Archive

Tag Archives: contemporary jewelry

Seeing Estonia through Cult Jewellery

November 21, 2016
ARTICLES/TEXTS, galleries/exhibitions, jewelry (or jewellery), REVIEWS
Leave a comment

 

Seeing Estonia through Cult Jewellery: Reflections of the exhibition, Estonishing ! 13° from Estonia

To highlight the opening of Estonishing ! 13° in Tallinn that happened on the 16th of November 2016, I’m posting this text I wrote originally for SIRP magazine that was translated into Estonian. Here it is in english for the first time. The original debut of this exhibition took place at SCHMUCK 2016 in the Handwerksmesse in Munich, Germany, 24.02 – 01.03.2016

text by Kellie Riggs

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

The Contemporary Jewellery community is not big, but it is unique. It remains to hover somewhere above other, similar creative fields like fashion, design, art and craft. Never quite assimilating, it is instead a combination of the four, taking the best aspects from each of these groups back to its own special atmosphere and turning it into something amazing. The field, its artists and community all can feel like a well-kept secret hidden in plain sight. But in fact, it spans every continent on the globe, found tucked in pockets and hubs rich with cultural relevance and a collective will to express and adorn.

It is one week a year in Munich, Germany that contemporary jewellery’s modesty steps aside and the field (both cultural and academic) is able to come together as one global community acting as a fortified front. It shows the best of itself in broad daylight. Its members flock from every corner of the world, becoming pilgrims. And the jewellery on display itself become relics, housed in specially created spaces that only Munich Jewellery Week can inspire and cultivate. It is all rather cult, as its followers – students, artists, enthusiasts, and collectors alike – have a specific kind of admiration and devotion that can be felt buzzing on the streets of Munich from exhibition to exhibition.

Over the course of the last ten years, Munich Jewellery Week (as it has only recently been known to be called, coinciding with the SCHMUCK event) has grown exponentially. Starting with around ten collateral exhibitions throughout the city in 2006, MJW 2016 boasted over seventy. Whether they are academic classes or artist-run collectives, many diverse international jewellery groups come to show what they do via independent or gallery represented exhibitions. And when done right, they are able to demonstrate particular cultural tendencies in jewellery at large, and illustrate more sensitive cultural perspectives through the particular expressiveness that jewellery provides. Good Contemporary Jewellery is always a lens through which to look into the subtleties of other cultures, national or local, big or small. It is an irreplaceable means to understand how different cultures or subcultures feel about certain elusive subjects – many of which are quite intimate – as jewellery is a relatively intimate affair to begin with.

So what does it mean for jewellery to be from a certain place? From Estonia? What kind of illustration does the world have of this country through the jewellery that comes out of it? I myself can only speak to an outsider’s perspective and reflect on the impression that’s been made in places like Munich where Estonian artists have been able to show face together against the backdrop of a contrasting cultural framework. In one way or another they act as a collective ambassador, providing one of the few and probably most profound windows through which one can catch a glimpse of this fascinating (and largely mysterious) land. In all actuality, Estonia and Estonian Contemporary Jewellery remain the subject of intrigue in the international Contemporary Jewellery community; there seems to be a special kind of force field that surrounds it, one that recalls magic and evokes a curious kind of arousal.

This year in Munich, Estonian jewellery artists could be found in many places. The work of Nils Hint, more blacksmith than jeweler, was included in one of the highest quality international exhibitions in the city, (IM)PRINT. Three of the more internationally prolific artists were selected for the prestigious juried SCHMUCK exhibition that takes place every year in the Handwerksmesse Exhibition Hall: Kadri Mälk, Tanel Veenre, and Linda Al-Assi. And Darja Popolitova, who just recently graduated from the Estonian Academy of Arts, was selected for the congruent TALENTE exhibition. But somewhere within the maze of uninspired booths of international jewellery galleries that surrounded these shows, the real gem could be found: the exhibition, “ESTONISHING !”, presented by Thomas Cohn Gallery, co-curated by the gallerist himself, and artist, Tanel Veenre. The magnetism of the work of this group of Estonian artists was so strong that it could be felt in São Paulo, Brazil (where Mr. Cohn is located), and convincing enough to come together for exhibition in Munich. As far as I know, it was also Mr. Cohn’s first year presenting the gallery at the Handwerksmesse, which is a big deal.

That right there is magic. Some kind of supernatural connection brought these seemingly disparate people together. And speaking of connection, what is it that connects these thirteen Estonian artists to one another? I find this question to be often reoccurring, as there is some kind of pull, something very grounded, something only sensed but invisible, that ties Estonian work together in a way that is so unique, it is simply not found in other Contemporary Jewellry circles in other countries. They appear spiritually united, and at this point in the history of Contemporary Jewellery, this is now universally recognized. But how?

This very question of connection was precisely what Veenre sought to examine when organizing the exhibition. He asked: Is it patience, an endeavour for holiness, assurance, or hope that connects us? Is is melancholy? These questions are perhaps not meant to be solved, rendering a smart and lyrical way to ask the viewer to really look into the jewellery on display and investigate their vulnerability and universality.

This is an intriguing question, and quite a responsible line of inquiry considering whom it’s coming from. Throughout the years, Veenre has not only unofficially been the spokesperson for Estonian Jewellery as a whole by giving a face and a voice to this special sect of the jewellery field to international eyes and ears – but he is also one of the few brave artists in general leading the way for change and new relevancy for the field of Contemporary Jewellery as a whole, by more closely associating it to other art and cultural genres. And as such, the Estonian team has followed with a reputation of taking itself seriously (having high quality exhibitions, publications, and have created a solid identity) while working with and enjoying a special sense of fantasy, mysticism and poetry that is always captivating and uniquely their own.

Some of the more intriguing and relevant work included in ESTONISHING ! came from Nils Hint, a younger face in the field that is getting noticed on an international level more and more steadily for his flattened iron work. He takes ready-made tools like wrenches from the scrap yard to join and then flatten using a power hammer and other blacksmithing techniques. The more striking pieces in this exhibition however were those more three-dimensional, utilizing iron elements as means to draw. Purposefully phallic or cross-like objects (like his Mahine1 (Manful) brooch, forged iron, 2015) were created to imply a “childish or primitive kind of street art, like dicks drawn on the wall,” says the artist.

Alternatively, Ketli Tiitsar and her Teine Olemus (Second Nature) brooches and necklace, made from ash wood, silver, pigment (2016) added a more internal sensibility to the show. The pieces, visually delicate and alive speak about Tiitsar’s personal memory utilizing materials from places that she knows, in an intimate manner of speaking. The wood recalls her family’s tradition of cutting firewood to heat their home, and in a sense she carries on with that repetitive tradition through her practice while paying respect to it at the same time. They are also very hip and modern pieces which is an excellent juxtaposition to the sentimentality involved.

Maarja Niinemägi’s simple and elegant engraved stone brooches, Ööparved (Night Floats), are also noteworthy for their pure and natural qualities. Essentially collages made from milky opal, buffalo horn, mother of pearl, silver and gold (2013), they are made to inspire a sense of grouping and collective metaphorical floating.

Although just three examples here, from the outside, it looks as though it must also be nature that connects most of these Estonian jewellery artists. What runs true and deep in someone sometimes goes personally unnoticed or unsaid because it is so much a part of them; their bond to nature didn’t need to be verbalized to be felt.

And what about the connection made by their fearless leader, Kadri Mälk? Veenre poses this question as well, as all the artists are alumni of the Estonian Academy of Arts from the jewellery and Blacksmithing department, twelve of the thirteen being Mälk’s former students. The veneration of this woman, who has been a professor at EAA for a long long while, reverberates far beyond the confines of Estonia and is inextricable from the work of any of her alumni no matter how far it travels. Needless to say Mälk herself was also a part of this exhibition, her dark pieces swirling with qualities of secrecy and fascination seem to provide us a window into her soul. This characteristic, rarely found to be so strong in Contemporary Jewellery, illicits a feeling of witchcraft and seduction, further breathing life into the cult-like nature Estonian Contemporary Jewellery possesses. It is safe to say that today’s Estonian jewellers are their own leg of the jewellery cult (Cult Jewellery, let’s go on to call it), and they have the world’s attention.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Nils Hint

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Maarja Niinemägi

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAOLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Ketli Tiitsar

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAOLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

 

 

The exhibition is accompanied by a catalogue designed by Asko and Julia Maria Künnap. In addition to presenting the work, each artist reveals something about themselves through one Estonian word and an illustrative image.

