote out of this rather silly thread. I think
the problem here is one of language, or lack of it. It’s all about
tool marks, I guess. It’s a jeweler’s job to put toolmarks on work
and then know how to remove them. Every time you use a pair of pliers
or a hammer you leave some mark, something short of a perfect
surface. Those are “tool marks” and they are bad, as another poster
said long ago. What others are talking about are certain textural
finishes. Textural finishes are made by tools, yes, but they are
different from “tool marks”, which are either a sign of laziness or
inability. Texture? Sure, though it’s often overdone in contemporary
work. Sloppiness? Of course not… It’s really not that
complicated.

40

This discussion reminds me of my grandparents’ discussions related
to the look of the Arts & Crafts movement in comparison to the smooth
swirls of Art Nouveau and the clean lines of Art Deco. Although the
design movements were concurrent in time (1860-1930s), there was a
definite contrast in look and intent. Personally, I have no
preference and appreciate them all. The value of art is its appeal to
all kinds of people and their tastes. Logically, a gallery should
understand that, and reflect a range of designs in order to appeal to
a wider audience.

Now, back to some less esoteric thoughts. How about those New York
Giants? :wink:

Judy in Kansas, where single digits made that down comforter very
appealing last night.