In which, like the Famous Five, the lucky members of the annual AJF trip go on a lively jaunt to jolly old England, where they have lots of adventures and lashings of ginger beer. (If you have absolutely no idea about these cultural references, click here. If you do understand then, dear reader, read on . . .)

There was a lovely chill in the air as the AJF London trip got off to an appropriate start with a tea and scones event at the traditional Draycott Hotel. Most of the participants had not been to the COLLECT fair before and so we asked Liesbeth den Besten, a writer and curator from Amsterdam to give a talk about the galleries and jewelers we were about to meet. She had done her research well and not only talked about what we might see but also showed a number of pieces of jewelry that we actually saw at the show.

AJF London group. Back row, left to right: Liesbeth den Besten, Patti Bleicher, Robert Bleicher, Mike Holmes, Forrest Warthman, Linda Peshkin, Joan Dutton, Ann McEldowney, Cherry LeBrun, Karen Lorene, Susan Kempin, Marge Kalodner, Kim Vagner, Philip Kalodner. Seated in front row left to right: Gail Hufjay, Karen Rotenberg, Kathryn Chieger, Trish Rodimer, Lorraine Vagner. Missing: Susan Cummins (photographer)

Then it was off to the event itself. The Saatchi gallery is in a beautiful stately building just off King’s Road near Sloane Square. As we entered the high ceilinged rooms a beautifully diffused light illuminated it all. It was evident that these spaces were made to show off artwork in a particular way. This light was very much of a presence and perhaps even a distraction in viewing the displays but of course that didn’t stop anyone one from looking. We all scattered to look at the fantastic jewelry and make our decisions about what to add to our collections. There was lots of excitement expressed about our discoveries.

Louise Smit and Patti Bleicher at the opening night of COLLECT

Susan Kempin and Monica Zampa at Galerie Louisa Smit

Then we were on to Tom’s Kitchen for dinner in a large private room. We were joined by a British couple Jacqueline and Jonathon Gestetner, who livened up the evening by asking us questions about the group and about our collections. It was a dinner filled with laughter and important transatlantic exchange and by the end of the evening we were all completely worn out.

Lunch at Orsini

On the second day of the trip we were invited back to COLLECT for a VIP Breakfast and most of the group found that they needed a second look. We met for an early Italian lunch across the street from the Victoria & Albert Museum and were subjected to the Italian sense of timing so arrived late for our appointment with Beatriz Chadour, David Watkins and Wendy Ramshaw. Once back on track we were taken through the permanently installed William and Judith Bollinger Jewelry Center and the temporary retrospective of David Watkins. The V&A is an overwhelming visual experience and jewelry is intense enough in it’s own right but when there are 35,000 pieces in one display it literally takes your breath away. Beatriz tried to orient us to the historical things in particular which was helpful but only served to make us wish we had the whole week to learn more. The David Watkins display was located in the midst of a long, long hall of silver work and stained glass windows from throughout the ages. It was actually shocking to come upon the very cool and minimalist aesthetic of his jewelry amidst all the fancy ornamentation. He was a lovely and patient host along with Wendy Ramshaw, who answered all our questions about their lives together and his jewelry.

David Watkins at his retrospective at the V&A

Next we met Hans Stofer at the entrance to the V&A and walked over to the Royal College of Art to visit his class of students. He told us a bit about the program there over tea and coffee. The program is only for graduate level students and everyone is encouraged to pursue their own interests on a deep level. This program was under the guidance of David Watkins for several decades and Hans has just been there for the past three years. Then we went into the student spaces and spent an hour or more talking with the students. We were completely won over by the variety of imaginative and thoughtful work being done. It was the highlight of the trip for many.

