Calder---Mr. Mobile
C. M. Fox
SF Museum of Modern Art. Three floors of mobiles, stabiles, wire sculpture.
He did a prodigeous amount of work and it was wonderful to behold. The
museum guards had a horrid time keeping people from touching, pushing,
tweaking, blowing on the pieces to make them move. The place crawled with
kids itching to touch. It was an impressive show. Calder had a great sense
of humor and whimsy. Plus his inventivenss!
One of the things that struck me was how Calder didn't get too hung up in
technique or making everything perfect. He recut edges and riveted pieces
together, slapped a piece of flat lead on to help make a piece balance
correctly, and painted it all black and called it good. Then he was off to
the next idea.
Sometimes it seems that the jewelers I know and MYSELF get so hung up in
technique that we forget to be spontaneous. We/I get so involved in making
things perfect that ideas are left undone as I have no time t pursue them.
Calder's work was a refreshing change from my analness and I am not a
particularly anal jeweler.
Any of you wise ones have thoughts on all of this?
Carla
--
Remove *no spam* from my address
b-4 emailing me 8-)
LeeCo11
>technique or making everything perfect. He recut edges and riveted pieces
>together, slapped a piece of flat lead on to help make a piece balance
>correctly, and painted it all black and called it good. Then he was off to
>the next idea.
>Sometimes it seems that the jewelers I know and MYSELF get so hung up in
>technique that we forget to be spontaneous. We/I get so involved in making
>things perfect that ideas are left undone as I have no time t pursue them.
>
>Calder's work was a refreshing change from my analness and I am not a
>particularly anal jeweler.
>
>Any of you wise ones have thoughts on all of this?
>
Hi Carla,
I'm not one of the wise ones but I have thought of this. There is a very big
difference in what Calder (and artists in general) can get away with and what
we jewelers can get away with. Try passing off a non-perfect piece to your
customers. When they complain (it isn't polished bright enough) try telling
them that it is hand made and not supposed to be perfect.
When an 'artist' makes a mistake or screws something up he just leaves it and
calls it ART.
Lee's Law #1: "Art is what you can get away with."
There is (or was) an artist who paints on unprimed canvases with house paint.
Something that shouldn't be done because the paint won't hold up. He charges
$100,000 a painting and up. His view is, "Art should not be permanent". Tell
that to the old masters.
But I do agree with you that we become myopic toward our work. We look at it
so hard that we can't see it with a fresh perspective any more. I used to like
working with someone for that reason. We could see each others work from a
different perspective and be honest enough to say what we felt and give
creative critisism and throw ideas back and forth. Unfortunately its hard to
find someone to do that with whose ego doesn't get in the way. :)
So it goes. Happy holidays to all,
Lee
indi...@mindspring.com
Right on!!!
I am a huge Calder fan. I definately agree with what you say about
analness. I am always anal about my final pieces, and custom work. However,
when I am designing, I always make my first piece a throw-away. That way a
can spew forth the design from my head (thereby releiving myself of
obsessive thougts) without worrying to much about if it is going to be
PERFECT. So, if it is great, then it only takes about 1/8 of the time to do
it over again, and you already know what problems you will run into on the
way. If it sucks, I don't have to feel like I wasted alot of time. Also,
this way you can indulge those weird "I wonder what would happen if I banged
on this with a hammer..." ideas.
Our problem is scale...itty bitty scratches look HUGE on an itty bitty
ring (I was noticing earlier today as I was photographing). I curse the
unforgiving scrutiny of the macro lense.
Susan
SnowWh9340
Oh man....this is SO true.
I just got back from an art exhibit/sale at a local art school, and
man-o-man...it was amazing what some people "get away with" - unfinished edges,
sloppy soldering, clipped and ragged earwire ends...ugh. Don't these "artists"
know that people expect to *wear* their pieces without destroying tissue? I
mean, I'm all for texture and "originality" but...razor sharp edges? I guess if
they called it "interactive jewelry" they could get away with even more! haha!
The thing that gets me the most is that people actually *buy* the stuff. And
pay top dollar too!
Okay. So, maybe I'm just in a sensitive state of mind at the moment. I think
the coming of the new year has me in a tizzy...! yikes! :)
Marlo M.
Peter W. Rowe
(SnowWh9340) wrote:
>>>Lee's Law #1: "Art is what you can get away with."
>>
>>Oh man....this is SO true.
