At AJF we have a particular soft spot for the young jeweler, launching themselves on a wing and a prayer into the uncertain life of the craftsperson and daring to take part in a tradition of making that rivals prostitution for the title of world’s oldest profession. AJF member Valeria Vallarta Siemelink managed to spend some time at Broochmania: a project of Ädellab which recently took place at Galerie Rob Koudijs in Amsterdam from 5 June – 3 July 2010. (To find out more about Siemelink, click here; to visit the Galerie Rob Koudijs website, click here.) It is a tale in which some homework gets eaten by the dog but what’s happening in the classroom, for the gallery, proves to be more than worth a second look.

Brooching the Subject: One of a Kind, curated by Jan Katz, is currently showing at the Center for Southern Craft & Design at The Ogden Museum of Southern Art, New Orleans. (You can visit the museum’s website by clicking here.) AJF is pleased to bring you this review of the show by American jeweler and exhibition participant Thomas Mann, who finds that Mardi Gras is not the only reason for celebration down south. (You can find out more about Mann by clicking here.

New York New York! Reviewing SOFA 2010

My time at the New York SOFA show began early Friday morning. The show is located at the Park Avenue Armory. Upon entry, one sees a wonderful example of what once was, and soon again will be (post renovation), art nouveau era décor on a very grand scale.  

AJF sponsored a gracious continental breakfast in the Tiffany room, followed by the first AJF VIP lecture. Rock Hushka, curator of collections from the Tacoma Art Museum (TAM), spoke to the assembled group about collection strategies for studio art jewelry at his institution. Hushka ran through a brief history of TAM and then a long list of issues and concerns relevant to the museum. His comments addressed how the museum looks to expand its collection as well as their mission, which is to become a premier museum for Pacific Northwest art. Hushka spoke extensively on jewelry and the special considerations it entails for a museum.  

Staying put in the Tiffany Room, Hushka was ‘on’ again. Co-sponsored by AJF and SNAG, which brought in a broader audience, his second lecture was entitled, ‘Holding objects: What it means to wear jewelry – The psychoanalytic mechanisms’.  Hushka explained that he came to the subject of art jewelry seeking to understand the relationship between the artist and the wearer. He began by exploring the idea that jewelry appeals to many on an emotional level enhanced by facets of one’s particular culture. He then expounded on the unspoken messages of jewelry in general and continued on to examine in particular the meaning and message of studio art jewelry. Using psychoanalytical concepts, Hushka presented four different approaches to interpretation. His talk was both contemplative and challenging, but seemed to me at times to try too hard to make the art fit the concept rather than have the concept help to explain the art.

It was past noon when I finally walked into the exhibition space eager to see what was there and looking to pay special attention to studio art jewelry. One of the first galleries I saw was Sienna Gallery (Lenox, MA). The booth featured a single work, Wanderlux,by jeweler Tina Rath, which began on one side, turned the corner and continued across a wall at mid line of the exhibition space. I arrived right before Rath was to speak about her mixed media piece which was two years in the making and required five assistants. (You can see a video of the installation of Rath’s work by clicking here. http://vimeo.com/10951856)

The basic concept relates to Rath’s pleasure in wandering through nature and the luxury that being able to do so implies – a luxury of both time and space. Rath went on to explain that through the process of wandering in exterior landscape space, one is able to perhaps then wander through one’s own interior landscape. The piece itself is evocative of woodlands in both its jewelry components and its supportive structure. Blocks of blond wood tethered the composition. Each was adorned with cascades of draped ultra-suede leaves, twiggy silver tracings, fur, silk, rock, gold leaf and ivory. Fungus-like pods adhered to the mossy green background. The piece was designed to be intentionally interactive in that it contains secret drawers in the wood blocks that hold treasures – be they jewelry or bits of ‘nature’, much like the private spaces in one’s mind. This multi-dimensional piece contains ten pieces of jewelry nestled within its totality.

I found the piece to be compelling. The act of truly looking at it was engaging and forced the viewer to wander from place to place along the wall seeking out the hidden caches and fine details. Even with the title and no explanation, the gist of the concept was comprehensible. While it was not the most extreme example of studio art jewelry at the show, I felt it was current and had something distinctive to communicate. The disengaged items of jewelry ranged from easily wearable to somewhat bigger statements, but all were consistent in feeling and concept. As well as Rath’s Wanderlux, Sienna Gallery also presented a number of other intriguing artists although in a far more limited manner.

The display at Ornamentum (Hudson, NY) was more immediately diverse. The gallery featured several artists prominently. On the left side of the space a whole wall of Tanel Veenre’s Pagan poetry pieces were displayed. It was difficult for me to pay attention to this amorphous body of work when there were so many other interesting pieces to be seen. At the far right in its own designated area, Ruudt Peters’s Anima pieces were shown attached to individual mirrored disks suspended from above. The work is fairly delicate in scale and gave the illusion of fragility. Through this series, Peters was looking to explore the unconscious and to discover a new freedom of form.  The effect with the mirrors was eye catching, as well as light catching and allowed the art to be seen simultaneously from the front and back. The installation seemed to complement the intention of the work beautifully and added to the sense of subconscious illusiveness.

Jennifer Trask’s large neckpiece, Germinate, (shown at top of article) from her Embodiment series is a seductive tour de force of details combined to create a cascade of lacey organicism.   Composed of carved bone, a tiny bird skull, pinpoint hidden diamonds and bits of carved ivory, the neckpiece is like a jumbled natural history lesson. While making a bold statement in terms of scale, the piece is minutely crafted and visually enthralling. Trask’s series explores the concept of the emotional becoming embodied in the physical, but for me the piece is evocative of dreams where fragments of images are all somehow connected.

In contrast, Swan’s Neck necklace, a neckpiece featuring a taxidermy brown swan’s head embellished with beads, leather, feathers and fabric by the Netherland team Idiots, is far more difficult to comprehend. Due to its well-protected placement within the display area, one has to wonder whether the gallery was a bit unsure of the public reaction as well. With this work, the artists seek to play upon the contrasting ideas of momento mori, the natural beauty of the animal form and the idea of luxury to conjure up whatever thoughts such associations might inspire. It is hard to imagine, however, that adorning oneself with such a piece actually would lead to much conversation between wearer and the confronted viewer beyond talk about the reality of its components. Would wearing such a piece evoke real considerations on the nature of life and death among gala opening night participants, dinner guests or someone one casually encountered, or would it just serve as a bit of shocking provocation? Perhaps if a viewer was particularly intrigued one might get a bit further into the wearer’s interpretive choice and the meaning of the necklace, but it seems problematic. On the other hand, while I have no interest in owning it and even less in wearing it, more than a week later I am still trying to understand the impetus behind the piece. 

Maybe it was a carryover from Hushka’s talk, but it seems that each of the above artists, despite their differences in style and approach, share an interest in the cerebral connotations of their work. Their pieces suggest a narrative, even if the narrative is completely internal. One might say that much of contemporary studio art jewelry is highly cerebral in its origins, but this group of artists seems to be intentionally inviting an exploration of mental landscapes. 

Sergey Jivetin’s work, also at Ornamentum, seems less internally focused and more about the possibilities of found objects, scale and form. Jivetin’s jewelry forces one to consider everyday objects in new ways. Exhibited pieces ranged from work constructed of tiny watch hand components to large scale pieces fabricated with carbon-fiber reinforced egg shells. His Poultry accumulus (necklace) combines the illusion and preconception of an eggshell’s fragility with the reality of ‘bulletproof’ endurance, to quote Jivetin on its strength. Beyond the technical specifications, the necklace and a similarly constructed brooch juxtapose feminine associations of fertility, i.e. eggs and a soft roundness of form with an energetic vigor, a certain heft and bold compositional statements. Jivetin’s work has underlying content too, but seems less oriented to the internal musings of the individual psyche.

In addition to Sienna and Ornamentum, many other galleries presented art jewelry.  Some, such as established favorites Aaron Faber, Snyderman-Works and Charon Kransen Arts (CKA), were filled with a huge range of studio art jewelry by many artists. Kransen offered the usual dramatic display of great diversity. There seemed to be lots of color within the totality of the CKA presentation, a fact enhanced by the azure booth walls. While I looked closely at everything on display, I was especially appreciative of having the chance to talk at length to one of his exhibiting artists, Efharis Alepedis, about both her work and issues relevant to studio art jewelry. Other galleries such as Contemporary Applied Arts chose to feature a single jewelry artist, Katy Hackney, in conjunction with the rest of their collected works. There also were several galleries showing jewelry that studio art jewelry devotees might pass by due to their overall more traditional fine jewelry approach. However, within these galleries there were generally interesting pieces of beautifully crafted jewelry that one would never see at your local fine jewelry store. These galleries may not be quite so cutting edge, but they offered pieces that were different from standard fare and eminently wearable. 

