Our season of Blame It On The Bling continues with this diamond brooch submitted by AJF member Rachel Carren, who loves her diamonds natural, but not too rough. Now this is a vision of landscape that we here at at AJF could happily gaze at for hours.

Steven Ford and David Forlano, Diamond Pin #6, 2006, 18k gold, sterling polymer clay, 1.25 x 2.25 x .5″, diamonds. Photo: Robert Diamante

Diamond Pin #6 by Ford and Forlano would be great to wear to an Art Jewelry Forum event. The four diamonds bring a bit of bling into a piece of art jewelry through a play on the idea of diamonds and a series of contrasts. The roughness, both apparent and real of the polymer surfaces and less finished quality of the metals, contrast with the physical and conceptual refinement of the gemstones. The sparkle of the diamonds offsets the visual textures and earthy hues of the polymer and non-lustrous metals. Ford and Forlano also tweak the idea of diamond another way through the use of round details in the surface patterning that echo the round shape of the actual diamonds and is inset into diamond shaped forms. For me, all of this makes for a pin that is engaging and eminently wearable. It is definitely not the status quo for what one would envision of diamond jewelry.

Here at AJF we have a secret love of diamonds. While reading Vanity Fair in public we are always very vocal in our condemnation of the precious materials and conventional jewelry that fill the pages at the front of the magazine, and yet we guiltily confess to gazing long and lovingly at those same pages when we’re alone. When we found ourselves hiding pictures of diamonds in the pages of Metalsmith magazine so we would be able to get a quick fix at contemporary jewelry openings and conferences, we knew something had to change. While we could try and give up our addiction to all that glitters and shimmers, we felt that a more interesting strategy would be to confess our diamond mania and try and entice others who also love the stone of champions to reveal themselves.

The response to our ‘Facet? Let’s Face It!’ appeal has been excellent, with many AJF members coming forward in what we are calling our season of Blame It On The Bling. The first sorry but sparkly jewelry-loving and diamond-wearing individual to share their shame is AJF board member Ron Porter. Here are some diamonds he just can’t stop thinking about.

Keith Lewis, Salt Lick, 1996, sterling silver, vermeil, diamonds, 4 x 2.25 x .5 inches

Even though Salt Lick is taken out of context from Keith Lewis’s early body of work, it expresses his desire to question the preciousness of jewelry. This body of work dealt with his experiences as a gay man, particularly how HIV came to effect the open sexuality of the gay movement of the last quarter of the twentieth century. He used animal imagery in the majority of these pieces.

Salt Lick was completed after his pieces dealing with HIV and began to present the re-awakening of sexuality in the gay community in the late 1990s. The figure is lone and experiencing sexual pleasure without a partner. It is also significant that the figure was a gilded stag, suggesting a return to Pre-AIDS gay iconography.

This is the only piece in which Keith used diamonds. Their particular use in this setting questions all sorts of significance and lore attributed to the stone as well as enters into the devine/profane debate regarding the function of contemporary jewelry.

Sharon Massey, Untitled, 2008, iron wire, cotton muslin, wax, gold, 3 x 12 x 12 inches

The AJF Emerging Jewelry Artist award is now open for business, bigger and better than ever in its eleventh year. If you are a contemporary jeweler who has completed your academic or professional training, have been out of school for more than one year, and have not yet had a solo exhibition in a commercial gallery or museum, then we are looking for you.

Just like reality television – although without the television and, hopefully, the histrionics – the AJF Emerging Jewelry Artist award can be your path to fame and fortune. All you have to do is dazzle our panel of judges – Namita Wiggers, curator at the Museum of Contemporary Craft in Portland, Susan Beech, long-standing AJF member and jewelry collector, and Sharon Massey, recipient of the 2009 award – with your talent, ambition and, of course, your jewelry. The award is open to any emerging jeweler from anywhere around the world, and the deadline for submissions is 13 June 2010. (To read more about the award, click here.) The winner will be showered with praise and glory, and the not-too-shabby sum of $5000.