>>I just got back from an art exhibit/sale at a local art school, and
>>man-o-man...it was amazing what some people "get away with" - unfinished edges,
>>sloppy soldering, clipped and ragged earwire ends...ugh. Don't these "artists"
>>know that people expect to *wear* their pieces without destroying tissue? I
>>mean, I'm all for texture and "originality" but...razor sharp edges? I guess if
>>they called it "interactive jewelry" they could get away with even more! haha!
>>The thing that gets me the most is that people actually *buy* the stuff. And
>>pay top dollar too!
Marlo,
You're making an error here. You're confusing art, which is the creative
activity generating the design ideas and concepts, with the craftsmanship that
went into producing the objects. The two, while interactive and both important
to the final object, are not actually related to each other in terms of their
own definitions and activity.
It may help to consider the following scenario: One can be an artist and
designer producing the plans and scetches for the jewelry, which is then being
produced by other craftspeople. While this isn't such a common thing in the so
called fine arts of painting and drawing, it's common enough in the jewelry
world, as well as architechture, glass work (where larger works often require
several people to produce) or sculpture, larger examples of which often require
whole factory setups to produce. The artists essential artistic activity is
done when the drawings are finished and the ideas finalized. What comes after
is production and craft and technical skill, not generally the creative activity
called art.
the objects you saw in this exhibit were there because of the creative thinking
that went into them. It is this creative process that is really being taught in
art schools as art. The specific media, metals, ceramics, etc, are then taught
on top of that as skills, and students try to learn to combine the two to become
competent artists.
The objects you saw are probably undeniably embryonic in their skill levels.
What do you expect? These are made by people who've only just started out. In a
single year of full time work at a jewelry bench, you will spend considerably
more hours in jewelry work than an art student majoring in metal will have spent
in their whole four years there, since metals are only going to be one portion
of their class load. The objects are being graded and presented in terms of the
context of the experience level of the students. To judge them just on their
ability to compete with finished commercial jewelry in terms of wearablility is
unfair and ignores completely the fact that the students have not actually been
required to produce work on that level. It's not the point of their studies.
They are there to learn the creative design process more than anything else,
with the skills being taught as well. Those skills will take more time to hone
themselves, as will the experience to know when a sharp point is pretty and when
it's dangerous to the wearer.
Now, (and this is important), I'm not saying you should not criticize the
functional aspects of the piece. go ahead and do so. ruthlessly, especially
with the student there to listen and learn. How else will they learn?
But to say that art is whatever you can "get away with" is an ignorant and
cynical statement that ignores the whole motivation of the artists work... Art,
by definition, is creative activity aimed at finding and exploring new
expressions of image, design, message communication, and the like. A piece that
gives us what we've already seen and are familier with is not art, unless it
shows us (or the artist) something new. Art teaches. Sometimes it shows us
things we don't want to see or are uncomfortable with. Sometimes it explores
blind alleys, or unproductive avenues of thought. Sometimes it fails. An
artist's activity in producing art is to explore the aesthetic realm for new
ideas, new expressions, new reflections on our common experiences or new
insights into the unique perceptions of the artist that sets him or her apart
from the rest of us (just as we all have our own unique perspectives on our own
lives and experiences.) It is not to repeat what we already want to see in a
piece.
When you look at those student pieces, if all you see are less than completely
skilled hands, then you've missed the point. Look at the designs. Get into the
heads of the people who made the things and try to see if they've seen something
new, or something old in a new way. At least, try to see if they are exploring
their own perceptions in an attempt to find uniquely personal epxressions, even
if the results end up being things that others have already done. These are,
after all, students, not not yet mature leaders in the field.
And before you leave your perceptions of the skills of the jewelry, take a
moment to ask yourself why it is that you out of hand dismiss objects that don't
fit your idea of how they should be made. Is it possible the student
intentionally wondered why jewelry should have polished edges, and has made a
piece to explore that question? This would be quite valid. More likely, of
course, is that the student is more concerned with the greater questions of
beauty and aesthetics and design, and is still working on the technique, but
even so, you and other viewers can themselves learn something by the apparent
disparity in techniques displayed versus what you thought you wanted to see.
Even if the student did not ask whether edges should be finished, YOU can
benefit from your own perception of that expectation as being a self imposed
limit. If you never question it, and just make all your jewelry "the way it
should be", then you limit your options, often without even knowing it. Broaden
your thinking. Examine your reasons, not for their practicality, but for their
aesthetic implications.