Trish Rodimer with students from the Royal College of Art

Cherry LeBrun with a student from the Royal College of Art

Back at the Saatchi Gallery Mark Lyman and Anne Mesko from SOFA, the American equivalent of COLLECT, arranged a classy cocktail reception to announce their new grant. The first ever New Voices Grant for International Decorative Arts and Design Discourse was given to Art Jewelry Forum. It was the first grant we have ever received, and we were honored to be recognized. As AJF chair, I had the pleasure of announcing that Damian Skinner would receive this £3500 award to come to COLLECT next year to review the work on display and report back in the fall at SOFA Chicago. The rest of the evening was free.

Susan Cummins accepting the SOFA Award, Mark Lyman and Rosy Greenless in background

Dorothy Hogg (center) at Electrum Gallery

Amanda Game and Sarah Edwards at CAA

The third day of the trip started in the early afternoon at Electrum Gallery with a talk about the historical significance of the space to the development of contemporary jewelry. This is where Barbara Cartlidge and Ralph Turner displayed the most modern and exciting work of swinging London in the 1970s and beyond. Dorothy Hogg, former chair of the jewelry department at the University in Edinburgh was there to talk about the current show called Natural Beauty. Next we walked over to the Contemporary Applied Arts (CAA) space and had a thoughtful talk from Amanda Game about the work in a show there called Drawing with Objects, where she discussed the relationship between drawings and objects as she sees it.

Trish Rodimer wearing a David Watkins necklace with the artist

Gail Hufjay wearing a David Watkins necklace with the artist

Then we went downstairs to the shop where there were many temptations made by some of the 350 makers who belong to CAA as well as a grouping of necklaces and bracelets by David Watkins. David and Wendy, our new best friends were there as well. It was important for some of the group to be able to try on these to see what they looked like and how they felt. The new book about Wendy and David called David Watkins, Wendy Ramshaw: A Life’s Partnership by Graham Hughes was also there for purchase and autographs.

Hans Stofer, Off my trolley, 2009, at Gallery SO

Hans Stoffer at Gallery SO

Our final visit of the day was a cab ride away at Galerie SO on Brick Lane. Hans Stofer was having a show here in Felix Flury’s beautiful new gallery space. Hans’s show was like no other jewelry show you have ever seen. His pieces were collages of doors, buckets, boxes, carts light bulbs, plywood and jewelry made from cast offs. It was imaginative, free flowing and about as different as it could be from David Watkins’s work. It made us wonder how the students at RCA that were caught in the transition from one teacher to the other survived. Despite that, Hans’s show was probably the one of the few exhibitions made by a jeweler  that actually engages the contemporary art scene on its own terms. Quite good to see it is possible.

We ended the trip with a lovely dinner at Whitechapel Gallery dining room. It was a fantastic meal to end a fantastic and stimulating trip.

This lecture was presented at Out of the Box, a symposium organised by The Françoise van den Bosch Foundation in the Stedelijk Museum ‘s-Hertogenbosch, 11 January 2009

Contemporary author jewelry is still a rather young phenomenon. Although we can trace its origins back to the days of Jugendstil, its real story starts only some 40 years ago. Under the influence of an increasing economic prosperity things started to gain momentum and especially the last ten years developments in the field have accelerated: more and more jewelers enter the market, more and more specialized galleries are opened, more and more schools started jewelry departments, more and more fairs present contemporary jewelry. But despite the increase in numbers, jewelry still doesn’t count as a serious market where money is made and earned. Author jewelry is not a hot topic – the way design has gained a sexy status. The jewelry scene has an excellent international infrastructure, but on the other hand seems locked up in its self-preferred system. There are complaints, especially among the younger artists: it is impossible for every young maker to find a gallery, and how can you make a living out of one solo exhibition every two or three years and some exhibitions abroad? On the other hand galleries present a platform, introduce artists from abroad, their work and ideas, and bring jewelry from here to fairs abroad and collectors far away.

But there is always this uncomfortable feeling of isolation, and preaching to the converted. And maybe I am indebted to this situation too. There were other writers who resigned and even makers who resigned – because jewelry didn’t seem to make any progress. I stayed and I am part of the system. That is why I thought it would be a good idea to make an analysis of the position of contemporary jewelry today, especially with respect to the market, and to finish with proposing possible future scenarios. I have divided my paper into five steps.

