[Jewelry making - Article 00314] - Re: [Orchid] Article: Minimal Metalsmithing

[J Collier]

========[ Invite a Friend - http://www.ganoksin.com/invite.htm  ]========

    Long before deciding to take up metal smithing I've always looked at
    art objects with plenty of curiosity. Part of my nature is to
    understand the path the artist took to create the piece as much as
    trying to understand what the artist had to say. Having information
    about the materials listed always seemed to be a reasonable way to
    present a work of art. More recently with my increased curiosity
    about metal art objects (jewelry) I have found some puzzling
    departures form the norm of listing materials used in creation of the
    work presented for viewing. 

    First, I don't have a dog in this fight about whether one should use
    PMC/Metal Clay or not. I feel that if someone wants to produce art
    they can make it from anything they think will accomplish the job for
    the idea they want to express. Secondly, I don't think the intent of
    this forum is to discuss the merits of one material verses another in
    the sense of whether one makes the finished art valid and another
    does not.... that is a long and possibly, a never ending
    conversation. I do believe that this forum is for the exchange of
    information so that each may achieve their goals in working with
    materials they choose to produce jewelry to their liking. 

    Recently I sent a letter to Metalsmith Magazine because of my
    concern about labeling of the art objects presented with one of the
    articles in the most recent issue. This is a publication I hold in
    high regard for their standards. I am very much interested in their
    reply because listing of materials enables the viewer to best
    understand the work presented. Does it matter to the members of this
    forum if materials are not listed with art objects presented? Should
    articles created with PMC/Metal Clay be listed, for instance, "Fine
    silver from PMC", "22K Gold from PMC", and so forth? Is this
    reasonable or is there no need at all? 

    To the Editor: (MetalSmith Magazine) 

        In the recent issue of your publication (Volume 27 number 3) the
        article _Metal Clay: On the Cusp_ by Donald Friedlich presents
        the case for use of PMC in a broad overview with examples of some
        stunning work in this medium. 

        The author states: "Objects made of metal clay raise the same
        critical questions that arise when considering any work of art.
        What does the object communicate? Does the object speak with and
        expressive voice that is unique to its material? Has the object
        been done before to the point of being trite or is it new and
        distinctive? Could it be better made in another way, with other
        materials? Does it exploit the material's ability to showcase the
        imprint of the hand in ways metal smithing cannot? When it is
        inappropriate to have the hand in evidence, does it demonstrate
        proper technical control and refinement of surface and form? Does
        it take advantage of metal clay's ceramic qualities and genuinely
        exploit the fact that metal clay is, first, formable with the
        ease of clay and then is almost magically transformed, like
        caterpillar to butterfly, into a silver or gold object" 

        The means to critically examine the object seems to be lacking
        in the curatorial information given about each work featured. 

        My point is that listing fine silver, 24K gold and such does not
        provide the viewer adequate information about the work if there
        is no mention that this fine silver or 24K gold is derived from
        PMC. Your inclusion of 24K gold foil in the materials list of the
        PMC bracelet by Celie Fago does provide concise information about
        the nature of that one material, however, all of the other
        materials are unclear as to whether they are derived form PMC or
        not. 

        Since the front cover of this issue features an exotic piece by
        Claire Holliday identified as fine silver and no mention of PMC,
        being that it was totally isolated from the article on PMC, and
        being that no where in the article on PMC did it refer to this
        piece, can you say that you have given the viewer the best
        opportunity for critical review? 

        Perhaps the standard for identifying works made with PMC should
        be fine silver from PMC, 24K from PMC, and so forth. 

J Collier
Small Scale Metalsmith
http://jlcollier.com
____________________________________________________________________
T h e   O r c h i d   L i s t
Open Electronic Forum for Jewelry Manufacturing Methods and Procedures
____________________________________________________________________
Orchid FAQ:
~ http://www.ganoksin.com/orchid/faq.htm
Orchid Archives:
~ http://www.ganoksin.com/orchid/archive
Orchid Galleries:
~ http://www.ganoksin.com/orchid/gallery.htm
Invite a Friend:
~ http://www.ganoksin.com/invite.htm
____________________________________________________________________
Tips From The Jeweler's Bench - Article Archive
~ http://www.ganoksin.com/borisat/tip_sear.htm
The Jeweler's Selected Bibliography List
~ http://www.ganoksin.com/jewelry-books
Buy Orchid Jewelry:
~ http://www.ganoksin.com/shop
____________________________________________________________________
-Unsubscribe:
-Email: orchid-request AT ganoksin.com Body=unsubscribe subject=blank
____________________________________________________________________