Curators: Thomas Cohn and Tanel Veenre

Participating artists:
Kadri Mälk, Tanel Veenre, Piret Hirv, Kristiina Laurits, Villu Plink, Nils Hint, Sofja Hallik, Eve Margus-Villems, Darja Popolitova, Maria Valdma, Julia Maria Künnap, Maarja Niinemägi, Ketli Tiitsar

The design of the exhibition is a collaboration by all the participating artists.

Supporters: Thomas Cohn, Cultural Endowment of Estonia, Susan Cummins, Helena Pahlman, Mart Kalm, Law Office Ehasoo&Partners, SA Noor Ehe, Emil Urbel

The Bright House

September 30, 2014
galleries/exhibitions, REVIEWS
Leave a comment

The Bright House

Saturday September 27, Camucia – Cortona, Italy / location: Tenimenti Luigi d’Alessandro Winery

The Bright House, a review

by Kellie Riggs

I used to talk frequently of the dream show; I never knew what it was exactly or what it looked like, but the idea was basically to imagine a space where jewelry could truly be itself, speaking for itself without too much help. The work would be together yet independent, emboldened by its company and especially by its surroundings, surroundings much different than your average jewelry exhibition, someplace more inviting. But what kind of new space would it have to be, to give each individual piece its own privacy so to speak, it’s own fortified spotlight beyond the pretense of what we are used to seeing in an installation?

The word dream implies beyond reality, the ideal, exaltation even, and that’s exactly what The Bright House was – a 48 hour ultimate jewelry fantasy if you will – if as though contemporary jewelry threw itself an exclusive, budget-less birthday party with the highest consideration of taste, beauty and even restraint. But what else would one expect when the background for the show is the grounds of a spacious and immaculate Tuscan Villa, with the colors and winds of nature sweeping through the air like magic? There were no white walls to be found here, just glass as though the surrounding structures to the jewelry were nothing more than an illusion, almost an invisible stage for the jewels on display. No cases, no security, an open invitation to touch, to try, and the opportunity for dialogue as many of the artists were also present. A feeling of safety and calmness was in circulation, a true haven of delicacies, many of which were gold.

The show was defined by two groupings of work in two locations of display, both a glass house separated by a beautiful foot path that seemed to encourage a reflectiveness of the experience. As the groomed nature infiltrated the exhibition space through the windows the textural components of each body of work was rightfully amplified; even Helen Britton’s industrial-esque work began to really belong to the environment, the movement of her cuffs became leaflike, the colors echoing the fallen foliage in the grass just yards away and the sounds they make during interaction would perhaps compliment walking in the grass through the signs of the approaching fall. Across the space was another compliment to the show’s surroundings, but this time more to the light through the trees and the changing hues of green, like in the work of Jamie Bennet, paired nicely with Peter Bauhius who presented three natural pebble-like necklaces.

Across the room was a Smörgåsbord of geometric golden treats all of which were characteristically Babetto, the most exciting piece being a quite impressively flexible and reversible square component necklace defying physical odds when handled. Anytime I see Babetto’s work I know i’m in the right place.. he brings a sense of ease to the room somehow, as by seeing him you know the rest of the work from other artists has got to be worth something. Giampaolo Babetto is my first jewelry hero and seeing new iterations of himself, which his work always seems to be, is exciting for me in all of its variations and subtleties; take for example the use of a rustic, rusty red pigment seen in his new work.

Up the footpath and into the next glass house of which the back wall features a bit of the outside world. Giant rocks climbing up the walls frame a mirrored fountain and in its vicinity more treasures are to be found. To the right Manfred Bischoff has a row of his sculptural and almost cryptically narrative gold work which are always an impressive sight, opposite that of Jacqueline Ryan whose more intimate and textural work dazzles. Ryan’s presence reintroduces the show’s connection with the surrounding nature through surface quality and moments of movement. She also forms a somewhat unexpected association to Patrick Davison’s non jewelry work (found in the same room) through shared pattern and geometry. Davison, whose pieces are the only of its kind in the exhibition, is also by far the youngest artist present, proving his work to be even more impressive than a first glance will lead on.

Something I found delightful about this exhibition is that many of the artists echo one another in sometimes indistinct yet fun ways. Rike Bartels (shown in the first glass house) to Bischoff though is perhaps too obvious an example, obvious to the the point that Bartels becomes a bit amiss once Bischoff is discovered. Alternatively, Ryan’s work is the glue of the whole exhibition noted in the way she positively brings the two spaces together, well balancing both Babetto and Britton’s work through kinetics and form, and recollecting Ferràn Iglesias’ extremely delicate, patient and passionate gold wire work from the previous room.

The Bright House is much much greater than the sum of its parts. There is no question here whether the work is good or of the highest quality, yet I will note that this particular group is surely not the most relevant or contemporary of groups in the scene at large today. In a field that seems to get fresher and fresher every year, choosing such traditionalists could have posed a problem. But on the contrary, some of the artists here are introspective legends and masters of material and they deserve the space for uninterrupted tactile and even spiritual reflection that this exhibition successfully provided… all very much dream-like to say the least.

The Bright House

The Bright House

The Bright House, location

Helen Britton

Jamie Bennet

 Peter Bauhuis

Peter Bauhius

Giampaolo Babetto Giampaolo Babetto Giampaolo Babetto Giampaolo Babetto Giampaolo Babetto

The Bright House

Manfred Bischoff

Jacqueline Ryan

Jacqueline Ryan Patrick Davison   Patrick Davison

Rike Bartels

Manfred Bischoff

Jacqueline Ryan

Ferràn Iglesias

Ferràn Iglesias

The Bright House, location

The Bright House , Lucia Massei foreground

Patrick Davison and work

Patrick Davison talking with Jacqueline Ryan about his work

Antonella Villanova (left), with Giampaolo Babetto necklace

Patrick Davison (left) with Giampaolo Babetto necklace and artist (right)

The Bright House

The Bright House

Benjamin Lignel’s comments to my scribbling on Nicolas BOURRIAUD

May 17, 2013
art (period), art (question mark), jewelry (or jewellery), semantics
1 Comment

Please visit the original post ——–> HERE 

BL: Loved your enthusiastic scribbling on Bourriaud. I have a problem with your working hypothesis (as usual!?) but like your dauntless crusade!

Where I find you err (!?) is that (1) you assume that the similarities between art and jewelry are what will bring them closer (2) you use as ‘proof’ an example that is particularly unhelpful: Bourriaud’s relational aesthetics texts encapsulates a ‘meaningful departure from the norm’ amongst contemporary art makers: a way of engaging the public that is new, exciting, and representative of larger social concerns. However, while it is new and exciting for art, it is old (and exciting) for jewelry: i.e. jewelry, as you point out, has always relied on a form of public sharing to function. So in my eye, ‘relational’ is not how jewelry becomes more like art, but how art becomes more like jewelry.

KR: I am smiling. And I both agree and disagree with you. Yes, perhaps it is old and exciting for jewelry, but it doesn’t hurt to bring those qualities to the surface and compare it to something so concrete in contemporary art (has it been done?), so that at the very least, dummies who have never thought about jewelry, in its old sense or contemporary sense, can at least take a new kind of pleasure in it, or consider it (even just a tiny bit) to be something bigger and more complex than they ever gave it credit for.

It’s more like, hey everyone, you think this bourriaud relational shit is cool? well guess what: we’ve already been doing that for… ever. so maybe it is worth thinking about, or at the very least enjoying. oh and here’s a whole bunch of jewelry that you’ve never seen before, or even knew existed! you’re welcome. 