1st step, kisses

In October 1996 Gallery RA organized the symposium Passion and Profession: Jewelry in past, present and future. Every period needs to investigate its future again and again. At the end of the day, the discussion leader wondered about the future: ‘What will become of you all? Will it all stay the same, sixty hugging and kissing goldsmiths, or will something happen?’. Well, twelve years later we are still hugging and kissing each other, that’s true. And you may wonder what happened in between. Did something happen indeed? Of course, computerized techniques are now widely applied, we have a very well organized internet information centre called Klimt, but author jewelry didn’t break through, it didn’t succeed in branding and marketing, the jewelry scene didn’t invent a young and fresh art-wise Cartier, or Van Cleef & Arpels, or an alternative to Prada and Gucci – and the public, the buyers and wearers, are aging.

Therefore questions about credibility and viability recur with cyclic regularity. You may wonder if author jewelry really needs to break out of its secluded niche, and if this kind of jewelry really is a lost case as some people think. You may argue that its value is precisely in the handwork, in the uniqueness, in the creation of attention, concentration, time and rest. But it depends on how you deal with these qualities and values in terms of how they are received in the outside world. These values are now often seen as repulsive and anachronistic, but they can be changed to become up-to-date, contemporary and progressive.
If we want more, if contemporary jewelry really wants to reach another public, preferably an art public – because art is the thing most of you feel related with – or a design public – especially now design is proclaimed as a new form of art, more attractive, accessible and understandable than most contemporary art – how should you do this? What strategies do you have? How do you kiss and entice the public and shake it awake?

2nd step, faith
We all know the work of Gijs Bakker and Emmy van Leersum, their white elastic suits called Clothing Suggestions (1970). Those suits and the happening, with friends of Gijs and Emmy and the artists themselves showing the suits in an empty gallery instead of a regular exhibition with objects in a showcase, promised a new attitude towards jewelry. Like the big wearable pieces Gijs and Emmy had been designing since 1966, those pieces were presented in the very first catwalk jewelry show that was held in the Stedelijk Museum, that ‘temple’ of contemporary art. It took place in 1967, and it was a very unusual event. It took the designers some effort to convince the museum about the necessity of it. For me, those events are a highlight in the young history of contemporary jewelry. In a recent exhibition at the V&A in London called Cold War, this work is interpreted in the light of fear and anxiety, as armoring for the body, as a protection against unknown but certain attacks from outside. It is an interesting interpretation but I’d like to stress the immense positive message of these designs: the advance to sculpture, and the fusion of body, clothing and adornment into one thing. It expressed an optimistic outlook. It presented something new and innovative at that time and it is still new today.

So where did you get since then and where do you want to be in let’s say ten or twenty years from now? What are your ‘preferred situations’ or ‘desired goals’?

In the past twenty years I have learned some things about jewelers. One is that in general jewelers are not designers, they are not designing the way designers do. Apart from some exceptions to the rule, jewelers are do-ers but slow-do-ers, makers but slow-makers, finders, people trying out, doing things over and over again, people who want to know everything about the materials they use. Jewelers are material boys and girls. But it doesn’t need to stay like this forever. Perhaps now is the time to focus on the market as well, to capitalize your talents – your excellent knowledge of materials, forms and techniques, your capability to work with precious materials. If some succeed in this, others can do it as well.

Another thing I have learned about jewelry is that jewelers are not very communicative. Their work is not created to tempt their buyers. And also in that sense jewelry cannot be compared with design, which is overtly designed to seduce the buyer by its use of color, form and market strategies. That is why everybody wants the newest i-pod and i-phone – they are designed to overrule all rational decision-making, they are bought on an impulse. Jewelry on the other hand, tries to convince. Jewelry is a matter of faith. You have to believe in it before you purchase it. But you can stir this faith by clever communication strategies.