Finally, if you are not an emerging jeweler but believe that programs such as these are a valuable addition to the contemporary jewelry scene, then please consider becoming a member of AJF. Not only are AJF members scientifically proven to be more popular and better looking than the rest of the jewelry-loving population, but they glow with the special joy that comes from making a difference through AJF’s various programs. To find out more about why you should become a member of AJF and what your membership donation will be used for, click here.

Ron Arad, Not Made By Hand, 2002, bracelet, polyamide, 75 x 100 mm (LE06)

Currently on display in Designers on Jewellery: Twelve Years of Jewellery Production from Chi ha paura . . .?

Production is a sensitive concept within contemporary jewelry practice. Standing between fine art on one side and design on the other, contemporary jewelry has tended to appeal to fine art’s love of the unique rather than design’s love of the many. Yet this conceptual manoeuvre is in many ways directly opposed to jewelry’s own history and traditions. As French jeweler Benjamin Lignel recently wrote in Metalsmith magazine:

Although contemporary studio jewelry persistently uses fine arts as a model in its quest for legitimacy, and has emulated its modes of distribution through galleries ever since it emerged in the 1960s as an independent genre, it continues to entertain an uneasy relationship to serial reproduction. While artists like Joseph Beuys and Andy Warhol were happily blowing up the conventional dogma that set apart unique pieces from repeat production, contemporary jewelry artists only gingerly engaged in editions. Jewelers maintain that serial work and mechanical reproduction are antithetical to craft heritage, and that forgoing traditional techniques and uniqueness in favor of more disposable, machine-made products threatens the profession’s raison d’être, the specificity of its “voice.” For the most part, galleries agree, on the principle that if all else fails, making handcrafted one-offs will guarantee an artist recognition from a buying public that is ever ready to equate “original” with “artistic.” My naïve assumption that, if an object is good once, it will be good 20 times over, is what fuels this essay. My more seasoned conviction, that contemporary jewelry needs the visibility that editions would provide, also plays a part.

One of his points is that the idea of serial production as an anemic copy of the original only exists as long as we persist in seeing craft as a last stand against mediocrity in a society awash with the trashy results of the industrial revolution. As Lignel suggests, ‘When one approaches reproduction as its own media, exciting precisely because it belongs to, and reflects upon, industrial culture, the negative relationship that binds original and serial copy ceases to exist.’ Production jewelry, in other words, is less a victim of industrial processes and more a medium through which jewelers can engage with the issues of production, economy and distribution that are central to industrialized societies.

Most productive (excuse the pun) is the idea that serial reproduction provides an alternative model through which jewelry (and craft) might be theorised – a model that allows us to side-step the tyranny of the fine arts. Lignel writes:

Ultimately, the debate around reproduction is less about processes than territory: will contemporary jewelry lose its specificity by relinquishing craft? In their struggle to find recognition, contemporary jewelers seem to have made two assumptions: First, that contemporary jewelry should speak the language of craft; secondly, that its bid for artistic credibility is incompatible with “non-artistic” modes of production and distribution. Both assumptions set useless limits, and are equally useless as road maps: one is reductive, the other, reactionary. While craft is very much about process, I would argue that contemporary jewelry need not always be. Editions interact with a production world that is alien to craft, and allow us to tackle issues that may not be within the reach of “precious,” anvil-hewn, gallery-bound objects.

These issues are particularly relevant to countries where production jewelry has an established role in providing a living for the jeweler, where jewelers expect to live off their work. Without production jewelry, it would be impossible to survive solely from your jewelry practice. We have always recognised that there is a financial dimension to this kind of activity, but how much attention have we given to its theoretical possibilities? (To read Lignel’s essay, click here.)