BL: I am smiling as well. Comparing is fine, and the way you express it there is more to the point, I think. I would urge you to envisage the possibility that what will make CJ more ‘like art’ is precisely what makes it different from art as we know it.

This dialogue was taken from email correspondance on April 30, 2013. Mr. Lignel is my editor at AJF. 

Current Obsession Magazine Launch at Schmuck 2013

April 23, 2013
everyone, everything, galleries/exhibitions, jewelry (or jewellery), publication links
1 Comment

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Have you seen the new Current Obsession Magazine yet? It’s basically the very first of its kind!!!!!!!!

CO originally existed as a blog about contemporary jewelry and then a website (promoting the field through the voices of the artists) created by the talented, Marina Elenskaya (artist and editor in chief of the magazine). And as of March 2013, CO now also exists as a bi-annual printed magazine that debuted at this year’s Schmuck. Marina and Sarah Mesritz (the creative director of the mag) launched the first issue, The Archetype, in Munich, which was really exciting for me because they invited me to be a contributing writer/editor for the issue.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Here I am at Schmuck after having my first look inside the magazine. It’s the first time i’ve been published, and in the photo above, the page is opened to my introduction and interview with Karl Fritsch. The segment shows new pieces by the artist that were also exhibited at two Schmuck exhibitions.

Click —–> here for a peak inside.

I also had the pleasure of working with Alexander Blank on another interview about his new series, also exhibited at Schmuck.

Alexander Blank, King of my Blues exhibition

The CO team also asked me to help them create a guide for all the Schmuck events this year to help visitors navigate the city. After having contacted every artist or organizer for all the collateral Schmuck exhibition (for photos and information regarding their event), we tried to create a descriptive teaser, basically CO’s Schmuck 2013 picks, highlighting various initiatives we thought were worth seeing. To see the PDF, click —-> here

from CO Facebook page

Below are some photos of Marina and Sarah giving a presentation at the Messe, where the main Schmuck show was situated.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

To learn more about the wonderful backpack and suitcase by the design team Hanemaai shown above, click —> here!

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Above, Volker Atrops giving some critical feedback to the team, which you should feel free to do also! We are always looking for comments and are eager to hear what you think.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Marina and contributing editor/husband, Chris van der Kaap at the show, Schmuck You, presented by Galerie Biró Junior and featuring the work of Réka Lorincz and Flora Vági.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Super babes Marina with artist and friend, Suzanne Beautyman 

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Sarah Mestriz toting around the mag and the guide at the Pinakothek der Moderne.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Below is artist/researcher/writer, Aaron Decker, another contributing editor of the CO magazine.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

from CO Facebook page

Some team shots, below with superstar, Tanel Veenre

from CO Facebook page

CURRENT OBSESSION 
– is a new printed magazine about jewellery and its relation to different fields of art — performance, illustration, photography, etc. Apart from jewellery artists and critics, we feature material researchers, fashion designers, collagists and many more. Our goal is to create a different dimension for jewellery in printed environment. We tell inspiring stories about people and places, touching upon subjects like value, language and presentation.
Our motto is “JEWELLERY IS WHAT YOU MAKE OF IT “

check it out:  OPEN CALL FOR CONTRIBUTIONS !

“The second issue of the magazine will be about “The Youth” – students, newly graduates, alumni and up-and-coming artists, keeping in mind that being young is not about the age, but about the attitude!
Release date of the second issue – October 2013 launched in Barcelona JOYA/Amsterdam SIERAAD/Eindhoven DDW.

We have created this open call for contributions because we are searching for:

– Projects that connect jewellery to other fields of art/design/fashion: performance, photography, illustration, audiovisual, collage, sculpture, etc.)
– Research projects: material, formal and theoretical
– Great new jewellery!
– Hardworking writers!

Our goal is to show the diversity and potency of the upcoming generation, to outline their standpoint and tendencies and to address the problems and choices the young makers are subject to.

To contribute or for more information, please email to:
info@current-obsession.com with THE YOUTH as the message subject.

Deadline: beginning of June 2013 “

————–

Check out the CO website to order a physical copy of the first issue.

or, here is the LIST OF RETAILERS :

+Klimt02 BARCELONA
+Galerie Rob Koudijs AMSTERDAM
+Gallery Ra AMSTERDAM
+Athenaeum Nieuwscentrum AMSTERDAM
+Do You Read Me!? BERLIN
+You Are Here EINDHOVEN
+Galerie Noel Guyomarc’h MONTREAL (QUEBEC)
+ ATTA Gallery BANGKOK
+Chrome Yellow Books LONDON
+ Galley P’LACE DRESDEN

TID BIT OF THE DAY: an anonymous rant

February 22, 2013
RANTS, Uncategorized
Leave a comment

Today I received a delightful email from a friend and thought it might be of interest. What do we think? IS MY FRIEND RIGHT? 

Today is a day I hate contemporary art jewellery. I’m tired of it. Sometimes I think the lowest level (intellectually) of art is put out there by ‘Art Jewellers’. Jumped up hobbists who have no real skills in the ancient craft that is body adornment and goldsmithing. JUST BECAUSE YOU HAD A ACCIDENT WITH SOME RESIN IN A CUP, DOES NOT MAKE YOU AN ARTIST. Even a baby artist. 

A brief interview with Caroline Van Hoek

January 25, 2013
art (question mark), galleries/exhibitions, INTERVIEWS, jewelry (or jewellery)
Leave a comment

Gallery Facade

Image courtesy of Caroline Van Hoek 

KR: Your gallery is located in a space that looks as though it’s still a humble food market. How does the everyday nature of the grocery store reflect the subtleties and universality of artworks in contemporary jewelry?

CVH: Humble is not an aspect I saw in it first although there is a lot of humbleness involved as well !

I recognized going to this kind of shop with my mother and seeing the owner taking extra care of her, she was never the big supermarket kind. He knew what kind of apples she wanted; he knew she liked her tomatoes in this way and not another way. He knew when he could have a season specialty which one he could put aside for her. He would carry it out, keeps things aside. Everything was stacked high and all over and he could still find exactly what he needed. This is the similarity with the current activity of the place. It occurred naturally to my mind, without thinking.

Do you see the gallery as an artwork in and of itself?

I never did, although people start to know of it as “the grocery store” and either they understand or it makes them think and hopefully they get it.

You are also located in an area with other contemporary art galleries. What is the overall reception of your space and of the work you carry in relation to those other galleries? Is it considered equal to the art world on a local level?

Here as for any other jewelry gallery in the world, jewelry is starting to gain more attention in general as a collector’s item. Most people do not know there is something else than high jewelry, couture jewelry, artist jewelry or fashion jewelry.  All the types can exist with each other.  The most important factor in this comparison is “qualitative” jewelry. “Qualitative” jewelry will gain attention and rise in value, whether it is a nice Cartier piece, a great Chanel bracelet or a Picasso pendant.

Just like many others in our field, it seems that a big part of your mission as an art-jewelry gallerist is to show jewelry from different perspectives than most people outside our sphere are used to. Would you like to speak a bit about your writing projects and what kind of language you’ve needed to develop to do so?

There is not one single answer to that. It’s like when people buy art, some want a whole explanation, some others just want to look at a piece and fall in love with it. As a gallery you feel when is the right level of education necessary for which audience.

What is the importance of travel to your gallery and attending international events like Design Miami for example; events not solely related to contemporary jewelry? 

When I started there were some established galleries around. Brussels and Amsterdam are only two hours away from each other. You have to take your ball and find new friends to play with.

How often do you find yourself giving a comprehensive explanation for the type of gallery you have; Would you define your role as a gallerist somewhat similar to that of an educator?

Yes, every day, all day. To everyone, schools, clients and press.

Recently you have celebrated the 5th anniversary of your gallery. Can you talk a bit about the exhibition, This was 2007?