3rd step, shine

We all know the work of Damien Hirst and the story of the diamond covered For the Love of God, which attracted more than 100,000 visitors to the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam last year. Diamonds are bling bling, and 8601 diamonds on a platinum skull are hyper bling bling. The ‘spin’ around this work was excellent, starting with the origin of the skull, the story of the making, the spectacular use of numbers (more than 8000 diamonds worth between 80 and 100 million euro, not to mention the price of making, which was about 17 million euro), the way it was sold (to a consortium of investors and Hirst himself), the merchandising (t-shirts, buttons and the like), and the related sales records at Hirst’s Sotheby auction in September (a cool 100 million euro) – just before the financial crisis, lucky for them.

Why is this work so successful? I think there are two reasons. The first is that the artist and his team are very good in manipulating the media. For the Love of God is a typical information age artwork, it is carried along on a flow of hype around the artist. The media lap it up and the people love to read about it. We live in an age of increasing numbers. We have never had more possessions then we have now, we have never had more stars, VIP’s and millionaires than we have now, we have never had more opportunity to hear about the delirious excesses of those who can afford it. And we have never enough, we want more: more stories, more comfort, more electronic toys, more innovations, more money, more diamonds. So Hirst’s bejeweled skull is reflecting the spirit of our time. It was hyped at the right moment, using the best media strategies.

The second reason for the success is the artistic quality of For the Love of God. It is an excellent piece of art, set with diamonds into the deepest parts of the eye sockets, the nose and the inside of the skull. Hirst didn’t choose the easy way. Every detail of his work is very well considered, including the use of the real set of teeth with one missing tooth, and the skills of the artisans from jeweler Bentley & Skinner. In fact part of the attraction of the work lies in its craftsmanship, the magic of all those diamonds set by hand. The references to well-known memento mori paintings and objects provide the work with an academic framework – for the connoisseurs who now have an alibi to simply enjoy the shine of this work of art. Rudi Fuchs called it ‘a piece of extraordinary, mad artistry’. In other words, this art object is a great work of art because it is the most talked about artwork in ages and because it succeeds in enticing all ranks of our society.

What can we learn from this? Well, that there are certain things that attract people, things like uniqueness, craftsmanship, shine, and preciousness – things you can easily handle as a jeweler, things you can all deal with as jewelers, whenever you like.

4th step, fame

A relatively new phenomenon is that of selling your work at the auction. For some time design has been selling tremendously well at auctions and fairs – prices of more than 150,000 euro for a design chair or cabinet are not exceptional any more. But prices have to do with fame and uniqueness. Old design from the nineteen-thirties to the seventies, sells because of a famous name and because of its rarity. New design sells because of fame and uniqueness – a design object in an edition of seven sells as a ‘unique piece’.

There are also fine artists who have started to have auctioneering firms as their exclusive dealers, like Damien Hirst and Sotheby’s, or Annie Leibowitz and Phillips de Pury in London. Sometimes auctioneering firms have a gallery and the exclusive rights of sales, like La Galerie de Pierre Bergé in Brussels. The gallery commissioned Dutch designer Jurgen Bey to design a new collection of furniture-like art objects and sells them as unique pieces in an edition of two, three or four. Even his Sheep Jumping over the Fence, Stool and Apron, made in an edition of twelve, is sold as pièce unique.

In contemporary art and design things are moving that is clear. Therefore it is a pity that this relative young development is now surpassed by the financial and economic crisis. Now that the fortune of many Russian, Asian and dot-com moneybags is vaporized, how do auctions deal with this? Last months the atmosphere at the great London auctions was rather tame, and the Frieze Art fair in London, and Design Miami were not very successful as well.