After spending the better part of two days viewing and contemplating the totality of the SOFA experience, I left exhausted and feeling that while I had seen quite a lot, there was still much that was missed. 
 

PHOTOS (from top to bottom):

Germinate, Jennifer Trask at Ornamentum Gallery

Wanderlux, Tina Rath at Sienna Gallery

Wanderlux, Tina Rath at Sienna Gallery

Ornamentum Gallery

Anima, Ruudt Peters at Ornamentum

Tanel Veenre,Pagan Poetry at Ornamentum
 

Here at AJF we have been extremely lucky to receive a number of reports from Schmuck 2010, the exhibition and contemporary jewelry free-for-all that takes place in Munich every March. Recently we published American jeweler Doug Bucci’s two-part report, in which our narrator walked, talked and looked his way across multiple venues and through three days of more jewelry than can possibly be good for you. (To read Bucci’s posts, click here and here.) And now we bring you this report from Australian jeweler Zoe Brand, who risked deep vein thrombosis in the confines of cattle class (otherwise known as economy or coach) to take part in contemporary jewelry’s biggest bash. (To visit Brand’s website, click here.)

PHOTOS (top to bottom):

Schmuck 2010
Nicht Dass Du Mir Von Der Blause Fällst at Galerie Für Angewandte Kunst
mine x mine at WITTENBRINKFuenfhoefe
Giampaolo Babetto, L’Italianità dei Gioielli at the Pinakothek der Moderne
Martin Papcún, Untitled brooch, 2009, glass grains, stainless steel
Martin Papcún, Untitled brooch, 2009, glass grains, stainless steel

April 13th, 2010
Gray Area: Day One

At last, after a lot of planning, the Gray Area symposium opened at the Biblioteca de Mexico in Mexico City. For those of you who don’t know, the Gray Area is an ambitious project organized by the Amsterdam-based Otro Diseno Foundation for Cultural Cooperation and Development. As the program notes make clear, ‘Gray Area started as an urgent need: to diversify the international landscape of contemporary jewellery. Which turned into an idea: that of bringing enthusiastic jewellery devotees together in an unfamiliar, yet exciting place’. Taking place over five days, the symposium brings together speakers from Europe and Latin America (with a sprinkling of other countries) in what is effectively an attempt at cultural mediation – to insert Latin American jewelry into a European and then global jewelry discussion. (You can read more about the Gray Area symposium and associated exhibitions by clicking here.)

The first day of the symposium was dedicated to a fairly straightforward question: ‘What does it mean to us? Jewellery, identity and communication’. It won’t surprise you to learn that the answers proved not to be straightforward at all, as the various presentations and panel discussions raised a number of important issues that are currently impacting on contemporary jewelry practice around the world.

Dutch jeweler Manon van Kouswijk opened with a paper called ‘Gray matter: no brain, no gain’. Beginning with a whimsical reflection on her present position as head of jewelry at the Rietveld Academy in a building that is painted Rietveld grey, van Kouswijk effectively asked a series of questions that were designed to introduce the theme. What is the grey area? The space between commercial and art jewelry? Between craft and production? Between the head and the heart, the head and the hands? It was a nicely positioned talk in terms of the larger cultural dynamic of the conference, with van Kouswijk speculating on how a European can take part in a discussion located in a part of the world about which they know very little, and asking what is left to exchange in a mediated environment when nearly everything is available in books or on the internet. Speaking in front of a steady stream of images pulled from different times and places, van Kouswijk’s paper was a plea for a subtly located making – quite different to her deterritorialized slide show, in which objects and images flowed together without regard for cultural and historical specificity.

Caroline Broadhead, a British jeweler who is head of the jewelry department at Central St Martins in London, was up next with a paper titled ‘Ways of seeing: the body as an area for experimentation; interaction between jewel, wearer and viewer’. She spoke about vision, about ways of seeing and not seeing, particularly from the perspective of the viewer, who relies primarily on looking in order to encounter the jewelry – unlike the wearer, who has access to various bodily and sensory information in their encounter with the work. The value of Broadhead’s presentation was as an introduction to a variety of contemporary practices more or less familiar to the audience, which had the encouraging effect of demonstrating how rich and critically engaged contemporary jewelry can be. She also played the potentially risky game of positioning contemporary jewelry alongside contemporary fine art, and asking it to stand or fall on its merits. The conclusion seemed to be that the best contemporary jewelry can indeed play with the big boys (and girls) of the art world, and that it has something notable to say about both the body and vision. It was also notable to see the role of photography in experimental contemporary jewelry, a means of fixing temporary effects or staged tableau, and a reminder of how ubiquitous photography is in our experience of work, shaping how and what we see in the absence of the actual object.

The third talk of the morning, by Colombian archaeologist Clemencia Plazas, was called ‘American cosmovision through metals’, and turned back in time to the history of metals and technologies of pre-conquest Latin America. Her paper was a classic display of archaeology, coming with x-rays of objects, for example, so we could establish precisely how they were constructed, and offering a series of close readings of objects in terms of manufacture and then the social or cultural uses to which these objects were put. Plazas discussed the symbolic potential of metals, such as gold and platinum, the ways in which these metals were worked, and the types of jewelry or body adornment that were popular. Nose rings, for example, were close to breath, which means life. A spiral nose ring represented energy that penetrates and at the same time leaves the body, and different forms of nose rings had aesthetic potential, disguising or obscuring the face in quite different ways.

(left:The use and meaning of materials for different cultures session)
After lunch Plazas gave another paper in a session called ‘The use and meaning of materials for different cultures’, expanding on the cosmological implications of metal, and the way such materials as gold and silver mediated between the three realms of life in the Americas: the superworld above, our world in the middle, and the intraworld below. The superworld is the place of sunlight, associated with white or yellow, and thus gold. This is the male domain, the rational world and a place of linear thought. The intraworld is its opposite, the place of darkness, represented by black or blue. This is the world of the feminine, a space of rebirth, of intuitive and circular thinking. The human world, the place of sky, water and land, requires all the cosmological forces in balance to guarantee fertility. Materials like gold and silver were used symbolically in objects designed to achieve balance. Plazas made the very interesting point that the development of metallurgy in Latin America was linked to ritual and the cosmos, whereas in Europe metallurgy was closely tied to the practical world, to technology and economics.

Spanish jeweler Ramon Puig Cuyas, who is head of jewelry at the Escola Massana, talked about the importance of materials to jewelry practice, suggesting that materials are critical to jewelry in a way that they are not for other fine art practices, like sculpture. The issue is not which materials, but that materials are the starting point – meaning that you cannot speak about jewelry without the language of materials. Jewelry has always been a vehicle for extraordinary symbolism, which is why humans have always looked for extraordinary materials to use for it. And he suggested that the dialog of materials is what links contemporary jewelry to its past, to its jewelry traditions, even as it moves into the fine art world. As the scientist explores the nature of the materials of the universe to unlock secrets and knowledge of the world we live in, so the jeweler explores their materials in a similar way, with the same experimental intention and opportunity for discovery.

The final session of the day was a round table discussion, returning to the theme of ‘what does it mean to us?’ The participants were Liesbeth den Besten, an art historian from the Netherlands, French jeweler Benjamin Lignel, Mexican jeweler Jorge Manilla, who is a professor at the St Niklaas Academy in Belgium, Peruvian jeweler Ximena Briseno, who is currently studying in Australia, Mexican art critic Jose Manuel Springer, and myself (Damian Skinner). Everyone began by discussing the practice of contemporary jewelry in their country of origin, and addressed, if only briefly, some of their questions and perspectives on the meaning of contemporary jewelry. Den Besten spoke about her notion of contemporary jewelry as a kind of faith, demanding belief and commitment, as opposed to design’s interest in seduction without commitment. Lignel talked about his background as a designer, and his challenge to the doctrine of originality within contemporary jewelry, and his belief that there is no requirement for him to make or fabricate his work. Manilla spoke about the importance of honesty and integrity in contemporary jewelry, which will guarantee the value of any given work. Briseno asked about the way in which contemporary jewelry in Latin America is engaging with jewelry practices from Europe and North America, and whether this is a relationship of servitude, of unhealthy emulation. And Springer spoke about the personal potential of jewelry in constructing identity and the self, and concluded that the value of contemporary jewelry is in its lack of easy classification, its liminal or intermediate role. This, he noted, is contemporary jewelry’s best quality, its most productive characteristic.