It is a very personal exhibition and based upon a very limited time frame. It just illustrates how little my environment was when I opened the gallery. It shows work from people I was in touch with, or work that impressed me and work from some artists with whom we work now. It is only a recollection of some interaction. Not a selection based on quality whatsoever.

What would you say has been accomplished since you’ve opened your doors?

Too much to say ! I had nothing and knew nothing, no experience in galleries, no clients, no acquaintances in Brussels, nothing.

What should we look for in the next five years to come? 

Hmm, I am dying for some more organization and structure, the rest is a secret :0)

—–

Caroline Van Hoek is a contemporary art jewelry gallery located in Brussels, Belgium. 

“Open since 04.10.2007.
Previously a grocery store, the outside facade has been left exactly as it was, to honor what it represents. The local shop around the corner, the close contact with the clientele, the seasonal availability of goods, the limited number of groceries and the respect for the individuality.”

Please visit the gallery website —> here. 

Note: This interview was conducted in the fall of 2012 and originally destined for AJF, facilitated by Susan Cummins.  Alternatively, ≥ has the pleasure of posting it and thanks Caroline for her participation. 

Review of the Opulent Project at Gallery Loupe

January 10, 2013
galleries/exhibitions, jewelry (or jewellery), REVIEWS
1 Comment

A Wrap Up:  The Opulent Project

By Misha Kahn

Apologies for the time lapse on this review; in movie like form, Kellie and I ran into each other at JFK, and I got bumped and rerouted to go with her to New Orleans for Christmas – so the distraction was mutual, and now fully rested, we’re ready to blog! 

wallpaperimage2

As always, there’s something wonderful and challenging about viewing work from younger artists. Usually the challenge is that you start striking connections between your own work and your peers with whom you have a charged relationship, unsure if the direction is valid or progressive.  In this case, Meg Drinkwater and Erin Gardner’s reverence to antiquated ornament is one I can relate to and struggle with myself.  In contemporizing their chosen forms they bring in some exciting new ideas about how jewelry fits into American society.  The work steers clear of gaudy – and even finds a way to present ornament as non-ornament in a sense (hint: paint the wall to match your own ornament to achieve this affect at home!)

The wallpapered wall in a print of a patterned cube in perspective – a familiar pattern of Italian marble floors and a reoccurring visual reference of the likes of Babetto and other Padovan goldsmiths – begs the question of whether the wall itself was as singular piece, or simply a clever way to display the scattered and camouflaged pieces. This optical challenge played into one of my favorite types of unconventional display in the field; I like to call this “find the jewelry,” where the viewer is forced to approach and interact more closely with objects through some sort of slight trickery.  With jewelry’s small scale, it can be hard to draw people in close enough to really examine a singular piece individually.  With that said, Drinkwater and Gardner’s installation was a fairly effective ploy to get the viewer to look more closely at each jewel. Like chameleons, earrings were powder coated and painted with the same geometric pattern of the wallpaper.

The choice of this almost Escher-esque parquet as a two-dimensional formal reference was strong, as the work feels young and a bit op-arty even though it’s a much older pattern, allowing it to be paired more logically with the silhouettes of the jewelry.

During the show opening, Erin swooped in to show me how the necklaces and earrings can share parts, with pendants from one necklace able to de-attach and clip onto the companion earrings.  Another necklace had a brooch pin on the back with a detachable chain.

This transformation was both engaging and humorously aware of the current economic recession (not sure that contemporary jewelry and the economy are so entangled, but at least it’s paying attention). Somehow this sentiment of frugality also leads into the thought that to own one necklace or ring from the wall was to own part of something larger.  No one wearer could solely own the entirety of this work – one has to willingly accept that your piece relates to others, as all the pieces share parts of the larger pattern.  At least to my naïve eyes, I think American culture is becoming slightly more okay with a transforming sense of the individual. The new individual understands their uniqueness through a lens of being part of a larger group – which is how the jewelry on this wall related to each other.

The plastic laser cut earrings also on exhibition exist in an interesting place in the context of the high priced world of art jewelry; a work you can take home for around $30 shares a roof with other objects that might be worth more than any of the cars I’ve ever owned.  THIS ALWAYS WORKS, and here’s why:  a true bred American is only capable of thinking about whether they like something through imagining owning it – and when one can actually own something, it makes the imagination of owning the other, more expensive works, more vivid.  Of course in the design world, this is more expected, with Droog offering easily produced objects for 20 bucks alongside their more in depth conceptual work, or Murikami opening a Louis Vuitton store inside LACMA alongside his “artwork.”

I think the component which can make this relationship stronger, is when the two feel like they have a sibling relationship – where one feels related but slightly less developed.  And in this case, and even though the ties between ornament and silhouette where there, I wasn’t really able to figure out how the two types of pieces went together.  Visually, the plastic earrings (hung on a white wall) presented vivid colors against a blank, while alternatively, the contrast between the visual delicacy of the camouflage work drew the eye in to the other, and what seemed like the less exciting wall overall… I’m still pondering if the two relate in a really logical way or really if they have to.

I will also briefly mention that although the delicate lines were well executed, the modern silhouettes of classical jewelry ain’t the most revolutionary of ideas (see Islay Taylor, Constanze Schreiber, etc).

Perhaps my favorite piece, which I think did exist between the two semi-disparate projects, was a pair of earrings made of dipped clear plastic. These magical earrings reexamined the idea of the historical silhouette and added a dash of industrial design fin model, slightly asymmetrical and drippy.  Basically each of these elements are a semi-surefire way to make any object visually appealing; this sounds like knock against the Opulent Project, but really it isn’t; it’s good and simple decision making. All together, the effect adds up to an enticing ice-palace treat; perhaps even a humorous nod to the camouflage wall as well, as a see-through earring might just reflect the color of the wearers ear and become a bit surreal.

If you also look forward to seeing what the Opulent Project will come up with in the future, follow them here: http://theopulentproject.blogspot.com

To view photos from the exhibition opening, please visit Gallery Loupe’s Facebook page —> here

Misha Kahn,  RISD BFA Furniture ’11 and Fulbright Fellow, Israel 2011-12, lives and works in Brooklyn, New York.

To see a previous review written by Misha, please click ——> here

THE BIRTHDAY BOYS

October 16, 2012
art (period), galleries/exhibitions, jewelry (or jewellery)
2 Comments

THE BIRTHDAY BOYS – Thomas Gentille and Peter Skubic @ Gallery Loupe in Montcair, New Jersey, Oct 09 – Oct 30, 2012

the following photos are from the opening on oct. 20th

more info to come about the pieces on display ! 

both artists will be speaking at Brooklyn Metal Works on Oct. 21st. click —–> here for more info!

MARZEE’S PICKS AT ALCHIMIA’S GRADUATE SHOW, PURUS

June 15, 2012
galleries/exhibitions, jewelry (or jewellery)
Leave a comment

This evening was the inauguration of Purus, Alchimia Contemporary Jewelry School’s graduate exhibition. I’m off to Amsterdam tomorrow, but wanted to give you a peek of the opening and to announce the three exclusive picks of Marie-José an den Hout of Galerie Marzee to be included in an upcoming international graduate show.

 

Weronika Marek

Dinah Lee

and Izabella Petrut

MORE TO COME

NICOLAS BOURRIAUD ON CONTEMPORARY JEWELRY

May 1, 2012
art (period), art (question mark), jewelry (or jewellery), semantics
3 Comments

Finally!

Well, not exactly. The following is… let’s say, an unofficial “edit” of a selection of excerpts from Nicolas Bourriaud’s writings on Relational Aesthetics. Although from 1998 (the english version of the book was published in 2002), the text is actually quite relevant to work in contemporary jewelry.  It’s almost as if one could replace most references to “visual art” or “contemporary art”-or really just “art”- with the word jewelry… and that’s exactly what I did.