If you happen to live in San Francisco, or are passing through the Bay area on Thursday 11 March 2010, you have the opportunity to take part in a discussion of these very issues. The San Francisco Museum of Craft + Design is presenting a panel discussion called Jewelry Designers/Jewelry Makers: Who’s Making It? in association with their current exhibition Designers on Jewelry: Twelve Years of Jewelry Production by Chi ha paura…?. Participants include David Cole, Sandra Enterline,  Mike and Maaike, and Julia Turner, and the event will be moderated by Marilyn da Silva. To find out more about the details of the event, click here.

Keen to find out what 30 of the big jewelry brains think about the current state of play? Having finished all of our America’s Next Top Model DVDs, we here at AJF were excited and relieved to come across Jewellery Talk, a series of interviews with leading jewelers, curators and gallerists from Europe, filmed by Daniela Hedman and Kajsa Lindberg in 2006. We had no idea that talking heads could be so engrossing, but then we’ve always been suckers for intelligent conversations about contemporary jewelry. So microwave your popcorn, pour a big glass of California red, and click here.

Here at AJF we have been very interested in the turn towards luxury that seems to be gripping certain parts of the contemporary jewelry scene – and, notably in the work of Damien Hirst, the fine arts world. Hirst’s poster for his recent exhibition titled End of an Era at the Gagosian Gallery in New York was a close-up photograph of rows of diamonds on some kind of reflective shelf. The image is a detail of works such as Judgement Day (2009), which consists of a 30-foot long gold cabinet filled with 30,000 manufactured diamonds. ‘End of an era’ and ‘judgement day’ both give Hirst some wriggle room in terms of whether he is being critical or crass, but either way the cultural play depends on the allure of diamonds as the most excessive, most luxurious gem. (You can visit the gallery website by clicking here.)

In January 2010 AJF member Lena Vigna’s exhibition Adornment and Excess: Jewelry in the 21st Century opened at the Miami University Art Museum. (The catalogue was in part funded by a grant from AJF through our Grant Award Program that supports museums to promote contemporary jewelry. To learn more about AJF grants, click here.) In her introduction, Vigna writes:

Not just aesthetic, sentimental or related to social status, jewelry can be understood as a material reflection of a society – what it values at a certain time, how and why. Current global issues of sustainability, personal responsibility and questions of wealth and power are fueling investigations of jewelry as a commodity, symbol and carrier of meaning. Contemporary art jewelers, such as the 19 whose works are included in Adornment and Excess: Jewelry in the 21st Century, draw attention to how we consume materials and objects historically, visually and metaphorically. Whether made of plastic or paper, cardboard or metal, reclaimed resources and otherwise, the contemporary jewelry featured in this exhibition both challenges and delights – it offers a dynamic framework for considering questions of sustainability, responsibility, material recycling, ethical consumption, prosperity, decadence and jewelry itself.

Vigna’s show suggests that most contemporary jewelers have a critical purpose behind their dalliance with luxury, and the seduction of excess is undercut through the use of commonplace materials. (You can find out more about the show by clicking here.) But why is it that adornment and excess are being yoked together in such a positive way in the present? And why has decadence become a virtue rather than a vice?

The fact that it is in some sense acceptable is nicely demonstrated by Metalsmith’s 2010 exhibition in print. Curated by Garth Clark, it is called Neo-Palatial: Objects of Virtue and Vice, and the call for submissions notes:

Throughout history, metalsmiths have sought commissions from the palace to create objet de virtue, extravagant works that challenge the limitation of technique, scale, and sometimes even good taste. Such objects are designed to take center stage, serving as the focal point of parlors, entrance halls, courtyards, or, later in the 19th-century, as “exposition vases” at World Fairs.  They were a little brash, deliberately exaggerated, and virtuosic or at least rapturous in their use of metals, lest they disappoint their patrons and noble guests. Over time, these patrons have changed from princes and warlords, to collectors and museums. For the 2010 “Exhibition in Print,” published by Metalsmith magazine, guest curator Garth Clark is seeking examples of giant “exposition vases,” canonical candlesticks, and jewelry on steroids, in an exploration of the brilliance and decadence of this metalsmithing genre.