These presentations were followed by a period of robust discussion and questions from the floor, which debated the differences between contemporary jewelry and design (and the issue of how an object addresses needs and desires), the relation of art and craft (and the potential of jewelry in a time when fine art is seeking to become more relational, to move away from its autonomous status), and the double nature of jewelry as objects to wear and display.
 

April 14th, 2010
Gray Area: Day Two

(left:Ruudt Peters’s artist talk)
The second day of the Gray Area symposium saw a few conference attendees looking worse for wear after a late night partying in Mexico City. The theme for the day was ‘Two sides of the same coin: the state of contemporary jewellery’, and much of the day was given over to artist talks. Ruudt Peters (The Netherlands), Manon van Kouswijk (The Netherlands), Jorge Manilla (Mexico-Belgium), Martha Hryc (Poland-Mexico), Beate Eismann (Germany), Mirla Fernandes (Brazil) and Jiro Kamata (Japan-Germany) all presented their jewelry practices in talks that ranged from the serious to the side-splittingly funny. (Single biggest laugh: a video of Jiro Kamata in action making his rings of gold and sellotape marked with lipstick kisses.)

(right:Jiro Kamata, without lipstick)
While the jewelry was quite different, the presentations followed a general pattern: a cute baby photo, a brief biography, a precocious encounter with adornment in which the speaker’s future as a jeweler is revealed, and finally descriptions of their work and practice. In a few cases the talks were about history that flowed over and around the jewelry, setting the scene but refusing to explain the work. Some thoughts: in the east they give things to objects, in the west we take things away from objects (Ruudt Peters); standardized objects such as wedding rings are deeply personal and individualized, a contradiction that feeds investigation (Manon van Kouswijk); jewelry opens the wearer’s heart and reveals it to others (Jiro Kamata). There were others, but some of the ideas were (literally) lost in translation, the Spanish to English interpreters doing a good job but sometimes introducing a poetry that, on top of unfamiliar histories and practices, made it difficult to keep up.

(left:Monica Gaspar, beaming into the Gray Area symposium via teleconference)
The artist talks bracketed Monica Gaspar’s ‘Versions of contemporary jewellery: differences, affinities, and influences between Europe and Latin America’, a talk delivered by teleconference. Gaspar’s paper was wide-ranging and provocative, addressing many of issues that structure a complicated project like Gray Area with its attempt at cultural mediation between Latin America and Europe. Gaspar began by quoting an art historical study of Spanish jewelry from 1500-1800, which suggested that the European discovery of the New World not only initiated a new period of globalization, but inspired European jewelry practices. Motifs from Aztec art, for example, began to turn up in Spanish jewelry, and objects engaging with the art of Latin America made it as far as the Medici in Italy. In other words, the evolution of jewelry in Europe can be linked to the encounter with Latin America.
Gaspar talked about the politics of centre and periphery, of being at the centre and being at the edge, and the series of questions that come with this hierarchy: where is the idea of contemporary jewelry produced and managed, and for whom? As she pointed out, these issues are not a problem for a European/Latin American encounter, but play a role in her experience as a writer and curator from southern Europe (Spain) traveling to central Europe (Germany, for example) where jewelry is dominant. As she tellingly suggested, when she visited the Schmuck exhibition in Munich in 1997 for the first time, she felt exotic, even though Barcelona had been a centre of contemporary jewelry since the 1950s. While she didn’t talk about this, the fact that she was curator of Schmuck 2010 must have been on people’s minds as one example of outsider successfully transforming their status into an insider – and a promising sign that the premise of the Gray Area project might be successfully realized.

One of the best aspects of Gaspar’s talk was the way she analyzed the Gray Area blog – the place where interaction between European and Latin American jewelers in the Gray Area exhibition took place – as a kind of fictional cartography, an imaginary space of encounter created out of various narratives (personal stories, stories of the workshop, stories of self and other, and stories of misunderstandings and mistranslations). (To visit the Gray Area blog, click here.) While Gaspar was not insensitive to the politics of North/South interaction, with Europeans coming from an undoubted position of dominance, she also argued that the conditions of the interaction (such as the blog, the time zone differences, the use of English as a global language) have created a particular space in which the Gray Area takes place. This is not a space like the ones we each inhabit, but a new space/place brought into being by the conditions of the project. And these conditions are the causal factors for a new geography in which interesting things can take place. What was so exciting about this is that Gaspar provided a way to escape the conclusions of centre and periphery power relations, without acting like this dynamic isn’t a real problem. She provided, in other words, an agency for the Gray Area, an ability to act and to engage which was still informed and political and grounded in the real world.
(left: Xavier Andrade)
Xavier Andrade, an anthropologist from Ecuador, gave a paper called ‘Jewellery in Ecuador: practices, dialogues, flux’. He focused on the work of Santiago Ayala, a traditional healer who makes commercial jewelry to fund his more experimental pieces, and whose work deals with his experiences as a healer; and Hugo Celi, a shaman who studied anthropology and then jewelry, and whose work is concerned with recovering old practices, often through the use of found photographs. Andrade’s talk was a glimpse of a kind of jewelry that sits outside or apart from contemporary jewelry, and yet speaks directly to the conditions, practices and functions of jewelry in Latin America. It was excellent to escape the small and sometimes claustrophobic world of contemporary jewelry, and to have a new set of dynamics introduced into the conversation. Andrade also offered an anthropological critique of concepts like culture and identity, and made the point that such terms are often bandied about in a simplistic manner. Culture, he said, is a process not a thing, and contemporary art (understood in its widest sense) often talks about identity in an essentialist and stereotypical way. My feeling is that because we want to believe that contemporary jewelry is a powerful agent that transforms social relationships, we tend to think about concepts like culture and identity in an active way, but it was nice to be kept on our toes.

(right: Iker Otriz, Marlen Piloto and Ana Paula de Campos in ‘The role of art and design academies’ session)
The final session of the day was a round table dealing with ‘The role of art and design academies in the encouragement of formal and conceptual experimentation in jewellery’. There were six participants: Ramon Puig Cuyas, from the Escola Massana in Spain, Marlen Piloto, from the Academy of Fine Art in Cuba, Andres Fonseca, from UNAM in Mexico, Manon van Kouswijk, from the Rietveld Academy in The Netherlands, Iker Otriz, from the Centro Diseno in Mexico, and Ana Paula de Campos from a Brazilian university (a late addition, and not listed in the program). Each person gave a short introduction about their particular ideas regarding the role of education in contemporary jewelry, and then the session was opened to questions from the audience.

It was interesting to have the opportunity to learn more about the various institutions in Latin America that teach contemporary jewelry, and it was also notable how similar the philosophies of education were. The round table, then, was part an introduction to the infrastructure of jewelry education in Latin America, and part a commentary about how contemporary jewelry should be taught, the issues that are impacting on education. It was less about how teaching institutions encourage formal and conceptual experimentation. One conclusion was that schools should be in advance of society, creating students for what the world will need in the future, not what is taking place now. And there was general agreement that trying to create contemporary jewelry specialists in three years is not going to work very well.
 
April 15th, 2010
Gray Area: Day Three

(left: Claudia Bretancourt and Ricardo Pulgar)
The third day of the Gray Area symposium had a late start, giving people time to recover after a late night learning to dance Mexican style. The theme, ‘Two sides of the same coin: the state of contemporary jewellery’ was a continuation of Day Two, and most of the presentations were artist talks. Claudia Betancourt and Ricardo Pulgar from Walka Studio in Chile kicked off with an interesting discussion of their practice, and in particular their engagement with what people in Chile call ‘chilentity’ – and the materials that might help articulate an identity that is sometimes subconscious. Migration, they concluded, is being transformed, and their story involved a change of scene to Melbourne, and a cultural investigation informed by the dynamic of living away from home.