I will note that when I use the word jewelry (I apologize if this is redundant), I am speaking to “our kind” of jewelry, contemporary art jewelry, as stated by Marjan Unger in her text and talk presented at the Pinakothek der Moderne, Munich, during Schmuck. Click —> here for that full text. It’s quite interesting in comparison to Bourriaud; I would argue that the two are talking about the same thing, yet the problem remains that no one in the jewelry world has been willing to make these kind of comparisons (I would love to know if I am falsely stating). I would say that Unger talks about jewelry as relational aesthetics, yet can’t seem to just say so. Her text also ends on a somewhat disappointing note, as she suddenly steers far clear of vocabulary associated with the art world and simply resting on design and the history of jewelry. Am I alone in the search for a bridge off the island that is “our kind” of jewelry, to a bigger and wilder place like contemporary visual art? Most artists really could be on their way yet fall short in the framing/formalization of their work. START GIVING YOURSELVES SOME MORE CREDIT, YOU’RE ACTUALLY MAKING WORK THAT CAN BE DESCRIBED LIKE THIS:

LOOK AT THE COMMENTS

nicolas bourriaud on contemporary jewelry

UPDATES

March 10, 2012
jewelry (or jewellery), publication links
Leave a comment

Dear Readers,

I just wanted to share some little updates with you all. I have added a few new links, and will be adding even more shortly. The teammates section is made up of close friends of mine making good work generally outside the jewelry sphere, so soon I will add a new list of young artists specific to the content of this blog.

I have also added a few bits to COSMOLOGY, for your consideration and enjoyment. Perhaps I should mention that I am always fixing up old posts because I don’t have an editor (obviously), and I am not so good at initially finding all the mistakes and/or words that I misspell when I write these entries. For this I am eternally sorry, but know I am trying my best.

And for the most exciting part of this really not-so-exciting post, is the newly updated ‘BOUT THIS BLOG tab above. There you will find a short bit entitled:

HOW I AM SEEING THINGS NOW: THE PLACE FOR (THE GOOD) CONTEMPORARY WORK IN JEWELRY (IT DOESN’T YET EXIST)

It is an invitation of sorts, so please read it and tell me if you’re into it.

I suppose I could also let you all know i’m going to Schmuck in Munich this coming thursday, so expect a report (eventually… my turn around time ain’t great, I know). I’ve never been before, but hope I am able to touch base with a lot of artists, see a bunch of new work and eat a lot of sausages.  If any of you mystery readers are going, let me know!

Lastly, the first book in Lark’s redesigned 500 series, Showcase 500 Rings by Marthe Le Van, curated by Bruce Metcalf, releases officially in May. You can find one of my rings in the book! As well as up to 499 other pieces by friends, teachers and old classmates. If you want you can take a preview —> here.

BUONA GIORNATA !

CONTEMP. JEWELRY AS A TRAIN TRACK

January 9, 2012
art (question mark), galleries/exhibitions, INTERVIEWS, Italy, jewelry (or jewellery), semantics
Leave a comment

AN INTERVIEW WITH ALTERNATIVES

Rita and Andrea Marcangelo are the owners and operators of Alternatives, a contemporary jewelry gallery in Rome, Italy. This conversation took place on the 18th of December, 2011. For more info about the gallery, click —–> here

Kellie: Let’s start with a bit about the gallery. You have been here for about 15 years now?

Rita: 15 years now, yes.

K: This is a unique space for Rome. Since its opening, how has the gallery changed? Is there a difference in the people you meet who are coming in?

R: Well yes, in the beginning they were quite shocked by what they could see because it was 15 years ago—things were quite different. What’s changed in the mean time I think is the general outlook on materials, because of the fact that a lot of industrial jewelers are now incorporating steel and things like that. People have got more used to seeing alternative materials in jewelry, and so this has kind of made them less hostile to it because of what we’re doing here. So it was quite difficult in the beginning. People were like, “Oh! Are these for sale?”

K: Sure, I imagine because this kind of gallery is so unique, when people walk in thinking it’s a shop, they must be sort of confused. Is your gallery now more of a destination?

R: Yes, definitely yes. We have a clientele of people who know they can find certain things here.

K: This is quite a gem, it really is.

R: Thank you.

K: I was surprised to find a relatively large contemporary art scene here in Rome that I don’t think many people come to the city for. How would you say the gallery is connected to the larger contemporary art sphere here, or what is your relationship to other mainstream contemporary art galleries in the city?

R: Oh, none whatsoever… in the sense that this field here is quite, not only in Italy but worldwide, is quite apart from what art galleries do in general. They’re sort of parallel; they don’t seem to ever meet, if you see what I mean.

 K: Are you interested in trying to converge, or getting those people in here to see the work in a similar way?

R: Yes, yes it would be interesting. It would be interesting to how the public would respond to—and in a way we have done that by taking part in Collect in London, which is at the Saatchi Gallery—it’s more for a public who is looking to collect this sort of jewelry, people with more of an open mind. It’s very difficult I would say, Andrea do you have anything to add to that?

Andrea: It’s for the public that is looking for art…

R: Art, let’s say, the world we are in, art jewelry, and, you know, real art as it were—they don’t seem to mix much.

A: Not very much. Not very much because the public, the customer, or the collector, is quite separate. It is quite difficult to mix—the people usually buy glass or ceramics in this way.

K: Do you think it is a reflection of people being unaware that this sort of art form exists?

R: Well, I think it’s both that, obviously. To a large extent, it’s the fact that they are unaware of it. But it’s not just that. I think it’s also the fact that the art world has its circuit of critics and there’s a market there, whereas this sort of art, let’s say, if we can call it that, doesn’t have a market for these sort of things. You could even be one of the best like Babetto or Skubic or any of those, but your pieces will have a market when you’re buying—I mean they have their price on them when you’re buying them, but if you were to resell them, unless you’re selling them to someone in this sort of field who knows about what the value is, then you’re not going to be able to remarket them at the same price.

A: It’s not an investment for them.

R: It’s not considered an investment from their point of view, because of the fact that there isn’t a market as such, an official market. Whereas in the art world, if you’re a top name then you’re going to be able to sell well, and the people buying, thinking of it in terms of also an investment… apart from the pleasure of actually having the work of art in your home or wherever…

K: So it’s almost like a separate but quasi-equal sort of thing.

R: Yes, exactly. It’s like a railroad track.

A: They’re parallel. In fact in the business sense, it’s very difficult for them to cross. In the other sense, the artist sense, it’s completely different kind of crossover. There’s a big difference [between the two]; the business sense is parallel, but there are two different markets.

R: But also I’ve seen a lot of resistance, if I can call it that, on behalf of art galleries, as it were, to let this sort of art into their galleries.

K: It’s incredibly apparent. I’m interested in finding people and galleries that will take this kind of work, or at least for them to start thinking about a crossover, and I think what has to happen first is people creating new spaces for that. A lot of my thinking is about how to do it. What you are saying about the different markets and investment aspect of it all is interesting when you think of it this way.

R: Yeah. I think that counts a lot.

A: Jewelry is also a used— they become used pieces.

R: You actually wear them and use them.

A: Yeah, it’s a consumer piece. You buy, you wear, you destroy… and there is not quite a long term that you really can use it necessarily.

R: It depends on the material also.

A: It is an art of time, it’s a short art.

R: A short-term art.

A: Exactly. A sculpture, you put it in the corner and it can stay there for a thousand years. But jewelry as a piece of art, you wear, you destroy.

R: I’ve many times bought things that have just broken or just disintegrated. I had a—I have a very beautiful bracelet in plastic and it’s coming apart, I’ve tried to fix it but…

A: If you take this bracelet, who knows in 33 years, the plastic maybe will…

R: Right, it won’t last.

A: This is another unique aspect of the jewelry art, the art jewelry.

K: This may be a loaded question. How do you, as a gallerist, see jewelry as an expressive form of art? I have this theory, greater than or equal to, and sometimes I see the potential of jewelry to be greater than because of some of the things we’ve been talking about—how you live with it and use it— and I would say, as a concept, that is far greater than just hanging something on the wall and having it there forever.