I'm not saying, at all, that you should actually make dangerous or impractical
jewelry. I don't either. I insist on classical levels of craftsmanship in all
my work. but I don't do it just because "its the way it should be". I do it
because, and only where, the jewelry is better for it. I do it with an
awareness of what other options can be. And sometimes, that thought process
leads one to break those molds.
In our industry, there are many folks who would never deliver a piece of jewelry
with anything other than a pristine high polish. Thats the way they feel the
jewelry should be. but if you think about it, it's not the real final finish.
Most of the life of that jewelry will be spent being viewed with a patina of
fine scratches. What's the purpose of that high polish then, other than as a
sales gimmick? As an artist, it then behoves us to examine that disparity, and
wonder if theres a better way, or a way to utilize that final finish better in
the design process. Thus we get the popularity of brushed finishes, sandblasted
finishes, patinas, textures, and all the rest, as others have asked those same
questions. you can say the same with the concept that ring shanks need be
round. Or that all stones should be visible from the outside of a piece (I'm
thinking of some fascinating rings with a few stones set inside the shanks. to
the owners, these are usually especially meaningful additions...) The list goes
on and on...
Remember that items which present to us images we've seen before, or items made
totally the way we expect them to look, and which are thus already comfortable
and familier, instead of giving us anything new in our experience, are often
better described as "kitsch", instead of as art.
for the record, A.Calder wasn't getting away with anything when his jewelry was
done crudely and quickly and without regard for finely finished details. I
assure you it was all quite deliberate, an espression of exactly that difference
between commercial jewelry and his work. Part of what he indended to do was to
demonstrate that the definition of jewelry could include objects that were NOT
pristine masterpieces, and that such objects could not only be decorative
additions to the human body and costume, but could also be dynamic and vibrant
expressions of his own view of the universe. By ignoring those details, he
doesn't make lesser jewelry. On the contrary, he emphasizes the designs, the
spontinaity of the work, and the "joi de vivre" that went into their creation.
If all you see is the crudeness of the sketch, then you're missing the whole
point to the pieces.
Getting off the soap box now. Sorry about all the above. You guys just hit a
nerve. Couldn't let it sit any longer.
Peter Rowe
C.M.Fox
> for the record, A.Calder wasn't getting away with anything when his
jewelry was
> done crudely and quickly and without regard for finely finished details. I
> assure you it was all quite deliberate, an espression of exactly that
difference
> between commercial jewelry and his work. Part of what he indended to do
was to
> demonstrate that the definition of jewelry could include objects that were NOT
> pristine masterpieces, and that such objects could not only be decorative
> additions to the human body and costume, but could also be dynamic and vibrant
> expressions of his own view of the universe. By ignoring those details, he
> doesn't make lesser jewelry. On the contrary, he emphasizes the designs, the
> spontinaity of the work, and the "joi de vivre" that went into their creation.
> If all you see is the crudeness of the sketch, then you're missing the whole
> point to the pieces.
Peter:
Always giving us something major to think about.
Since I started this thread let me refine more what impressed my about
Calder's work.
As a jeweler I sit with my optivisor on worrying about every little
imprefection in a piece. More often then I like I have to repeat a
step---go backwards-----because I got too impatient and rushed a step and
have to redo an oops. Or I am trying to push past my current skill level
and once having identified my technique problem, by screwing up, I have to
do it AGAIN with my newly learned skill.
Point is, I can spend a day dorking around on one piece.
Calder it appeared, didn't go backwards. If something didn't balance right
he layed on a piece of flat lead, riveted it down, painted over it and
moved on. When they built his big stabiles from his little maquettes, they
had to add extra ribs for stability on the large pieces. He didn't bother
to plan these in when he made the models but added them later as need
arose.
Also....when he put his shapes on the the ends of the wires on his mobiles
he either "sewed" them thru or riveted them on. Very rarely did I see any
welding. THis makes sense in that cold joints are quick, easy, and a direct
way to work. Plus there is no clean up afterwards. Rivet it, paint it.
Now I realize I am probably generalizing a bit too much. Calder probably
had all the same problems we do.
But I am aware that as a jeweler when other jewelers look at my work and
when *I* look at their work the first thing we do is bring it close to our
eyes and look at how it is "finished." How it went together etc. And I
wonder if this need to have things finished or cleverly put things together
hold back a lot of creative energy..."joi de vivre" that Calder had in his
work, because he didn't worry about these things.
This is not a criticism, just a pondering on my part. I love well crafted
work in any medium. But does our need to be
"well-crafted" somethimes get in the way of our creativity? Should we, I!
start looking a work first from the concept that it is presenting and
consider it's crafting second.
