I am curios. If everybody who thinks that it is ok, would be
equally predisposed to "innovation" when they would order a painted
portrait, but get a photograph instead.
Leonid, I know where you’re coming from, and it’s OK to prefer
traditional precious materials if you personally feel this way. But
in your above statement, you infer that presenting a photograph as
though it were a painting would be the same as incorporating some
new or unconventional material or method into jewelry. That’s a false
comparison. A painting defines not just the medium, but the method.
Calling a photograph a painting isn’t accomodating innovation. It’s
fraud. “jewelry”, on the other hand, deserves a broader definition.
The word jewelry itself does not define only specific materials and
methods to the exclusion of all others. It more defines an end use,
a general class of personal adornment, and often a set of aesthetic
preferences that make jewelry function well in it’s traditional
roles as adornment, fashion statement, or display of wealth, and
others. But there’s nothing in these common uses and meanings of the
word that excludes other options. While traditionally, the use of
precious materials and fine hand craftsmanship characterize fine
jewelry, to limit the term jewelry, or even the value judgement of
“fine jewelry” to only these specific materials and methods is
unfortunate and smacks of undeserved elitism. There sometimes tends
to be a practice among those who’ve attained mastery of a field (many
fields, not just jewelry making) to define mastery of their field as
it most closely resembles their own practice, with a resistance to
allowing others who differ in opinion, as they might try to redefine
the field and thus perhaps devalue the perception of mastery and
authority, (and don’t forget all the time and money spent to get
there) People who act this way serve only to mark themselves as
symbols of the past, unmovingly unwilling to adapt, examine, and
embrace new thoughts and ideas if they seem to have potential merit,
even if they conflict with prior, older thinking. Examples abound,
especially in science, where there were any number of well known
physicists who refused to accept the changes in understandings
brought by Einsteins equations. others who refused to accept the
validity of Hubbles discovery of an expanding univers and it’s
implied Big Bang. Early 20th century painters and art critics who
refused to accept the Fauvists or Cubists (or you can name almost
any other period or developement in art history as having the same
doubters and resistance) as having anything useful to contribute to
painting and art. Thoughout history jewelers have also often been
innovators, both with new materials and methods, as well as new
looks, aesthetics, and norms of what’s considered in fashion and high
quality. This includes new explorations in aesthetics, looks,
fashions, as well as new innovations in technology. If this were not
true, none of us would have ever tried a torch, and left the methods
of soldering over a “hearth” or with a mouth blowpipe and an oil or
alcohol lamp. None of use would accept the use of flex shafts,
electric buffing motors. ultrasonic cleaners, or even good bright
bench lamps over our benches. "Machine made files and sawblades
instead of those we cut ourselves? Perish the thought, that cannot
be the “right” way, the “real” way… Jewelry made with such tools
cannot be as good as that made with the old versions… " Does that
statment make any real sense? I think not. And implying that real
jewelry, fine jewelry, cannot experiment with new materials and
methods, even if unconventional such as electronics, is equally
archaic.
Peter