And what about jewelry? Since last year there have been Brussels auctions by Pierre Bergé, who cares about contemporary jewelry and organized two jewelry auctions to date. That’s good news – perhaps. Jewelry is collected from the artists, sometimes from galleries but most of the galleries feel no enthusiasm to cooperate and you can’t blame them. It has been something strange indeed to see new jewelry in a lousy showcase, when you just recently saw it in a gallery context. It may look like heaven for the bargain hunter as well as for the artists who earn more when they sell at the auction compared to the gallery. But these are all short-term successes. Auctioneering firms are businesses, they won’t promote young and unknown artists, and they only believe in success. And besides, you can’t live from one sold piece, once or two times a year.  The sales at the second Brussels auction – in December in the middle of the financial crisis – were not spectacular. More than half of the lots were not sold, and those that did sell just reached the low estimate price. The sole moment when the room became more active and something like an atmosphere of greed was apparent was when the last lots came under the hammer: a jewel by Hans Arp (one of an edition of 100) and one by Man Ray. It was again the old mechanism of the name and fame of the artist that was the main sales argument here.

5th step, luxury

But how can you possibly stimulate your sales then?

A position you can take is that of the underdog, you reconcile to the situation: so you agree you are not famous, you say you don’t like and need to be famous and you try to conquer another market, the one of the broad public and sell at fairs and in shops. To do this successfully you need to make concessions. You can’t present your work in the same way that you do in a gallery context. It needs an explanation, it needs little incentives that invite people to come nearer: a specially made edition, a colorful or shining ‘take-away’ jewel that is like a treat. I think it is perfectly fine to work like this, but take care, it is not easy at all, and the jewelers who are in this position know exactly what I mean.

Others address to the world of fashion, which is a fascinating and interesting market. The fashion world is interested in experiments, in innovative materials and typologies. If you really go into it you will see that here are striking similarities between fashion jewelry and ‘our’ kind of jewelry, and that there is a world to conquer. Like fashion, jewelry can be presentational. The British Naomi Filmer did catwalk collaborations with different and prolific British fashion designers such as Hussein Chalayan. In 2001 she designed glass and silver balls to fix the hands of the models to their backs while showing Alexander McQueen’s fashion collection – with the aim of making them assume the posture of a flamenco dancer. Her approach is conceptual and she also worked with video, photography and sound, with chocolate and ice. Besides that, she works as a designer for companies such as Armani and Burberry. There is nothing adventurous about that work, but Naomi knows how to work on different tracks, getting her work published in fashion, art and jewelry publications.

For some years the Austrian company Pierre Lang has organized the So Fresh Jewelry Award, an interesting mix of fashion, art and design. This is a new opportunity to get your work seen and appreciated in the context of fashion. But remember, applying means rethinking your work and aims, thinking out of the box.

To infiltrate the world of conventional jewelry is another option that finally – after having been dismissed by the art jewelry scene for decades – seems accepted now. We all know that people are like magpies who love sparkles. People are even willing to transform the ashes of their beloved ones into a diamond – diamonds are big business. Why not convert to the diamond? There are cautious signs of a new approach, coming from this other world of luxurious jewelry: jeweler Lyppens here in Amsterdam wants to work with Ted Noten on a new line of black diamond jewelry. This is a brand new initiative that is still in its infant stage but has the smell of something new and fresh.

Some years ago a South African diamond mine owner and former architect called Hilton Judin started a project introducing a new line of diamond jewelry called Very Lustre. It is partly designed by people from our scene such as Dinie Besems, Marc Monzo, Hilde van der Heyden and Karl Fritsch, and partly by interesting designers like BLESS, Studio Job and Adam und Harborth. The idea is to be both ‘exclusive and accessible, bold and withdrawn, valuable and ordinary’. As Hilton Judin states, Very Lustre is ‘A common standardized but intricate collection of diamond jewelry based on concepts and statements, produced in collaboration with several independent authors’. It is a pity that you can’t find much information about this new jewelry collection. After meeting Hilton Judin some years ago at the Milan Furniture Fair where he showed me the first prototypes from Marc Monzo, I have never been able to reach him again. The designers I spoke with have had the same experience: the last they heard is that the jewels are sold in Comme des Garcons Guerrilla Shops, and that Hilton Judin is still going on with this project. Anyway, this fusion of diamonds, fashion and design, of luxury and concept, is a fascinating example of how worlds can merge in today’s society.