Anyway. These were the thoughts going thru my head as I wandered around
Calder's work. And Peter is right , what is really appealing about Calder's
work is the joy it presents.
Carla
PS: I'm also thinking about wabi-sabi a Japanese aesthetic concept. Little
brain is busy now. 8-)
--
Remove *nospam* from my address b-4 emailing me. 8-)
Brian Adam
> Peter:
> Always giving us something major to think about.
>
Right.
You all might be interested in a comment from a friend in SF who saw the
Calder show back in October. This friend is not a jeweller, not an artist.
She's in a professional career and loves beautiful things, and when she can
she's a buyer of beautiful things.
> Dear Brian and Ruth, You would both love a current huge retrospective on
> Calder which is at the MOMA here. Organized by the National Gallery, I
> think. over 250 pieces including paintings, wood sculptures, wire
> sculptures (particularly ingenious) and electrically powered mobiles.
> Brilliant guy. I will be going back for a second visit......AND did you
> know that he made over 1500 pieces of jewelry and gave most of them away as
> gifts? Modern, bold, creative stuff. Seemed to be particularly fond of
> his wife Luisa as well. Made a complete set of kitchen utensils and
> cooking aids........lucky wife.
I sent her the rcj discussion so far to see what she will say to the comments
made. Now I'm interested in this Mr Calder! My friend might think we'd like
Calder's work as she considers we also retain something of our own joy of
shapes, joy of making in our jewellery,
I don't know this man Calder nor his work. Can anyone enlighten me? Any
sites, or images to share? I'll take a look round my (few) jewelry books -
maybe I know the work but don't connect that name to it.
Brian
--
B r i a n A d a m R u t h B a i r d J e w e l l e r y
http://www.adam.co.nz ph/fx +64 9 817 6816 NEW ZEALAND
SnowWh9340
>You're making an error here. You're confusing art, which is the creative
>activity generating the design ideas and concepts, with the craftsmanship
>that
>went into producing the objects. The two, while interactive and both
>important
>to the final object, are not actually related to each other in terms of their
>own definitions and activity. (snipped)
Thanks for setting me straight, Peter...You are totally right on the money. It
was the "craftsmanship" that bothered me rather than the actual asthetic value
of the pieces. To be quite honest, if the craftsmanship of some of the pieces I
viewed were finer, I'm sure I would have appreciated their artistic vision much
more.
Actually, the work I refered to in my previous post was created by jewelers
that, (as far as I know) are professionals. Or at least selling their work
regularly through galleries, stores and art shows. I should have been clear
about that in the first place. My post lacked tact and fact and for that I do
apologize. I was motivated to post mostly by dissapointment (and a huge mood
swing...) rather than a desire to attack anyones artistic standpoint.
(Just to clarify, I was honestly surprised to find unfinished earwires (crudely
clipped and jagged) and other technical discrepencies on a few of the pieces.
If these weren't oversights and actually artistic statements, then I guess I
totally missed it.)
If I had known the work was by a student, I probably wouldn't have been so
critical. I understand that the job of art students is to explore and create
projects in mediums totally foreign to them - usually in a ridiculously short
time span. I'm always impressed by the work students of all levels present at
their shows.
In my personal tours through galleries and stores, I am amazed at the amount of
artistic vision that is out there. I am inspired by it and hope to achieve that
higher level of artistic competence some day. (although I know I am far from
it!)
<sigh> I think I've been submersed in production and the wholesale/retail
business for too long. I sometimes forget how wonderful it is to appreciate
things for what they are...and not for their value as a product in the
marketplace.
Perhaps next time I should just shut my mouth (or fingers, as it were) and stop
criticizing others for things that I have done myself on more than one
occasion. :)
Humbly yours,
Marlo M.
:::going back to her desk to learn more from those who are willing to teach:::
Abrasha
Make sure to follow the link "Seduction of jewels"
Michael's jewelry is full of "joi de vivre" (as you call it), and is
very often not all that well finished, even though that is not apparent
from the photographs. I know him and his work personally, and have shown
my work together with him in a number of venues (in 1988 at Bernd
Munsteiner's atelier in Stipshausen, Germany and later at New Art Forms
in Chicago, now called SOFA)
Check it out.
Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com
Marty Reynard
>Marlo,
>You're making an error here. You're confusing art, which is the creative
>activity generating the design ideas and concepts, with the craftsmanship
that
>went into producing the objects. The two, while interactive and both
important
>to the final object, are not actually related to each other in terms of
their
>own definitions and activity.