R: Well I wouldn’t say it’s greater than or less than; it’s one of the many forms of art to me anyway, so I value it equally. To me, it might be more valuable because I might get more enjoyment out of actually wearing a piece of jewelry, but not necessarily I think. I would like to consider it as I would a beautiful sculpture that I look at in my house, that I enjoy looking at. I might get less enjoyment, because I’m not actually physically touching it and wearing it, but I would put them on the same level, whereas I think a lot of people wouldn’t.

K. Absolutely. Do you think that in Italy, versus other countries in Europe and America certainly, there is a bigger community of people who understand that? How do you gauge the awareness of jewelry’s artistic value?

R: Compared to other countries?

K: Yes, sure.

R: Well I think compared to for example, Holland and Germany, there’s less awareness here. Because I think an important factor is that there aren’t any museums here in this country dedicated to this sort of jewelry, whereas in other countries like the States and Northern Europe, you get museums that are totally, or not totally but partially at least, dedicated to this sort of art. Whereas in Italy, there’s just a small section in Palazzo Pitti in Florence…and that’s about it. And so you don’t get much public awareness, because I think it’s important for the public to actually see this sort of jewelry in a museum to be able to associate the idea that it is a work of art. And if you don’t, then you just see it in a gallery, you know, as if it were a piece of clothing or any other object you see around in shops, and it’s not quite enough, especially because there aren’t that many galleries in Italy anyway. We are one of the very few. It’s very hard. And as a gallery, you don’t get any funding or help from the state anyway, so it’s all up to private individuals.

K: It seems almost strange because of the historical and cultural significance of jewelry in Italy’s past, like the Padova School [at the Instituto Pietro Selvatico, Padua] and the artists coming out of Italy. Maybe Italy doesn’t see it but there are artists in Italy that do see it. It’s interesting how culturally undervalued it is; it continues to exist under the radar. I know that in Padova, there are cultural events that do showcase these goldsmiths and artists, but it is of course, very regionalized.

R: Have you seen the exhibition on at the moment in Padova?

K: Not yet, no.

R: All right, I’ll give you an initiation afterwards. Remind me, it’s a very nice exhibition, in a nice place where they usually hold their exhibitions.

[The exhibition is called Pensieri Preziosi 7 at the Oratorio di San Rocco, and deals with languages and trends in contemporary Italian jewelry]

K: It’s so strange, that sort of divide though, because it is so prevalent to a degree there, and we all know it exists of course. What is it going to take for the work from Padova to receive some more historical recognition, in Italy and internationally?

R: Well, Padova?

K: Yes, and Italian contemporary jewelry in general.

R: Well unfortunately, the situation in Italy at the moment has changed for the worst. Because from last year was it, that the schooling laws have been changed?

A: Yes, the school system has been reformed. For example, the old school dedicated to jewelry, to traditional jewelry—

R: To jewelry making, they actually…

A: Yes, the actual Padova School… in fact they are finished. They’ve become only an artistic school, not professional. And so they lost all their workshops and—

R: Yes, they have a lot less training hours now, so that’s going to change some things. Historically, what has come from the school of Padova has been internationally recognized. You’ve probably seen the book on the school of Padova [The Padua School, Contemporary Jewelry, Graziella Folchini Grassetto], there are a couple of important publications. So it has internationally been recognized as the most important school in Italy for that sort of jewelry, and historically also. But I think the future will be quite bleak from that point of view.

K: Why do you think there is a lack of historical publications that document the evolution of the medium’s creative reality? If there’s no money going into this type of schooling in Italy anymore, then I suppose there certainly wouldn’t be any money for research either.

R: Yes, that’s right. You mean in Italy?

K: In Italy, or even as a reflection from other places internationally on what was happening in Italy. As I try and do research on the history of contemporary jewelry, there really is nothing.

R: There’s not much, no.

K: Like this book, it’s all sort of self-published writings, and very few articles. There’s no art history literature about what’s happened in the field over the last 40- 50 years, there’s just nothing.

R: There’s hardly anything.

A: There’s absolutely nothing because we don’t have contemporary jewelry culture.

R: Also, another problem is we don’t have a craft council here in Italy, whereas other countries do. And something like a craft council or an organization like that would in a way, invest in research on this sort of thing and also encourage publications to take notice. There’s nothing whatsoever unfortunately, and everything is as you said— this book has been published by one of the galleries in Padova, and I guess she got no funding for it.

A: In fact this is a big problem, because people recognize the beauty of this kind of jewelry, but they don’t understand the value. This is absolutely different from the other kinds of jewelry [conventional], but because there isn’t a culture around the value of the craft, they don’t understand the aspect of time as value. Work made of paper, for example; how long it takes to create a brooch out of paper or with other kinds of material.  And this is the biggest difficulty we have. If we put in the window, a piece made from plastic, what appears to be the difference between it as custom jewelry or ordinary jewelry?

R: I mean we have one of those, for example, very big pencil necklaces [Maria Cristina Bellucci] at the back, and it’s around something like 500 euro. And someone the other day said, “500 euro!?” But they don’t understand that making it, apart from the idea and what’s behind it, but actually making it probably took her about three or 4 days; you know, cutting up all the pencils, putting them together, drilling them…

K: For us when we look at anything, all we see is time. It’s hard to understand that people don’t see it.

R: Right. It’s not so much that they don’t see it, but they’re not prepared to pay that much for it. Probably because things have changed worldwide, I mean you know, clothing for very little because it’s made in China, and you can have the same sort of thing that once was— I mean if you think about it in a way, what we’re doing is a little, it’s going against, not against, but…I can’t find the words today. It’s contra corrente, come se dice in Inglese? It’s going a little away from what the rest of the world is doing. Everything is becoming manufactured, and we’re going the other way.

K: Well that’s the best part about it.

R: But it’s difficult in the world we live in today, to actually let people understand this.

A: The world has changed completely in the past 10 years… I mean people don’t want to pay for the idea, people only want to pay for the object. People think now to to pay less for everything. You can go around and buy anything you want for a very little bit of money, or in installments… so now why would someone also pay for an idea?

R: I mean we get this all the time. Somebody came in yesterday looking for a pair of earrings. She found just what she wanted and said, “Oh, they’re beautiful! How much are they… oh, but that’s too much! I mean there’s no gold, there’s no… why am I paying all this?” And it’s like trying to make people understand all the time, and it’s just so difficult!

K: I can’t even imagine!

A: Do you know Ikea? Their advertisement says, design furniture, without the price of design. So you have people thinking like this.

R: And that’s what people would like to have probably, from this sort of jewelry. Jewelry with this sort of appeal and design, but an Ikea sort of price.

K: I am sure it must be so frustrating.

R: It is, it is.

K: I would just love to witness a whole day of this, I would love it. So do you think that maybe if there were future crossover with this kind of work in a museum for example, people would start to understand that there’s more value than material?

R: I definitely think that helps, because when we get people in from Holland for example, they are a lot more willing to pay more money and they’re not even questioning the materials or you know, you can tell they have a completely different attitude from people here. It’s been a very big struggle for us since the beginning. It’s obviously better than it was, but we’re having to explain all the time and having to—whereas when we go to London for Collect, it’s a lot different there as well. You just get another sort of response from the public, and I think it’s due to the fact that they see a lot more of it around and so it’s accepted.

K: Are there people that may not know anything when first coming into the gallery that, let’s say, open their eyes after you explain a little about the work? Is there education going on?

R: Oh yes, yes. That happens a lot. We try our best to educate people.

K: We’ve been talking a little bit about the “Italian awareness.” You were involved in starting the ACG (Associazione Gioiello Contemporaneo), correct?

R: Yes, that’s right.

K: There are a few more too—the Fondazione Cominelli in Cisano di San Felice, a more widely spread cultural and artistic foundation. There is also Preziosa in Florence, presented annually by Le Arti Orafe, and a relatively new collective also in Florence, the 1×1 Collective, formed my a handful of young artists aimed in promoting contemporary work. On the AGC’s website it’s written that it was created “due to problems specific to the world of contemporary jewelry.” What are the problems?