If the diamond is not your thing, you can also focus on other gems, synthetic or natural. This is what Truike Verdegaal is doing with her Maria Lux line of ‘prêt-a-porter’ jewelry. This project was encouraged by contact with Lilian Driessen, a fashion and accessories designer in Amsterdam. In all these years Verdegaal has learned not to expect too much from having her own label, but she also experienced that the moment you really start working on it, and you enter the world of the glossy magazines, things can really go fast. It is the power of numbers and multiplication that counts.

I am convinced that our boxed in jewelry scene will start changing pretty soon. It can’t stay the way it has been the last 40 years. Our society has changed and so the jewelry scene will change. In the near future jewelers will work on different tracks: for the gallery and for their own label, the fair, internet sale, house sale parties or any other initiative. The jeweler as a businessman: why not? But therefore connections between artists and galleries and clients should be more rational and businesslike. A jeweler is an artist who creates a product and wants to sell it. He/she has something unique to offer, something handmade, thoughtfully made and carefully made, in very small editions, or more often completely unique and made from precious or special materials. This is your capital. I strongly believe in what fashion designer Alexander van Slobbe, the new artistic director of the design Academy in Eindhoven, says: ‘The new luxury is that of the small-scale, the hand-made, and permanence’.

The gallery is the in-between salesman who wants to sell this luxury product. This is business, not an altruistic affair. Perhaps it once was but times have changed and it is now time to re-invent author jewelry. The numbers of jewelers, galleries, fairs, and other initiatives and opportunities are growing – complexity will grow with the numbers. And so you will have to rationalize your connections and look for new collaborations. You need contracts, clear agreements, more openness and room for negotiations, and initiatives of the artists that go beyond the confines of the gallery. You should try to work on different tracks. In the end all parties will profit from it.

Complexity opens up new possibilities. I think it is time to step out of the comfort  zone and make yourself seen.


PHOTOS (top to bottom):

Gijs Bakker and Emmy van Leersum
Clothing suggestions, 1970.

Gijs Bakker and Emmy van Leersum
Clothing suggestions drawing, 1970.

Gijs Bakker
Shot, 1996, nylon
Chi ha paura . . .? design CHP06

Katja Prins
Bound by blood, wood
Chi ha paura . . .? design CHP41

Lisa Gralnick
Tiffany Ring (The gold standard #11)
2005, gold, acrylic

Ted Noten, Fashionista
Purple Haze Necklace, 2009
edition 1/8, glass-filled nylon

Ted Noten
Super- Bitch-Bag Lady K
2008, edition 6/7, Walther PPK, engraved with flowers and gold plated, cast in acrylic, found handbag


 

I recently completed the Graduate Program in Fine Arts at the California College of the Arts in San Francisco. Submitting my portfolio to the Jewelry/Metal Arts Department, I was accepted into the program by the Program Chair, Marilyn da Silva with the approval of the Graduate Admissions Committee. I chose to attend CCA because of its enthusiasm for cross-disciplinary exploration and its emphasis on a greater awareness of the global context of contemporary art. Rooted in critically engaged studio practice, the program explores both the specifics of particular disciplines and the points of interaction and overlap among disciplines.

During my two years at CCA, I worked in close contact with my peers whose skill sets comprised ceramics, furniture, glass, jewelry/metal arts, textiles, media arts, painting/drawing, photography, printmaking, sculpture and social practice. This interdisciplinary aspect to the program resulted in an absence of jewelry within my MFA show. Given total freedom of expression, I made a conscious decision to let my concepts lead me to my methods of making, even if it lead me away from what I was familiar with. There is no doubt however, that my background as a jeweler informed my work at CCA. Five months after completing the program I am coming to terms with my experience and what it has meant to my artistic practice.