(right: Sara O’Hana, Fortuny)
Sarah O’Hana, from the University of Manchester in England, was up next with a talk called ‘Crossing boundaries’, in which she explored her decision to negotiate the frontier between engineering and contemporary jewelry, and in particular her use of laser technology to create color effects on metal. While she presented an interesting tale of science and art – and, as a colleague noted, she managed to tame technology, avoiding the aesthetic trap that technical experimentation offers to the undisciplined jeweler – her session was missing a companion talk by Raul Ybarra on pre-Colombian metalsmithing techniques. This meant that a certain amount of context was missing, and it was hard to see how her paper (quite technical, and a border crossing of art and science) linked to the larger themes of the conference.

(left: Felieke van der Leest, Camouflage deer)
Dutch jeweler Felieke van der Leest was a complete hit with her talk called ‘The zoo of life’. The story of her life and jewelry practice, and notably her fascination with animals and the use of crochet techniques, elicited a number of spontaneous emotions from the audience: clapping when van der Leest showed her camouflaged deer, and ohhing and ahhing when she showed her pregnant polar bear with baby.

(right: Nanna Melland, 687 year)
Nanna Melland from Norway also gave an informative presentation of her work, not only in terms of explaining her practice but also in terms of her transformation from traditional goldsmith to contemporary jewelry. Particularly impressive was how clearly she articulated the relationship between the conceptual scope of her pieces, and the process of their manufacture. This, and her willingness to present ambivalent pieces of dubious beauty – ‘that force the viewer to contemplate matter that is neither social nor pleasing’- drew strong positive reactions from the crowd.

(left: Francisca Kweitel and Estela Saez Vilanova)
Francisca Kweitel from Argentina and Estela Saez Vilanova from Spain and the Netherlands staged a dialog that was in perfect keeping with the conference’s agenda as a kind of cultural mediation and encounter between Europe and Latin America. Sitting at the front of the stage, they took turns introducing themselves and their countries and cultures of origin. It was a great gimmick, perfectly tuned. Not only was it a great demonstration of the dynamic of exchange that underpins the Gray Area, but there was beautiful warmth generated by knowingly trading cultural stereotypes, of playing off against each other’s presentation. For example, Argentineans love to touch but only kiss on the cheek once, whereas the Dutch are much more physically reserved but they kiss on the cheek three times. And it was telling, too. There are 50 years of contemporary jewelry in the Netherlands, but in Argentina it is a much more recent tradition. In the Netherlands there is lots of government support, a major educational institution, and a number of galleries that exhibit and sell contemporary jewelry, but in Argentina there is really nothing equivalent in the way of infrastructure.

Nuria Carulia, a pioneering contemporary jeweler from Colombia, gave a paper called ‘In search of identity: contemporary jewellery in Colombia and its contribution to the craft field’, in which she surveyed the state of the field, and gave an important insight to the infrastructure – or more precisely, its lack – that supports contemporary jewelry in many Latin American countries. One of the most interesting things she talked about was Colombian contemporary jewelry’s responsibility to cultural preservation and regeneration. She was not the first person to talk about this responsibility that contemporary jewelry seems to assume in Latin America, and it was fascinating to see such a distinctive difference between contemporary jewelry in Europe and this part of the world.

Carulia talked about the importance of filigree in Colombian jewelry, and its transformation from an import of Spanish colonization to an important expression of Colombian culture and identity. This theme was picked up in Ximena Briceno’s talk, titled ‘A trans-Pacific technique: Filigree in Australia’. A two-part presentation in which Briceno discussed the history of filigree as an expression of complex cultural relations and trade, and then her reinterpretation of filigree in her own jewelry in terms of her Australian context, Briceno’s talk was a good example of adornment’s complexity, of jewelry’s rich analytical possibilities, its historical importance.
(right: Miguel Luciano, Pure plantainum)
Miguel Luciano, a Puerto Rican artist living in America, paralleled the complexity of Briceno’s historical presentation with a recent project he completed that drew on jewelry forms to unpack the flows and eddies of cultural identity and politics of being Puerto Rican. ‘Pure plantainum’ is a plantain coated with platinum, the fruit inside rotting while the thin skin of metal remains unblemished. Transformed into bling and modeled with attitude by a young Puerto Rican man, the photograph has achieved an iconic status. Luciano spun a smart story of the plantain’s cultural dimensions, and its implication for narratives of racism and narratives of cultural survival within Puerto Rican society.
The afternoon concluded with a roundtable tackling the ‘Management and promotion of contemporary jewellery in Latin America’. Featuring Marina Malinelli Wells (Argentina), Ofelia Murrieta (Mexico), Mirla Fernandes (Brazil), Monica Benitez (Mexico) and Carolina Rojo (Spain), the session struck an odd note with its focus on silver jewelry that seemed to be aligned much more with mass production and conventional design. This was not contemporary jewelry in the sense that this term has been used during the rest of the Gray Area conference. I found myself wondering if I wasn’t experiencing a potential misunderstanding that is growing as the conference progresses. If this is considered contemporary jewelry in Latin America, then we are talking about a very different kind of practice to what is meant by that term in Europe and other parts of the world. (E.g. the work that the speakers presented in this round table would never be accepted for the Schmuck exhibition.) This would suggest that those of us not from this part of the world require more history in order to understand correctly, since the notion of contemporary jewelry we import with us is clearly inadequate as a framework to understand contemporary jewelry from Latin America. And if this isn’t contemporary jewelry, then I am left wondering why the round table didn’t address the subject of how contemporary jewelry is presented and promoted in this part of the world – an important issue if we are to map the potential of the Gray Area as a moment of dialog and transformation.

April 17th, 2010
Gray Area: Day Four
The final day of the Gray Area symposium kicked off with a talk by Jurgen Eickhoff from Galerie Spektrum in Munich. Titled ‘The jewellery – the gallery – the future’, Eickhoff’s presentation was partly a history of the gallery he co-founded in 1981 and an analysis of the problems and opportunities facing the dealer gallery system, and in turn the infrastructure of contemporary jewelry. Dealer galleries, he noted, are a conduit between jeweler and audience, and they support makers, develop audiences and provide connections to public galleries. Overall, Eickhoff’s prognosis was negative – or perhaps melancholic is a better description. While he described a definite growth in the quality (and quantity) of contemporary jewelry being produced, he also noted the aging population of both gallery owners and contemporary jewelry collectors, and talked about a reduction in the applied arts programs, and general commitment towards contemporary jewelry, on the part of museums and galleries.

(right: Liesbeth den Besten)
Next up was Dutch art historian Liesbeth den Besten, who talked about ‘Private passion: the art of collecting wearable art’. Explaining at the beginning that she hated the term ‘wearable art’, never used it but this time fell under the spell of the rhythms of language, den Besten went on to give a wide-ranging presentation about the history and issues of collecting contemporary jewelry.

Art jewelry, she said, is made by artists who use jewelry as a medium for artistic expression. It bears the signature of an individual maker, and it liberates jewelry from private sentiment and ritual significance. Contemporary jewelry is a single aesthetic unity, and this stops it from being able to be recycled or reset – as frequently happens with conventional or precious materials jewelry – since to do so would be to destroy an art work, to ruin an artistic statement. The rest of den Besten’s talk was a survey of different collectors and collecting institutions – including AJF, which, in her opinion, helps to link collectors with makers, and to restore a dynamic to the contemporary jewelry scene that is much closer to the way it used to be in the pioneering days of collectors such as AJF member Helen Drutt.

(left: Christina Filipe)
Christina Filipe from Portugal introduced the history and activities of PIN, which was established in 2004 to promote contemporary jewelry. PIN is the Portuguese Association of Contemporary Jewelry, and it is involved with promotion, training, educational events and residencies at both a national and international level. Filipe’s talk confirmed one of the big themes of Day Four: the feeling that taking action and working hard is the best way to address the relationship between Latin American and European jewelry. And it was inspiring to see how actively and enthusiastically organizations such as PIN and others tackle issues like the lack of infrastructure or the paucity of contact between their local jewelry communities and the rest of the world, often with very few resources. It is clear that you can achieve a great deal if you set up an organization and create events, and Portuguese contemporary jewelry is more widely recognized because of PIN’s activities. It isn’t necessarily clear what difference such activities make in the long term (PIN has only been going for six years) but it certainly can’t but help by opening up channels of communication between Portugal and the rest of the world.

