Hello J. Collier, et al,
The difficulty in describing a piece made using metal clay lies in
the fact that metal clay can be described as a number of things: a
tool, a medium, a technique, a process, etc. The end product is
always metal, precious or otherwise. Claireâs piece was made using
metal clay, I believe, but the end product was a metal objet. There
was no attempt at deception, nor would there be for any object made
using metal clay.
Metal clay, casting, assembly, fabrication, die-forming, repousse,
enameling, et al, all are simply methods for creating a metal objet.
The Material of that object is not the processes used to achieve it.
Let me say that again and louder: THE MATERIAL OF THAT OBJECT IS NOT
THE PROCESSES USED TO ACHIEVE IT. The material is the metal. An
object made using metal clay is no longer metal âclayâ; it is METAL.
There are many ways to manipulate metal clays that, added to
traditional methods for forming metal, expand what a metal artisan
can do to form metal objects. Is this a problem? Was it a problem
when small hydraulic presses entered the studio jewelerâs repertoire
of techniques? Was it a problem when anticlastic raising was
introduced to our vocabulary? Was it a problem when micro-folding
processes were being explored? Metal clay is only the new kid on the
block, only a new way to work with metal. Thatâs all it is. Is this
conversation merely one more occurrence of resistance to the New or
Strange, this response to metal clay that is endemic to our field
(and to humanity)?
There are so many of us whose work has exemplified the best in our
field, who are part of the Orchid community, and who have not tested
metal clay, but who find it necessary to comment negatively. Yes,
there is work out there made using metal clay that is not high
quality, not visually appealing, not to our individual tastes.
Commenting on that is actually only a review of the individual
pieces, not the material. Imagine if our Orchid community decided to
condemn the use of rolled metal sheet because some of the work
(perhaps even a majority of the work) made was of inferior quality.
We all know that there is lots of work out there that is simply not
worth discussing because itâs made poorly or inadequately thought
out. This is true across the board, and in all art forms (we wonât
get into the discussion of whether jewelry is Art, OK?). Simply
because many pieces made using metal clay processes are considered
inferior in quality or style, does not mean that there arenât
beautifully made pieces using these processes. It just means that the
commentators lack a broad enough exposure to the field of work made
using metal clay.
So, come on, get out there, look at all the work, try using metal
clay, before you decide you are in a position to comment critically,
positively or negatively, about this process. You may decide that the
material works for you (or you may hate it); you may decide it will
never replace the methods youâre currently using or, alternatively,
that metal clay will add to the skills you already possess and will
enhance the quality or style of your work. You may find it utterly
boring or magnificently stimulating. At least you will have become
informed. And, if you donât choose to do any of the above, then
recognize that you are not qualified to discuss or critique metal
clay and itâs consequent objets, and refrain from doing so.
Uninformed commentary does not add to our understanding of any
process or material.
Hope this advances this discussion topic,
Linda Kaye-Moses