CCA’s graduate program is housed on the San Francisco campus and is comprised of two areas of study, studio practice and academic seminars. While engaged in their studio practice, students create artwork and receive feedback from faculty. This is supplemented with courses in the history of contemporary art aimed at providing grounding in critical theory. The Jewelry/Metal Arts Department, housed on the Oakland campus, is geared toward undergraduate study. While at CCA I came to the conclusion that the two campuses, and in relation, the two programs I was affiliated with, were very much separate entities.

I recall one of the first papers assigned in my Contemporary Art History and Theory Seminar in which I was faced with the task of placing my practice within contemporary critical concepts.  Required to compare my work to three artists or movements covered in the curriculum, I chose Rosemarie Trockel, Guy Debord and the Arte Povera Movement. Unable to pull from the craft history I was familiar with because it was not included in the course, I quickly became aware of the new dialogue in which I was engaged. Studio critiques with faculty members worked as extended dialogues to the academic content of seminars. Similar to seminars, the field of Art Jewelry was not a part of the conversation. In critiques where I presented jewelry to my review panel I received responses such as, “Why not industrial design?” or “This belongs in the museum store, not the museum.” These comments communicated the sentiment that jewelry was unfamiliar as fine art. Its functionality and peculiar position between art, design, craft and fashion did not easily fit into the fine art dialogue.

For a period of time, I put my Art Jewelry books on the shelf. No one knew who Myra Mimlitsch-Gray or Ted Noten was. Therefore, referencing these artists in my critiques and studio practice meetings only confused things and made communication difficult. It also underlined the fact that these artists were not on the radar of my peers and instructors in San Francisco. They were craft, and specifically jewelry and metal work, which was a different dialogue. To begin building a foundation that would allow me to address my craft sentiment within the contemporary critical dialogue, I explored artists like Josiah McElheney, Anne Wilson, Cornelia Parker, Claudia Tennyson, and Grayson Perry who were not exclusive to craft but undeniably related.

While the more traditional studio craft was not part of the graduate program curriculum, there was a great deal of activity surrounding craft-related practices such as “DIY” and “Subversive Craft”. In February of 2008 the College Art Association hosted a conference in Dallas, Texas. One of its lectures entitled, Gestures of Resistance: Craft, Performance and the Politics of Slowness, pointed to an emphasis on the use of craft in contemporary art, “use” being the operative word. It seemed to me that craft was being revisited within contemporary art as an action where the object made is not revered for its craftsmanship but exists as documentation of the physical act of crafting.

I could not divorce myself from a reverence for craftsmanship; however, while at CCA I decided to ask myself the question, “Does it make sense to actualize all of my ideas in a jewelry format?” For the time being, I took on the mind-set of a fine artist invested in concepts of craft. My jewelry skills became part of my arsenal of art-making tools rather than techniques that defined me as a jeweler exclusively. I had to think about why I made jewelry and use that information as a guideline to build a new practice, which I thought of as an extension of my jewelry practice. I considered both to be equal and related but allowed to function independently.

These past five months following my graduation I have been trying to figure out my stance. The urge to make sense of the validity of jewelry making as a fine art practice and fine arts suspicion of it is always present.  Laboring for a tidy conclusion is quickly becoming tedious and boring. For now I’m living within, understanding the in-between and asking questions about both. Nobody gets off the hook, everyone is valid. Recently, I re-read Gert Staal and Ted Noten’s manifesto, In Celebration of the Street, in the vol 27 no 5 issue of Metalsmith magazine. It struck me that without the institution of art, jewelry making is a powerful craft in itself. Making the objects that serve as dialectic units, jewelers create symbols that lubricate the rituals that comprise everyday human life. So here are the new questions I’ve been asking myself: Does that die when you take it away from the everyday sphere and elevate it to the museum or gallery? Or does it perhaps serve to highlight this unique function of jewelry? 

*Click to view my thesis to see the culmination of my graduate experience.