(right: Jose Manuel Springer, Andres Fonseca, Andrea Wagner and Valeria Vallarta)
The round table titled ‘Dialogues of the Gray Area’ included ValeriaVallarta (one of the conference organizers, and co-curator of the Walking the Gray Area exhibition), Jose Manuel Springer (Mexico), Andrea Wagner (The Netherlands, and co-curator of the Walking the Gray Area exhibition), Carolina Hornauer (Chile), Hanna Hedman (Sweden), Andres Fonseca (Mexico-Colombia), Ineke Herkens (The Netherlands) and Miguel Luciano (Puerto Rico). The purpose of the session was to explore the dynamics of cultural mediation and exchange that informed the Walking the Gray Area exhibition, in which Latin American and European jewelers were paired and asked to dialog with each other on the Gray Area blog. Like most of the round tables, the opportunity was lost under a series of too-long presentations that swallowed up the time available for actual dialog. This was more bitter than usual because the interactions that were in some cases presented in painstaking detail were available for reading/viewing on the blog, and the audience received information and images that they were going to see again that evening at the opening of the exhibition. Still, it was interesting to hear of both successful and unsuccessful interactions between artists, and to get a greater sense of the project from the perspective of the curators.

(left: Ricardo Domingo)
‘In search of the missing DNA: From contemporaneity to commercialization’ was a talk given by Ricardo Domingo, a jewelry maker and marketer from Spain. This was a bemusing and entertaining talk, with Domingo being an enthusiastic presenter (as one colleague noted to me afterwards, it was as though he was dancing) and offering a useful reminder that branding is a critical aspect of success for any jeweler – whether in the world of design or conventional jewelry, or at the high end of the contemporary jewelry scene. The almost audible groans of the audience as Domingo trotted out some pretty crass examples of design and marketing at the beginning of his talk gave way to (a grudging?) respect as he began to speak about contemporary jewelry, and even though some of his suggestions of branding techniques would not work for contemporary jewelry, it did provocatively suggest that marketing strategies might be able to bring contemporary jewelry into better contact with its audience, and left me wondering why we don’t act more like marketers in how we approach our field. Probably the most profound piece of advice came from Domingo’s father, who told him: "do whatever you want, but be a man of your time."

(right: Ricardo Pulgar, Benjamin Lignel, Martha Camargo Lawrance and Christina Filipe)
The final session of Day Four was another round table, called ‘The positioning of jewellery in a truly global context’. The audience, thinned by the attrition of conference fatigue, were treated to a discussion between five panelists: Christina Filipe (Portugal), Benjamin Lignel (France), Ricardo Pulgar (Chile), Mirla Fernandez (Brazil), and Damian Skinner (myself). The session was thrown open to questions from the audience and the result was an interesting grappling with the larger themes of the Gray Area conference. How do you address the imbalance of power between Europe and Latin America? Who defines what contemporary jewelry is? What is the difference between an individual experience and a national experience in terms of globalization? What is required to ensure Latin America is represented at a global level? Sometimes spirited, always passionate and warm, it was a suitable ending to four days of intense encounters and stimulating exchange.
 

Considering the work featured in Adornment and Excess: Jewelry in the 21st Century within the context of decadence seems particularly appropriate. In organizing the exhibition, I deliberately incorporated those dealing with consumption, luxury and excess on multiple levels—as it relates to jewelry and also as it relates to capitalist consumerism. In the Western world (speaking very generally) there are a lot of “things”—objects made, consumed and discarded. As I wrote in my catalogue essay:

The current global economic crisis forefronts concerns about luxury, consumption and excess. The residue of this unrest, perhaps on a psychological more than material level, coupled with the broader conversation regarding natural resources and consumer production, necessarily and significantly impacts the metaphorical construction of wealth, power and status. All of these art jewelers address this topic and weave a web that connects past and present, social dynamics and body adornment. They engage in considerations of material and metaphorical meaning and their address of the concepts of “luxury,” “consumption” and “excess” are fluid and dynamic.

Gemstones and the history of jewelry as a signifier of luxury (and decadence) are ever present in this conversation. Those who take on the topic of luxury via the context of history (such as Yevgeniya Kaganovich, Kimberlie Tatalick, Erin Rose Gardner, The Opulent Project, Yael Friedman, and emiko oye) do so without using luxurious materials. For example, Erin Rose Gardner uses mass-produced “diamond” engagement rings that are compelling yet disturbing and that link the conversation about capitalism to feeling and emotion—so many rings, so much manufactured sentiment.
emiko oye’s LEGO neckpieces based on royal jewelry are exaggerations of their antecedents (their largesse addressing the decadence  of the original gemstones in a tongue-in-cheek kind of way).

Several of those involved with this exhibition are dealing with material ‘excess’ as it is reflected in the reuse and repurposing of objects already made, bought, sold or discarded—a fact that ultimately brings us back to what luxury could mean even beyond the context of jewelry (as it relates to the amount of what is produced and the amount of what is cast away). These artists investigate and draw attention to capitalist practices and their material choices not only echo an embrace of non-precious materials by decades of jewelry makers but also reinforce the prevalence of available material in a material-driven culture. In my catalogue essay I wrote:

New objects are being created but—either through choice of material or mode of production—they confront the very existence of the volume of other objects being produced daily across the globe. By changing the flow of goods (recovering some materials, renegotiating the space within which the jewelry operates), this jewelry highlights current critical conversations of sustainability, wealth and social status and personal responsibility. However, the conversation with “excess” does not end there. Within a modern Western context, jewelry can be inexpensive and fashionable or very expensive (and, perhaps, still connected to fashion). Yet, its relationship with notions of excess can extend beyond cost or number to form and design. What is excessive, opulent and ostentatious today? How does the manipulation of materials and content effect concepts of ornament and display?

For example, Meg Drinkwater creates necklaces and earrings comprised of found costume jewelry. There is a doubling of excess here, both the actual accumulation of multiple gold and pearl necklaces and the mimicking, in the form of costume jewelry, of luxurious materials. As I put it in the catalogue for Adornment and Excess, ‘Her rescue and re-use of the found jewelry is made all the more poignant when we consider that for all that she rescued there is still that much more out there. The conglomerations and piles of chains are simultaneously appealing and unsettling…some pieces are encased in resin as if the “preciousness” of these discarded goods needed to be preserved . . .’

Others such as Anya Kivarkis directly connect jewelry to value, status, image, luxury and decadence. The brooches and earrings in her Vanishing Point series address the ambiguity of status as a social construct. From my catalogue:

Kivarkis’ jewels—of silver, white gold and auto paint—are representations of million dollar objects as conveyed via image—details are obscured and turned into flat spaces, necklaces and earrings are rendered as the light captures them, with areas obscured and imperfectly translated. Lavish adornment becomes silhouette and diminished form. Throughout much of her recent work, Kivarkis has asked questions about the context of jewelry as an object of creative construction, as an outgrowth of personal taste or aspiration and as a mode of communication—luxury is always viewed through the lens of a question and, by implication, the culture and people who define it.
And, yes, there is a tension in this investigation. The abundance of objects are the result of someone’s labor at one level or another—it is not as if this particular group of artists, as whole, is calling for a revolution of capitalism or a complete restructuring of the whole system (whether that is good or bad). They do seem, however, to be self-aware of their role and the potential power of the conversation they could raise. Both Gabriel Craig and the Ethical Metalsmiths take on the intersection of luxury, decadence and materiality in a way that engages the community-at-large and directly undercuts contemporary mechanisms of consumer culture—their projects reiterate the importance of handmade jewelry (and, consequently, other handmade goods) and play on the idea of jewelry as an object of exchange as well as carrier of meaning on multiple levels. Here’s how I describe this in my catalogue essay:

In order to provide a vernacular context for handmade jewelry, Gabriel Craig has taken his “studio to the street” for performances that involve dialogue, jewelry production and exchange. Craig’s performance series developed from the recognition that jewelry production is not common knowledge and that the cultural value of jewelry could and should be stressed to a broad public… Not only does he provide insight into a studio process, but he also makes a practice of giving away his work… Craig’s actions undercut practices of consumption and challenge ideas of luxury. His efforts—and, by association, the value associated with it—operates beyond a culture of capitalism while still commenting on it.
Driven to “educate and connect people with responsibly sourced materials,” Ethical Metalsmiths has conceptualized and organized community-based projects under the title of “Radical Jewelry Makeover.” The public is asked to donate their unwanted jewelry (basically, to mine their own homes) to volunteer jewelers and metalsmiths who will use this “excess” to construct new jewelry objects. The new jewels are exhibited and offered for sale. Providing not only a framework in which to understand the mining of resources for jewelry but also a new framework in which to consider material consumption, the Radical Jewelry Makeover events highlight resourcing, process, technique and creativity…The end product is not just the tangible objects—brooches, rings and necklaces that combine past and present—but also the sense of community engendered in the process and the renewal of cast-off objects.