R: Well the main problems in Italy were that the actual jewelers working in this field were very isolated; people from the north weren’t connecting to people from the south, and so I think the whole idea of the association, obviously apart from one day being able to reach a more general public and wider public which is what is happening with Cominelli actually, but I think the main idea [with the AGC] initially was to get these people together so that being together, means being able to do more. Forming a platform, forming a community I think is important. Because if you’re on your own, you’re not going to get anywhere, do anything, so that has helped a lot. I think it’s helped a lot of people in actually developing their actual work. And connecting to other people means being able to do exhibitions together and things like that. Yeah, that’s helped. Also the association is now forming a permanent collection.

K: Really! That is so exciting.

R: Yes, and it’s on show on the moment actually, in Salò [in Brescia at the Palazzo Municipale]. Did you go and see the Cominelli Awards?

K: No, unfortunately. When was it?

R: Beginning of September.

K: Yes, I arrived in Italy that week so it would have been impossible.

R: So yes, that’s now started, and there are already 38 pieces in the collection but it’s going to grow year by year.

K: Where will it be kept?

R: At the moment it’s near Salò, in this Fondazione Cominelli, in Lake Garda. That’s the actual place it’s kept at the moment, and then we’ll see in the future.

K: That is very exciting. You spoke about Italy’s own problems concerning contemporary jewelry, and I have a more general theory as to the bigger issue of overall acceptance of the field. I really think much of it has to do with language and semantics. I always talk about jewelry in the way that the word jewelry itself, is it’s own problem.

R: Right, it is.

K: People tend think of it as so many other things before they think of it is art or artistic. And so even talking about it with someone like you, someone that knows about it, just how we choose or what do we choose to call ourselves is complicated and convoluted. What am I, am I an artist jeweler? Am I a studio jeweler, a contemporary jeweler? Do I make art jewelry? Am I making wearable sculpture? It’s a really confusing classification, marginalized in the sense that it is also “craft-based.” But even if we claim or accept that we are partially craftspeople, the good work is far too unique and deep-rooted to be limited as such. None of these titles seem to communicate what exactly we are doing.

R: It can’t be seen just as craft. I personally hate these terms and it’s just so—if you choose one, you’re sort of stuck in that. Design jewelry, art jewelry, why give it a label? But I think it’s probably necessary because these words exist.

A: Or maybe not. Maybe it’s not necessary to classify.

R: It’s the same in Italian, it’s exactly the same in Italian. In England, they call themselves designer-makers.

K: Oh wow, singer-songwriters.

R: Jewellery designer-makers.

A: Because now, for artists in the fine art world now, they don’t too much actually make their very own art pieces anymore. Like they’re designers and somebody else makes the work for them.

R: So it’s more of an idea, really, and actually made by a craftsman.

A: In the Renaissance, the difference between the arts and craft didn’t exist. It was exactly the same.

R: Yes, after the Renaissance it separated.

A: The artists continued to make their work in the Renaissance. But now, artists just think about the work, and they don’t make it.

K: I’ve been having conversations with my advisor here– she is an art critic, curator, historian…among other things, about the potential of jewelry artists penetrating the contemporary art world, or making work that in one way or another fulfills those requirements. In so many words, she expressed a widespread view that unfortunately, in their world, makers cannot be thinkers. She suggested teaming up with a contemporary visual artist and making their work for them, because like you both said, that is what is happening now, artists outsourcing their work.

By this logic, artists can make jewelry—or artists can have jewelry made and have it be art, but for we who make jewelry, it doesn’t get to be art because we are the makers.

R: That’s right.

To them, the paths we chose are about making, not about thinking, but I don’t think is necessarily so agreed with anymore… well at least I hope.

R: No, I don’t think so either. It is discouraging.

K: Some days I think that I would really love this conceptual jewelry or research-based jewelry to be considered as contemporary art, without having to ask questions about what it’s called or what we should call it. But other days I just want to just love jewelry for what it is and appreciate it for being its own entity, so as far as that goes, I’m trying to understand what matters. Would you like your gallery to be more widely considered to be a place for contemporary art? Or do you value that it is jewelry in any sense of the word?

R: It’s a difficult question. It’s a difficult question in the sense that obviously, I’d love this sort of jewelry to have a wider public in a way. In that sense, I would like it to become something on a wiser scale. But other than that, it’s fine by me. In fact, I’m quite disturbed about this art world rating us as a B-class. It’s quite disturbing, and I don’t find any less pleasure in looking at these things than I would in looking at something they consider art. In a way I’m quite proud of what I do.

 I think that’s basically all that worries me, trying to get more people to actually understand this type of jewelry. But other than that, I’m really quite pleased with the fact that it even, you know– of what it is, of what it represents in its own rite. I’m quite happy with that. It’s just being able to get more people to appreciate it and understand it without it having to be such an effort.

K: Exactly. I have his sort of spiel now. When people realize that I make jewelry they usually ask me, “Oh, so do you want to work for Tiffany’s?” or something, and then I have a 20-minute explanation of how jewelry can be this and can be that… and after I go through it all, a lot of people had never heard of it before and think what we are doing is just so amazing and new.

A good friend of mine is a recent graduate at Brown in contemporary art history and she really wants to be professor. I’ve given her the spiel, and fascinated, she began trying to look into it herself from a historical perpective. Of course she can’t find anything like we talked about earlier, but her fabulous idea is now to work some of this jewelry history into future curriculum, so people can actually learn about it. If you’re in an art history class, chances are you won’t argue with your professor that this stuff isn’t “real art…” it’s very idealisitic but an avenue we can begin to think about.

R: Andrea went to the same sort of school as the School of Padova here in Rome, and he knew nothing of that.

A: Even the university in Padova, for example, the art university, they don’t know anything about the Padova School.

R: It’s incredible.

A: It’s in the same very small place, but they don’t know anything. They think, “contemporary jewelry? What’s this?” They live here! And they don’t even know they have the biggest contemporary jewelry school around.

K: For my grant I had to write a very specific project outline and I titled it, Past and Present: Italian Contemporary Jewelry as Art; I had this idea that everyone here knew about this world, so this is a bit of a surprise! I guess they don’t. I feel lucky to know about it. Even at RISD, where the Jewelry + Metalsmithing program is adopted from a European art academy, I had to come to Italy and meet an American art critic outside the program to learn about it. And so even going to a specialized school that values conceptual development and research-oriented work, if they don’t tell you, who will? I’m starting to realize that perhaps there are not as many people interested in this, really.

R: Not many people interested… I don’t know. I guess you’re right in a way, but why? The question is why. Is it just a money-based factor, or is it… I don’t know.

A: For what?

R: The fact that there isn’t a lot of people interested in this type of jewelry, this world, that there isn’t much interest about all this. Is it an economic factor or… I don’t know.

A: Because it is very difficult; you take a sculpture, you put it in the corner, it’s responsible for itself. If you buy jewelry and wear it, you are responsible. But it’s very different from dress or clothing, or anything else you put on. Because with jewelry, you bring a very strong message. Some people dress horribly! But the jewelry is absolutely stronger than the dress.

R: What he’s trying to say is that jewelry makes a statement, in a way. This sort of jewelry would make a statement on who you are or on what sort of person you are.

K: When we start talking about the fundamentals of what a jewelry object is, it’s surprising to me that it is not valued conceptually. You start to think about the sociologic aspects. For example, you’re wearing a brooch. Who gave it to you? When do you wear it? Where do you put it at night? How do you live with it? I see it on you and now we’re talking about it and having a personal interaction, and to me, that is incredible. My mother is a flight attendant. I saw her a couple weeks ago and she had found a ring in the bathroom and gave it to me. It was just some cheap, fake diamond sort of thing, and I put it on and all I kept thinking about was who did it belong to before? What life did it live?