There’s no denying that Garth Clark is a provocateur, and no doubt his decision to celebrate extravagance is a way to prod contemporary jewelry, to make it feel uncomfortable and thus to open up space for interesting things to happen. (To learn more about the call for submissions, click here.) Whatever Clark’s motivations, this recuperation of decadence feels more substantial, as though it is speaking to something profound and important.

There’s no doubt many ways to explain and understand this, but one might be in terms of the problems of contemporary jewelry’s audience. For anyone who pays attention to the buyers and collectors of contemporary jewelry, it is obvious that jewelry is in trouble, with an aging and relatively small population of supporters. The decision that contemporary jewelry made in the past half-century to align itself with fine art practice has not paid off in terms of access to a fine arts audience. Could the turn towards excess and luxury be some kind of new gambit on the part of contemporary jewelry to reposition itself in the wider cultural marketplace? There’s no doubt that contemporary jewelry has historically shunned the luxury market while secretly envying its success. Is this new mood a shrugging off of closet envy in favor of a more productive emulation? Might this embrace of decadence at the end of an era actually be a sign of a new, hopeful phase in contemporary jewelry?

Rory Hooper, Brooch, 2009, Textura #3, blackened iron, silver, 90 x 55 x 5 mm

At AJF we believe in the importance of an international perspective about contemporary jewelry. While some parts of the American contemporary jewelry scene have prioritized the regional over the global and developed a reputation (deserved or not) for insular practice, there are also some important stories of Americans looking far beyond their country’s borders. AJF member Helen Drutt English comes to mind as a collector and supporter of contemporary jewelry who has elegantly managed to balance the local and global. When the exhibition Ornament as Art: Avant-Garde Jewelry from the Helen Williams Drutt Collection went on tour a couple of years ago, the publicity rightly celebrated the international ambitions of Drutt’s activities, noting that her collection of over 700 pieces was made by 175 jewelers from from 18 different countries. (You can read more about the exhibition on the Houston Museum of Fine Arts website by clicking here.)

Gregory Larin, Necklace, 2009, Fragmentations: Invasion, silver, plastic, 110 x 50 mm

Thankfully, an exhibition called No Problem (?): Nine Israeli Jewelers at Gallery Loupe provides an opportunity to see what’s going on in one part of the world without traveling any further than New Jersey. (The exhibition closes on 14 March, and you can visit the gallery’s website by clicking here.) No Problem (?) is an opportunity to see new work by members of a group called INYANIM (the Hebrew word for ‘issues’) who are graduates of two Israeli art and design schools. Seeking to explore the possibilities of contemporary jewelry as a critical practice, No Problem (?) ‘contrasts the difficulty implied in the word “problem” with the nonchalance of the expression “no problem.”  The group’s work displays a wide spectrum of contradictions . . . between beauty and mutation . . . between substance and superficiality . . . between the ever-present problems in a country such as Israel – and the vernacular of indifference that is so common there.’

Aviv Kinel, Ring, 2009, Street Hearts, silver, PVC, 40 x 30 mm

While No Problem (?) doesn’t seek to play politics too overtly in the jewelry itself, this exhibition is part of a growing trend to give contemporary jewelry the freedom to claim some of the territory more usually covered by t-shirts and tin badges. We’ve previously featured the project ‘Middle East Portable Discussion’ by I Care A Lot on this blog (to read this post, click here), and while we’re not sure about jewelry’s efficacy as a political tool, we’re ready to march on the streets with any movement that pays respect to contemporary jewelry as an intelligent practice that matters.

Marti Guixe, Gold key $4 (LE04), 2002, gold-plated silver, 12 x 20 x 20 mm (key)

One of the major contemporary jewelry events in San Francisco of recent months has been the exhibition of Chi ha paura . . .? at the San Francisco Museum of Craft + Design. The brainchild of Dutch jeweler and cultural provocateur Gijs Bakker, Chi ha paura . . .? seeks to challenge and provoke contemporary jewelry through a production range designed by leading international designers and contemporary jewelers. Fascinated, and maybe even a little fearful, we sent AJF member Ahna Adair to check it out. You can read her review on the AJF website by clicking here.