This jewelry develops a new strategy for defining decadence—one concerned with material value, certainly, but also volume and context. They are in concert with larger conversations that affect people across economic lines and social status.

PHOTOS (top to bottom):

Kathy Buszkiewicz
Omnia Vanitas IX
18k gold, U.S. currency and black pearl
Courtesy of the artist

Erin Rose Gardner
Pink Things (brooch)
2009, silver, enamel paint and steel pin back
Courtesy of the artist

Emiko Oye
The Duchess 2 from “My First Royal Jewels Jewellery Collection 2008”, 2008
repurposed LEGO®, rubber cord and sterling silver
Courtesy of the artist

Yael Friedman
White Elephants, 2008
constructed paper
Courtesy of the artist and Gallery Loupe, New Jersey

Meg Drinkwater
Necklace, 2007
resin, found costume pearls, laser cut vellum and paint
Courtesy of the artist

Ethical Metalsmiths
Radical Jewelry Makeover
various sites, 2007-2009, Courtesy of Ethical Metalsmiths

Gabriel Craig
Pro Bono Jeweler performance
Richmond, VA, 2008
Courtesy of the artist




 

Friday, 5 March 2010

Schmuck 2010 was the center of five fever-pitched days of jewelry and adornment held in Munich, Germany, from the 3rd to the 9th March 2010. Over 30 exhibitions were presented citywide, representing a variety of countries, academic programs and individual studio artists.

From a pool of 600 applicants reigning from 36 countries, Monica Gaspar (Spain) had the insurmountable task of selecting 60 jewelry artists from 28 countries for Schmuck 2010.  The exhibition opened on the first day as part of the Internationalen Handwerksmesse München, the Messe München International (Munich International Trade Fairs) on the former site of Munich’s airport. As I understand it, historically there are few Americans that have been curated into the exhibition, and I was honored to be selected.

I arrived in town on Friday, 5th March. The installation of the show was amazing: a massive glass and aluminum temporary structure that gave each piece the lighting and attention that the work deserved. The gallery was laid out in a manner that moved the spectators around the large oval track with cases lining every inch of the walls. Upon my arrival the exhibition held about a dozen attendees making their way around the displays, purchasing catalogs and snapping photos. This is where I met the director of Schmuck, Eva Sarnowski, who graciously welcomed me to the exhibition and supplied me with all the necessary print materials for the next three days. It was a good choice to have attended the exhibition early, because the following day was the polar opposite, with massive crowds.


I spent time carefully inspecting the cases, seeking out the work of fellow American makers while being introduced to the international jewelry in the exhibition. The United States was represented by Mielle Harvey, John Iversen, Seth Papac, Natalya Pinchuck, Sergey Jivetin and myself. Another important American connection was Cranbrook’s Iris Ichenberg, who represented the Netherlands.

Schmuck was held at the Trade Fair, which also featured an enormous amount of manufactured and handmade goods. ‘Handwerk & Design’, housed in one hall, showed an amazing assortment of craft, design and fine arts. Also in conjunction with Schmuck were four special exhibitions: Exempla 2010, Keramik (Ceramic), Talente 2010, Meister der Moderne 2010 and Frame, also held at the Trades Fair. Exempla was dedicated to the theme of ‘ceramic shapes the earth’, to show how widespread the use of this material is in our daily lives. Works ranged from studio ceramics to architectural master works, and active studios were put on display. It was as if I was looking at a diorama of the contemporary ceramist’s studio.
Talente was a showcase and competition for newcomers (under thirty) representing the next generation of makers. Among the bright young upstarts was Adam Grinovich (US/Sweden). In a departure from his earlier Computer Aided Design (CAD)/Additive Manufactured (AM) work, Grinovich has submerged himself into the currents of contemporary European jewelry. His current pieces combine the structure found in his early work with postindustrial materials.


Frame was another grouping of three galleries presenting alongside the Schmuck 2010 exhibition. The international galleries consisted of Galerie Marzee (Netherlands), Galerie Platina (Sweden) and Galerie Ra (Netherlands). Gallery Ra featured the work of Melanie Bilenker (US).



Meister der Moderne, the ‘Masters of modern times’, presented the best works of internationally renowned contemporary artisans in glass, ceramic, wood, metal, textile and jewelry. Included at Meister der Moderne was the work of the late Aud Charlotte Ho Sook Sinding (Sweden). The whimsical animal head brooches had a visual weight that communicated a series of visually heavy pieces. However, examination of the work (which I was later able to do at the studio/gallery of Mia Maljojoki) revealed how lightweight and wearable the objects were, as they were made from vinyl. I would describe the series as vinyl toy jewelry. (I in no way intend to diminish the work by describing it as toy like, since I thoroughly enjoyed it.) I ran into Helen W. English Drutt, Liesbeth den Besten and Leo Caballero at the studio of Maljojoki, and we viewed many of the pieces together. Departing the studio I sat down for a hurried dinner with jewelers Maljojoki (Germany) and Donna Verveka (US), before we made our way to Munich’s renowned Pinakothek der Moderne.

At the Pinakothek, several hundred people filled the first floor of the museum standing shoulder to shoulder. Despite the crowd, you could not help but notice the students of the Jewelry and Product Design Department, Academy Fine Arts Maastricht (NL), presenting a wonderfully orchestrated display of their work in LED lit clear vinyl handbags, and titled BAGEXPO (the students carried their work venue to venue throughout the city).  The work had a casual appearance, although it had a very formal jewelry structure of connections, findings and finish.


While at the Pinakothek I had the pleasure of seeing Giampaolo Babetto’s L'Italianità dei Gioielli, a fabulous installation of endless vitrines of gold jewelry, with the reds and blues of the enameling techniques lining the massive rotunda’s third floor balcony. The volume of jewelry seemed to self-illuminate among the crowds of viewers.


Departing the museum, a crowd hurried across the street to see Cranbrook Academy Artist in residence Iris Eichenberg’s Birds and flowers of Michigan at Galerie Spektrum.  Yonic petals of nylon-folded pieces are contrasted with cocoon-like mummified birds.  The work was displayed without the traditional cases, which allowed the viewer to get up close and thoroughly inspect it.

Upon our departure, we couldn’t imagine looking at another piece of jewelry – but there it was, another gallery of fabulous pieces and another group of Schmuck goers who joined our ever-growing ‘Schmuck Posse’. With the idea of winding down the evening we made our way to a drinking engagement. The evening (or should I say, the morning) came to a close at the ‘Sick of Schmuck’ party (aka Schluck 6!) for an evening of drinks, music and dancing. It was good to reconnect with people like Susan Cohn (Australia) and I was amazed by the distances people traveled be at Schmuck.

Saturday, 6 March 2010
On my second day in Munich I was greeted by several inches of freshly fallen snow. I made my way to meet with friends and tackle the exhibitions as they opened in the city’s posh Schwabing neighborhood. Moving from show to show we were able to take in some impressive work ranging from mid-career exhibitions like AAVISTU, nestled in an all white (floor to ceiling) basement of a design firm, to the recent graduate work of Eternal shine - it´s not a pony, at the Projektraum J. Baumeister, and finally to the work in the exhibition Dialogue 8.
 

We were directed to an old foundry in the heart of city, a welcome destination and escape from the snow. The old foundry was gritty and seemed to be slightly ‘cleaned up’ to accommodate the Dialogue 8 exhibition.  The work was casually laid out on strips of brown paper on top of worktables. Each artist was identified by brightly colored neon colored paper signs bearing their names. The exhibition was a response to a project that was seeded by Helen Carnac (Britain) three months prior to the opening. Carnac provided the participants with a series of gifts and asked them to create work inspired by the gifts.

Back at the Schmuck exhibition, the Herbert Hofmann Prize was awarded at the Trade Fair Hall. Since 1973 the award has been presented to up to three distinguished participants per year, commemorating the shows founder Dr. Herbert Hofmann. Prize recipients include John Iversen (US), Mia Maljojoki (DL) and David Bielander (DL). This event was one of the culminating events of the Schmuck week, and highly attended.



