So I went to this lecture at the university....
Posted on jewelrymakers too.
Here is a link to an "essay on design" http://www.ganoksin.com/borisat/nenam/composit.htm by Charles Lewton-Brain, and for those you unfamiliar with him, yes, that is really his name. He's a high profile academic who has contributed much to the world of jewelry making. Among other interesting things he has to say is "There are a number of design systems for formal composition and these can be found in libraries. They are not much taught in art schools any more in my experience, perhaps because the teachers were not all taught by their teachers."
While on the subject of academia, at the university here last week there were two artists who juried the Nation Ring Show and then spoke about their work giving slide lectures.
Jamie Bennett who made his reputation in enameling, and Jim Cotter of the Jim Cotter Gallery whose work I'd never seen. Bennett was pretty typical for an academic metalsmith, giving a flawless presentation of his work which was excellent but in that academic way, aloof and all very identifiable as his. His enamel surfaces aren't slick, but under fired and rough giving his pieces a very cohesive look. It was not about craftsmanship, but using the media in service of his vision. In my opinion any academic, because they are supposed to be teachers, should show the work of their students. This is a valuable component in how good they are at their job. The presentation of their art is one aspect of it but how well they teach should hold equal importance. That this wasn't and isn't a normal part of reviewing the work of this class of artist I see as a shortcoming and in the service of the ego. This is a huge failing of academic metalsmithing. Many artists can't teach.
In the study of painting it's common to trace the lineage of a teacher and their students and the ones that they taught too. Did you know Pollock was a student of Thomas Hart Benton? Ok, that's not a good example of what I meant. Titian studied painting in the shop of Gentile...uh oh art history is starting to show.
The other presenter Jim Cotter is a producing artist and gallery owner. http://www.jcottergallery.com/
As such is in touch with jewelry on a whole different level. I'd seen the ads for his place in Colorado in Metalsmith magazine but had no idea of the scope of his work.
His show was very slow to get started as there was trouble with the disk he brought not being Mac friendly which sent the tech support people scurrying around in search of a PC. It allowed time for questions about what it takes to get into a gallery, what he looks for in an artist's work, and questions about his background. When the show started it was with work using tin cans from the 60's. He used the Campbell's soup can before Warhol even thought about it. I'd say his body of work exhibited a creativity and humor I'd never seen in any academic before. The guy was fearless in his use of materials. He wasn't out to make a reputation by constantly copying himself in the tedious way stereotypical of academia. His work was about exploration of material and technique. His work was about craftsmanship and materials as well as ideas. He actually used high polished surfaces on some things. No academic would ever do that in this age unless of course it was ironically. He used steel, aluminum, experimented with powdercoating and auto body paint. He also used cement before it was "the thing" in artschool. He was consistently in front of the curve in discovery and experimentation. He was setting river rocks 20 years ago. He drills holes in rocks, lines them with metal then inlays stones in them...he's been doing it for years.
This is the kind of guy who needs to be teaching, someone who actually IS a master of his craft yet willing to explore other areas not already pioneered by legions of others. He's not the "one trick pony" so often awarded the MFA and thinking themselves masters.
I was surprised and delighted by the two presenters and the sharp contrasts between them.
Here is a link to an "essay on design" http://www.ganoksin.com/borisat/nenam/composit.htm by Charles Lewton-Brain, and for those you unfamiliar with him, yes, that is really his name. He's a high profile academic who has contributed much to the world of jewelry making. Among other interesting things he has to say is "There are a number of design systems for formal composition and these can be found in libraries. They are not much taught in art schools any more in my experience, perhaps because the teachers were not all taught by their teachers."
While on the subject of academia, at the university here last week there were two artists who juried the Nation Ring Show and then spoke about their work giving slide lectures.
Jamie Bennett who made his reputation in enameling, and Jim Cotter of the Jim Cotter Gallery whose work I'd never seen. Bennett was pretty typical for an academic metalsmith, giving a flawless presentation of his work which was excellent but in that academic way, aloof and all very identifiable as his. His enamel surfaces aren't slick, but under fired and rough giving his pieces a very cohesive look. It was not about craftsmanship, but using the media in service of his vision. In my opinion any academic, because they are supposed to be teachers, should show the work of their students. This is a valuable component in how good they are at their job. The presentation of their art is one aspect of it but how well they teach should hold equal importance. That this wasn't and isn't a normal part of reviewing the work of this class of artist I see as a shortcoming and in the service of the ego. This is a huge failing of academic metalsmithing. Many artists can't teach.
In the study of painting it's common to trace the lineage of a teacher and their students and the ones that they taught too. Did you know Pollock was a student of Thomas Hart Benton? Ok, that's not a good example of what I meant. Titian studied painting in the shop of Gentile...uh oh art history is starting to show.
The other presenter Jim Cotter is a producing artist and gallery owner. http://www.jcottergallery.com/
As such is in touch with jewelry on a whole different level. I'd seen the ads for his place in Colorado in Metalsmith magazine but had no idea of the scope of his work.
His show was very slow to get started as there was trouble with the disk he brought not being Mac friendly which sent the tech support people scurrying around in search of a PC. It allowed time for questions about what it takes to get into a gallery, what he looks for in an artist's work, and questions about his background. When the show started it was with work using tin cans from the 60's. He used the Campbell's soup can before Warhol even thought about it. I'd say his body of work exhibited a creativity and humor I'd never seen in any academic before. The guy was fearless in his use of materials. He wasn't out to make a reputation by constantly copying himself in the tedious way stereotypical of academia. His work was about exploration of material and technique. His work was about craftsmanship and materials as well as ideas. He actually used high polished surfaces on some things. No academic would ever do that in this age unless of course it was ironically. He used steel, aluminum, experimented with powdercoating and auto body paint. He also used cement before it was "the thing" in artschool. He was consistently in front of the curve in discovery and experimentation. He was setting river rocks 20 years ago. He drills holes in rocks, lines them with metal then inlays stones in them...he's been doing it for years.
This is the kind of guy who needs to be teaching, someone who actually IS a master of his craft yet willing to explore other areas not already pioneered by legions of others. He's not the "one trick pony" so often awarded the MFA and thinking themselves masters.
I was surprised and delighted by the two presenters and the sharp contrasts between them.