Frederic Braham, Bonbons tres bons brooch (P19), 2007, blue and red powder coated metal, 22 x 20 x 18 mm

As Adair writes, ‘The name Chi ha paura…? translates in Italian to ‘Who’s afraid of….?’ and implicitly poses the question, ‘Who’s afraid of contemporary jewelry?’ Inviting designers and jewelers to wrestle with this question and many others, Gijs Bakker and associates work toward smart jewelry that can be made accessible to the public through production.’ And what does Adair conclude? This, for example:

Many of the collections pieces exemplify the conceptually rigorous mission of Chi ha paura…?. Frederic Braham’s Bonbons tres bons (2007) appear candy-coated and succinctly touch on complicated issues of a modern way of life mediated by manufactured medicine. Other pieces fell short of such careful conceptual investigation. Marti Guixe’s Gold Key $4 (2002) felt a little like a one-liner. Marc Monzo’s Diamond (2005), an enlarged diamond ring made as a brooch seemed common and predictable and Ron Arad’s Steps (1994) brooch is simply a miniature version of a chair he had already designed, creating something of a souvenir of his work more than a new and thought provoking piece.

You’ll have to visit the AJF website to read the rest. And if you like what you see, you’ll have more opportunity to find out about Chi ha paura . . .? in an interview with the bespectacled one we’ll be publishing next month on the AJF website. (That’s Gijs Bakker, not Harry Potter, who is also famous and wears glasses.) In the meantime, if you happen to be passing through San Francisco, you can check out the exhibition which runs until the 16th May 2010. (To visit the museum’s website, click here.)

A helpful jewelry hint from Modern Mechanix magazine, December 1932.

The Association for the Study of Jewelry & Associated Arts are busy creating a series of videos called Moments in Jewelry History. To view their first effort, the overlooked and underrated movement of 19th Century French Electric Jewelry, click here. Here at AJF we particularly liked the scarf pin of golden rabbit beating a tiny gong – a prophetic glimpse of that twentieth century icon of electricity, the Energizer Bunny. (To learn more about the Association for the Study of Jewelry & Associated Arts, click here.)

Nina Dinoff, Martin Luther King Day 2010

Here at AJF we know that contemporary jewelry is addictive – or as we like to euphemistically say, habit-forming. What about making jewelry? Recently AJF member Marthe Le Van sent us this report of an internet-based project that proves good things can emerge from the daily grind, and that necessity – in this case to make one piece of jewelry every day – really is the mother of invention.

Malador, Nose ring

Setting ambitious goals at the start of a new year is quite common. Having your new year’s resolution become a booming Internet phenomenon with more than 200 jewelers participating in the first month is an extraordinary event.

Chris Irick, Ring

New York jeweler Nina Dinoff first heard about making a ring a day for an entire year while attending a workshop at the Haystack Mountain School in Deer Isle, Maine. Though the idea wasn’t new, it nevertheless stuck with her. As someone who felt ‘relentlessly challenged by any sort of day-to-day routine’, Dinoff was inspired to take up the challenge herself. She posted images of her daily creations on Flickr, a photo-sharing website, and encouraged other artists to take part. Just one month into the New Year, there were more than 3000 images at the Ring A Day Project. By December 2010, that number could easily grow to 36,000! (To visit the Ring A Day website, click here.)

Maria Apostalou, Ring

Dinoff’s challenge, to ‘make a ring a day no matter where you are, what materials are at your disposal, or how much time you have available’, is yielding some spectacular results. Of equal importance, the Ring A Day Project is building a community of makers that are communicating about and through jewelry every single day. In this virtual workshop setting, all are welcome to explore ideas and techniques and give and receive immediate feedback.

Sarah McCurdie, Coconut ring

The Ring A Day project is an example of the internet at its best. Bookmark the site, check back often, and prepare to be inspired day after day after day after day.