I also always think about jewelry as a social signifier and that as its own concept. How do you know a king is a king? And then of course, there are those trying to transcend the value of material—all of these qualities are so rich and fundamentally conceptual, to me anyway. We always have to deal with socioeconomics of jewelry, we always have to deal with the monetary value, and they’re relative limits that we get to work within, just like any other artistic mediums with limits to work within. And so I’m trying to find artists working this way that address these things, not so much making jewelry about jewelry, but those trying to make a larger comment on its role in the world. To me that is such an amazing concept. It’s so obvious, but people just don’t think about it.

A: There is another aspect; there is no money in the contemporary jewelry field. There is in the industrial field, whereas in the research field, there is much less. No one invests in the new models or new ideas of jewelry, it is very conservative. It’s mistaken from traditional jewelry. Now for example, things have changed very quickly. The traditional jewelry concept is quite finished for western society. Now the jewelry has become very cheap. If you see all the iron jewelry around…

R: The industries just don’t invest in research at all.

K: What else. We can talk about who you’ve had in the gallery this year, or who either of you value as am innovative maker/thinker in the field, I’d be curious to know.

R: Well, for sure I think Ted Noten is definitely to be considered. I mean he, I think, is a typical example of somebody who could easily be in the art world.

A: Absolutely for sure.

R: More, maybe so, because at times I think some of his pieces are probably even not wearable.

K: He’s an excellent example, someone who figured out a secret formula.

R: Yes. Who else can we mention? There are so many people.

A: Ruddt Peters.

R: Ruudt Peters, yes, he’s another one. He’s very, very active. He changes his collections every year or two and he’s always coming up with new ideas.

A: The Dutch designers—

R: Yes, Holland.

A: —they are freer, probably because they lost the idea of having to wear the jewelry.

R: They’re not so preoccupied with what wearing jewelry means, so it becomes something else. But not necessarily at times, it’s still on the border of jewelry and sculpture, I would say.

A: It’s an everyday fight with the wearable concept. This is a wonder of contemporary jewelry.

R: And obviously there are more well known artists who are making jewelry all the time and have had a lot of success, more or less doing what they’ve always done from the very beginning.

A: But this is our business, because if you don’t push the concept over the fence, why would you create new jewelry or continue to make traditional jewelry?

R: Going back to Padova, why do you think they stayed with gold, do you have any ideas about that?

K: That’s one of the questions I’m trying to answer.

R: Right, I was wondering whether you had any answers from anyone explaining that.

K: All I can say really, is that it is just so very much Italian. I’ve been looking for clues within Italian art history about how Italy has been able to summarize itself. For example, what did Italy take from its rediscovered past, let’s say, during neoclassicism? Then I think of rational architecture and the attempt to create a national aesthetic identity from the past; architects were looking at the way imagined geometric buildings and structures were rendered in 14th century paintings, as well as simple Italian rural architecture… and then you skip to the 1950’s and 60’s, when these goldsmiths out of Padova started making innovative work, and I really can’t say yet how much of it was a response to modernism or how much of it was uniquely Italian, surely the maintenance of gold as a material parallels Italy’s value of the past.

What do you think?

R: Well the idea of Mario Pinton who was the—

A: Of the Padova School.

R: [To Andrea] No, now we are talking about the Padova School and the masters and why their aesthetic was so geometric…

Gold has also been the traditional, let’s say, material in Italy, and I think the idea was that of continuing with that material.

A: We’ve grown up with the gold, and we’re continuing in the field.

R: It’s what they knew how to do.

A: It’s our culture.

R: It’s the culture.

K: The Italian trend is maintaining a cultural tie.

R: What they tried to do was to actually push the boundaries of gold to see what could actually come out of carrying on with that same material; I think that’s what was in their concept. And the fact that most of the works are very minimalist, apart from maybe the initial pieces—

A: A part is because it’s part of a tradition, but on the other hand, the use of gold is an intention of the artist. The gold gives the work more power, so if you take a very simple shape for example, a simple square ring [points to a ring by Giampaolo Babetto], if you know it’s in gold, it’s a little bit different. There is more respect, and that, for example, the very simple shape and the very minimalist form could make them very important objects in gold.

K: This reminds me of engravers during the neoclassic era. For something to have been engraved in that manner, it was a very finite and precise decision of what to render, extremely selective and tedious.  This has the same sense to it; if one decides to “just” make a cube, a perfect cube and it is made in gold, one can’t quite argue with that. It really highlights the decision and the choice of the artist.

A: The decision to use different material is absolutely important…for the color, but it’s not only the color— it was a way to convince people that it was a real piece of art. People used to think of jewelry as only in gold. If it’s not in gold it’s not jewelry.

R: A lot of people still think that.

A: It can be a different shape or of a different idea but in gold; it’s still jewelry. People may think, “I don’t understand, but that is jewelry because it’s gold.”

K: You’re right.

R: I mean for 1979, these rings were probably something very, very innovative. I mean, you just think of it as a normal ring now, but you have to think of when it was made [referencing Babetto].

K: I can imagine. I have become quite obsessed with him, I have. I can honestly credit this man for my being here entirely.

————————————————————————————————————-

Previous recent exhibitions at Alternatives:

Kazumi Nagano / Maria Rosa Franzin – L’insostenibile leggerezza dell’oro (The unbearable lightness of gold) – 10.11-3.12.2011

Michael Becker – The architecture of light – 22.9-15.10.2011

Graziano Visintin – Geometrie Variabili – 7-29.04.2011

 Alternatives Gallery is located on Via d’Ascanio, 19 – Rome

PREZIOSA YOUNG, 2011 OPENING

November 2, 2011
art (period), galleries/exhibitions, Italy, jewelry (or jewellery)
Leave a comment

October 5th was the opening reception of Preziosa Young, 2011 at Florence’s Museo della Specola – Tribuna Galileo. Contemporary jewelry school and academy, Le Arti Orafe, has been organizing this event since 2005 in effort to promote young, emerging artists in the field to showcase new research-based work. This year, Japanese artist, Mari Ishikawa, was awarded a solo exhibition alongside  select work from 8 other international artists: Dana Hakim (Italy), Sam Hamilton (Ireland), Hanna Hedman (Sweden), Lisa Juen (China), Heejoo Kim (South Korea), Seul-Gi Kwon (South Korea), Marie Pendariès (Spain), Elena Ruebel (Germany). I’d tell you to go see the show in Florence, but it wrapped the 23rd of October. I believe most of the show will move to the Fiera inorghenta Europa in Munich sometime in 2012. I plan to write more about all this soon.

Progress, maybe.

November 1, 2011
art (question mark), galleries/exhibitions, jewelry (or jewellery), museum links
Leave a comment

The conception of this blog is long over due, so forgive me if I write posts about things I saw/places I went to quite some time ago.

A few months ago when it was not snowing in new England, I visited the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. In 2006 the MFA opened a jewelry wing(<—click), started by a donation from a private collection. This is a BIG DEAL; the MFA was smart enough to appoint the very first curator of jewelry in an American art museum… in America…ever. The collection spans work from ancient Egypt to contemporary studio jewelry, but it is not clear as to the extent of the contemporary collection, how knowledgeable the museum is about this field or how the original patron acquired the pieces. I believe there is a difference in whether the work was critically chosen/ curated to represent cultural significance in the field or if the collection merely represents the patron’s personal tastes… the role of the museum in this regard changes slightly in my opinion. It gets fishy because on one hand, the collection is culturally significant just because it’s the only one of its kind in the US— but does this negate the museum’s role of being a critical institution that makes selections based on quality and meaning, just because it was handed some jewelry? This question really unleashes topics I could discuss for days and days and days… and parallels some of jewelry’s fundamental “problems” in regards to value and importance. Is the museum solely relying on the material value of its collection, or does it distinguish the conceptual work from the merely historic?

I suppose a collector is a collector and collection is a collection. Regardless, the MFA’s interest does mark progress in an American appreciation/promotion of jewelry’s potential as a higher form of art. I’d like to consider this a partial win, however the display conventions are a nightmare and the room is about as big as a shitty studio apartment.

I wish I had some pictures to share, but my computer was stolen a few weeks ago and my last  back-up was in April. This is bound to be a reoccurring inconvenience.