Before leaving the Trade Fair for the last time I visited a couple special projects, including Liesbeth den Besten’s ThinkTank: A European Initiative for the Applied Arts. ThinkTank was presenting of their current publication and accompanying exhibition Speed, featuring a selection of sixteen designers (including Ted Noten and Marcel Wanders).
That evening the attendees made their way to the goldsmiths’s beer hall get-together at the famous Marinaplatz. The event was so large that it was held in three banquet rooms.

Sunday, 07 March 2010

On the final day of programming, I decided to spend much of the day exploring. I went to the Pinakothek der Moderne and focused on the Danner-Rotunde, an outstanding collection of contemporary studio jewelry curated by Karl Fritsch. It is probably one of the most (or only) outstanding permanent collections of international work that I had ever witnessed. The jewelry was displayed in a large, arching subterranean gallery, and in peculiar clusters as if to create a forced association between each piece of jewelry.

The annual Schmuck and all the parallel exhibitions are a worthwhile pilgrimage.
Throughout my trip I kept thinking how I had traveled 4,000 miles to really appreciate what we have stateside, but I questioned most the disconnect between the US and European Union (EU) when it comes to jewelry. In the age of digital technologies the dialogue should be further connected. Where is the disconnect, and why? In the US we are excited about, and even long for, the works being made in the EU. Do they feel the same way?
 

Schmuck is a much different event than what is experienced stateside at the Society of North American Goldsmith’s annual conference. Unlike SNAG, the majority of programming that surrounds Schmuck are independent events in response to this exhibition at the Trades Fair. In addition, Schmuck does not present any formal lectures, outside of the Herbert Hofmann Award presentations. Both events are a mechanism to generate discourse. 

We must continue to share the works and the makers on a global level. In the age we live in, it is nearly impossible to not see work that is happening around the world.

PHOTOS (from top to bottom):

Adam Grinovich
Necklace: Function & sense #1: Function 1, 2008
leather, polish, iron, 500 x 105 mm

Melanie Bilener
Necklace and brooch 2008
gold, ebony, resin, pigment, hair

Aud Charlotte Ho Sook Sinding,
Forbidden fruit, silicon,
plastic, gold-plated silver

Kristel Timmermans
Granny brooch
porcelain, BAGEXPO
 

Giampaolo Babetto
L'Italianità dei Gioielli
installation at the Pinakothek der Moderne

Iris Eichenberg,
Flowers and birds of Michigan, 2010
Image by GALERIE SPEKTRUM

Maria Vuorinen (left)
My mourning dress, 2008
image – object installation, photography, collar, featured in AAVISTU

Eternal Shine(right)
it´s not a pony, poster and installation

Dialogue 8
installation

John Iversen (left)
Cutting free armband, 2009
sterling silver, gold, 190 × 70 mm

Mia Maljojoki(middle)
Chain, 2009
dental plaster cast, rubber band, 50 × 110 × 40 mm

David Bielander (right)
Corn cob pendant
2009, split pins
silver, 50 x 260 mm

Marcel Wanders
Airborne snotty vase, 2001
polyamide, 150 x 150 x 150 mm

Danner-Rotunde installation (2 images left to right)
curated by Karl Fritsch

Designers on Jewellery: Twelve Years of Jewellery Production by Chi ha paura….?
15 January – 16 May 2010
San Francisco Craft + Design Museum

Designers on Jewellery: Twelve Years of Jewellery Production by Chi ha paura…? opened last month at the San Francisco Craft + Design  Museum and is on display until May 16, 2010. The show marks the jewelry design brand’s twelfth year in the making. Founded by Gijs Bakker, jewelry and product designer and co-founder of Droog Design, together with Italian gallerist, Marijke Vallanzasca in 1996, the brand aims to elevate the status of jewelry beyond that of a subordinate decoration or simple accessory. Based in Amsterdam the project is currently directed by co-founder and member of the board, Gijs Bakker, and member of the board, Liesbeth den Besten.

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. About choosing the work Bakker says, ‘We look for interesting concepts, unusual choices of materials or functional aspects that are cast in a different light. Designs like this have to have a story, some kind of political or cultural significance or a dash of humor.’  The brand boasts 74 pieces that are currently in production and available through the Chi ha paura…? website at www.chihapaura.com.

Organized in four parts the show mirrors the four collections which comprise the Chi ha paura…? jewelry line. The core collection on view was originally launched in April of 1997 and is comprised of 22 pieces including such iconic works as the Circle in Circle bracelet designed by Gijs Bakker in 1967 and the Broken Lines ring designed by Emmy van Leersum in 1982. These early works are the exception and the majority of the core collection represents pieces specifically designed for the label by such highly respected members of the jewelry and design fields as Marc Newsom, Ron Arad, Otto Kunzli, and Ruudt Peters.

Following the initial 22 pieces, the label took on a more specific project structure, issuing ‘assignments’ which jewelry and industrial designers were invited to answer in the form of submissions. These assignments, entitled Sense of Wonder, (2002), What’s Luxury (2005), and Rituals (2007) are displayed separately within the museum, each one functioning as a small exhibition within the larger whole, having its own unique display tactic and accompanied by its own explanatory text. Sense of Wonder illustrates works that within the concept expressed or the technologies employed are capable of creating a sense of wonder among viewers and wearers. What’s Luxury asks makers and viewers to think about the meaning of luxury in today’s society. The most current assignment, Rituals, questions the role of tradition within the modern climate and makes room for the possibilities of new rituals.

The nature of this ongoing project dictates that the collection grow with each issued project, meaning that while new, fresh ideas are added, the originals remain as a foundation. It is clear that many of the earlier pieces do provide a strong foundation, adding such prestige that only work that has stood the test of time can offer. Gijs Bakker’s Little Finger (1967) and Rolf Sachs’s Strip (1995) are compelling examples of the clever restraint, which has become a benchmark for Dutch jewelry. Design however, is similar to fashion and operates to some extent in cycles. These cycles run their course, making room for the new and pushing out the old. While certain ‘timeless’ pieces retain their luster, some designs can appear stale and out-dated among newer innovations. While this show contains many iconic pieces, bringing to the viewers attention the contribution this label has brought to the field of contemporary art jewelry, others works like Esther Knobel’s Rose (1997) and Hannes Wettstein’s Triller (1997) appear today as irrelevant and awkward.

Despite this criticism, I find the breadth of the project to be a strength. I saw no reason however, for the display of each collection to be re-executed, functioning as a re-presentation of exhibitions that have passed. Frozen in these original displays, the effect was that of a dated flashback, making it difficult to clearly view the work. I found the polyurethane hands, made for the launching of the label at the Salone del Mobile in Milan (1997), distracting. The men’s shirts laid out on a round table seemed thrown together, sloppy and a bit gendered. The stands displaying What’s Luxury looked of poor print quality and aside from transportability, the decision to mount then on what looked like musical instrument stands was perplexing. The large billboard like display of the latest issued assignment, Rituals, was a noble attempt at the very difficult task of displaying jewelry in a way that communicates its relation to the body but in execution felt contrived and some-what like an advertisement.

How effective has the label been at its goal of creating conceptually rigorous pieces that serve to elevate jewelry as an intelligent means of design on par the with rest of the design world? Some evidence of the lines acceptance into the design world may be gathered from the designers themselves. Interestingly, when visiting Marc Newsome’s website I found no mention of Chi ha paura…?, though it includes mentions of clothing design for G-star and his own line of watches. On the other hand artists such as Tjep, who’s Bling Bling won a Dutch Design Award in the category of fashion design in 2004, have fully incorporated their pieces for Chi ha paura…? into their website.

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. With that said, as a jewelry enthusiast and maker, Chi ha paura…? is an exciting project, shining a much needed spotlight on the field of contemporary art jewelry.


1. Designers on Jewellery: Twelve Years of Jewellery Production by Chi ha paura . . .? Melbourne & Stuttgart: National Design Centre & Arnoldsche Art Publishers, 2008, p.15.

PHOTOS (top to bottom)

Gijs Bakker
Little finger ring (CHP15)
designed 1967, remade 1989
silver 925 or gold 585
16 x 36 mm

Hannes Wettstein
Triller ring (CHP07)
1997
silver 925
9 x 26 x 34 mm

Esther Knobel
Rose brooch (CHP12)
1997
silver 925, dried rose
28 x 17 x 90 mm

Marc Monzo
Diamond brooch (P14)
2005
silver 925
83 x 70 mm

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

Ron Arad
Steps earring and brooch (LE01)
1994
silver 925
14 x 14 x 120 mm

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

We are, it would seem, in an age of ornament. An exhibition called Decorative Resurgence, ‘A juried exhibition of contemporary jewelry and metalwork inspired by historic decoration and ornament’, took place in Glassboro, New Jersey, in April 2009 (supported by a grant from the Art Jewelry Forum), and the most recent issue of Metalsmith (v.29, n.3) turned its attention to the charms and critical possibilities of ornament in two different articles.

In the catalogue for Decorative Resurgence, Jennifer A. Zwilling argues that ornament’s return has come about because we have given up on a ‘teleological’ view of art history – the idea that history is a march towards some more perfect future that can only be reached by jettisoning the past. Ornament, the art that adorns art, is deeply indebted to the past. It is based in the artist’s knowledge of the styles of past cultures, which can be drawn on and transformed into terms appropriate to the present. Modernism turned ornament into a crime and chucked it overboard, but craft in part kept its connections with the past and now sits in an enviable position when it comes to ornament’s resurgence. Zwilling says that an important trend in contemporary jewellery is ‘the reexamination of ornament as a tool to convey concept and evoke emotion’, and she notes that this often means engaging with the past: ‘The Modernist aesthetic so thoroughly expunged ornament from our visual vocabulary in the mid Twentieth Century that the mere suggestion of decorative elements on an object can now evoke a sense of the distant past.’ She also makes a case as to why ornament is so prominent in jewellery. ‘By definition, jewelry objects are items worn as ornament of the body, a fact that allows jewelry makers and connoisseurs to have been more open to the concept even when it was rejected by much of the art/craft community.’

The curators/jurors of Decorative Resurgence, Jill Baker Gower and Jessica Calderwood, write that the work was selected because it ‘successfully re-contextualized the chosen historical decorative influence into thoughtful and contemporary art as well as illustrated research and knowledge of the decorative inspiration’. They also suggest that ornament is used by these jewellers in a number of different ways: ‘to add emotion, memory or sentiment; to create social commentary; to interpret nature; to acknowledge, commemorate or honor a lineage, history, or a historic process; to evoke nostalgia; to make gender or age associations; to create cultural connections; and to convey fragility or loss.’ No wonder ornament is having such a good run: it can do almost anything.

For Lena Vigna and Namita Gupta Wiggers writing in Metalsmith, the question is how contemporary jewellers are engaging with the trend towards ornament that has swept the industrial design world. As they write:

"A contemporary vocabulary is emerging in which the baroque, the rococo, the curvilinear and the unabashedly ornate features of historic jewelry are taking a new, redefined center stage. Artists are looking backwards to look forward, democratizing forms and patterns previously preserved for royalty through a range of new materials (from precious to industrial) and via such unexpected vehicles as t-shirts and installations."

Vigna and Wiggers go on to identify five ways that contemporary jewellers use ornament: fragmenting and abstracting historical forms, employing new technologies, creating new versions of ‘familiar’ jewels, neutralising markers of luxury, and examining the relationship between jewellery, the body and space.

There’s no doubt something interesting is going on with ornament, and these writers and curators are proposing intelligent and productive ways to understand ornament’s triumphant return. But I can’t help wondering about how complicit, how reactionary, this turn towards ornament might be. Are we being seduced by ornament’s charms, losing sight of its limitations? Vigna and Wiggers talk about contemporary jewellers democratising the signs of ornament that historically have been deeply connected to class, and shifting ornament away from its important role within colonial and imperial histories to something personal. As they put it, the jewellery ‘becomes about class and access – not culture and race – and is ironically liberated in this redefinition.’ The past becomes flattened, a rich source of possibilities to be mined, but as they note, 'Explicit in such ahistorical conversations is the affirmation of a formal relationship with a historical past; implicit is a consideration of social and cultural meanings.' The italics are mine, and it worries me that thinking about social and cultural meanings becomes implicit – i.e. invisible. Ornament in contemporary jewellery, as in contemporary design, starts to seem suspiciously toothless and indulgent. Vigna and Wiggers quote Julie Lasky who wrote in I.D. magazine’s ornament issue, ‘An exuberant tangle of styles, colors, and textures no longer suggests chaos or eccentricity but individuality – the kind of plenitude that could match taste or need on demand.’ It is, in other words, all very easy and not at all troubling – decorative in the very worst sense. (Having said that, I acknowledge that Vigna has written a very nuanced account of contemporary jewellery’s ornamental turn in relation to the past in her essay ‘Heirlooms: navigating the personal in contemporary jewelry’, published on the Art Jewelry Forum website.)

Lisa Walker
Necklace
2006
cardboard, ink, plastic, ceramic, wool, fabric, thread, shell, lacquer, glue
440 mm long (approximately)

In Lisa Walker’s recent book Unwearable, Paul Derrez from Galerie Ra in Amsterdam wrote that contemporary jewellery is currently shaped by ‘A zeitgeist in which the focus is on complex beauty: sculptures and structures that are refined, glamorous and rich-looking – magical and imposing in the way historical jewellery can be.’ His point is that Walker’s work is too raw and confrontational to function well in such a historical moment. I’m not suggesting that jewellers should have to function as Walker does, in either process or materials, but I think there is something to be said for being raw and confrontational rather than smooth and easy. Maybe we should take a bit more time to sort out the ornamented and tough jewellery from the work that looks great in the current zeitgeist, but which won’t be capable of holding our attention when we decide beauty might just be skin deep after all.

emiko oye
The Duchess neckpiece
2008
From My First Royal Jewels Jewellery Collection
used & new LEGO®, rubber cording
10.5” L closed x 9.75” W x 2.5” D
 

emiko oye
The Queen Margherita
2007
From My First Royal Jewels Jewellery Collection
(Neckpiece converts into 3 bracelets, 2 neckpieces, one brooch)
used & new LEGO, coated copper wire, rubber cording, sterling silver, steel pin back
34" L open, 19.75" closed x 5/8-8.5" W x 0.5-1.75" D

Then again, I am hearted and challenged by a number of jewellers who are positioned right in the centre of ornament’s return. Take emiko oye, for example. Her jewels constructed from Lego building blocks are entirely satisfying. As Vigna and Wiggers note, oye’s My First Royal Jewels Jewellery Collection comes ‘complete with instructions on how to deconstruct a necklace into several separate wearable parts (much like a parure)’. The connections to jewellery history and tradition are tight, convincing, and the jewels themselves are lavish and ornamental. Yet the fact this is Lego, the fact that, to quote Vigna and Wiggers, ‘The construction and reconstruction of the jewelry mimics the active play of the Lego blocks, while simultaneously linking artist and wearer through process and material’, means oye’s work doesn’t allow social and cultural meanings to get submerged. Her references to ornament are critically deployed. She makes connection to historical ornament and then modifies these references through her materials, and the way in which play opens up the possibilities of process and therefore asks questions about what jewellery is, the role of the wearer, and the maker, the importance of process as opposed to object.

David Bielander
Dung Beetle Brooch
2007
steel tea spoon
45 x 35 x 20 mm

David Bielander
Raspberries Necklace
2005
Scoubidou (plastic tube), silver
440 mm long

I also find a very satisfactory use of ornament in the work of David Bielander. His use of nature, one of the most common sources of ornament, is complicated by a game of transformation that takes place in the work. The ornamental possibilities of a beetle, or raspberries, are exploited in his jewellery, but this enjoyment of subject matter is only the first level of meaning. Once we recognise the subject, we are confronted with the particular act of transformation that makes the piece, one thing becoming another (a spoon becomes a beetle; woven plastic tube becomes raspberries). And then finally we are able to consider the jewel as something to be worn, to ornament the body. Bielander purposefully locates himself in an ambivalent position in relation to jewellery history, somewhere between the precious materials and conventions of luxury jewellery, and the innovation and originality of contemporary jewellery. Ornament is crucial to Bielander’s work, but again it is put to work in a very specific way, and undercut by choices in materials and process. Again, social and cultural meanings are positioned right up front. Ornament is something strange, awkward, active, somewhat more than just asserting a decontextualised relationship with the past.