Peter, this endless issue of "art" vs. "craftsmanship" is so
philosophically appealling, that I can't help but step in to offer another
view. Your attempt (and that of countless others) to define these
activities as separate entities, creates what is, to my mind, a totally
artificial separation--except, perhaps, to those whose natural bent is to
work in this way. How can you possibly separate out "the creative activity
generating the designs" from "the craftsmanship that went into producing the
objects"?
This kind of definition presupposes that all artists (or makers?) work
primarily from some kind of cognitive "idea" or "concept." The reality is
that the world is filled with
an extraordinary number of interesting and joyful products that were not
born in this
way at all--many, in fact, occurred accidentally as all of us makers are
well aware of. As they say in Zen, the finger pointing at the moon is not
the moon--and all attempts to contain the concepts of what constitutes "art"
and what constitutes mere "craftsmanship" are doomed (fortunately!) to fall
short of the mark.
A more interesting question would be why are we (Westerners) so hung up
about this endless metaphysical debate--and a mere look at most related
newsgroups and trade journals (e.g. Metalsmith) merely reinforce this
observation. My own conclusion is simply because we are really dealing with
some form of mysterious process that eludes our ability to break it down
into nice,
neat components.....
The Anthonys
Calder was an American artist, 1898 - 1976. He's mainly known for his
mobiles, but he worked in all kinds of media. He had an astonishingly
creative and agile mind, and a great sense of humor. He worked a lot
with the concepts of tension and balance -- hence the mobiles. A certain
style of his mobiles is very recognizable and associated with him. I saw
a retrospective last year in Baltimore and was blown away by his range
and versatility! It was delightful to follow his mind through his works.
If you ever get a chance to see the movie of him operating the miniature
circus that he made -- do it. It's worth standing in line for.
Here is some info and pictures from the National Gallery of Art:
http://www.nga.gov/cgi-bin/psearch?Request=S&Hname=calder&Person=55300
--SB
Brian Adam wrote:
>
<SNIP>
Cathy Morgan
I didn't buy it and have wished I had, because it gave a lot of inspiration.
Maybe it's still available.
C.M.Fox
Born late 1800's both his father and grandfather were sculptors in the
classic style ie HUGE bronze-marble sculptures outside of public buildings.
They were both Alexander Calders so he became Sandy Calder.
He trained as a mechanical engineer and was moderately okay at it. But
ended up missing his art. He drew pictures of a circus for a newspaper,
traveled to Europe/France where he started making his won minature circus
outta wire. He'd put on a little show with his wire circus in friend's
apartments...this was in the 20's. Married returned to USA back to France
got intrigued with abstract art but wanted it to move. Made his move by
mechanical means, and eventually evolved to mobiles and stabiles. He
invented the mobile art form and no one has done much with it since his
death. It is uniquely his.
Had a wonderful spirit about him. Peter was right, loved to create, party,
was a great husband, father, artist.
You probably won't find his jewelry much in jewelry books as it was a minor
part of what he did. I suggest art books. We've got a great bookstore here
in Portland, should you ever get to town. 8-)
He died in the mid 70's, 1976, I think. You might try the Museum of Modern
Art in San Francisco's website, they may still have some of their Calder
stuff up. Other then that do a search. After this show he'lll be hot again.
If you want specific images write me. I can xerox some and send them on.
His wire sculpture was a wonder.
Carla
In article <367cac82....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, Brian Adam
<br...@exitspam.adam.co.nz> wrote:
> C.M.Fox <URL:mailto:foxon...@europa.com> wrote:
> > Peter:
> > Always giving us something major to think about.
> >
>
> Right.
>
> You all might be interested in a comment from a friend in SF who saw the
> Calder show back in October. This friend is not a jeweller, not an artist.
> She's in a professional career and loves beautiful things, and when she can
> she's a buyer of beautiful things.
>
> > Dear Brian and Ruth, You would both love a current huge retrospective on
> > Calder which is at the MOMA here. Organized by the National Gallery, I
> > think. over 250 pieces including paintings, wood sculptures, wire
> > sculptures (particularly ingenious) and electrically powered mobiles.
> > Brilliant guy. I will be going back for a second visit......AND did you
> > know that he made over 1500 pieces of jewelry and gave most of them away as
> > gifts? Modern, bold, creative stuff. Seemed to be particularly fond of
> > his wife Luisa as well. Made a complete set of kitchen utensils and
> > cooking aids........lucky wife.
>
> I sent her the rcj discussion so far to see what she will say to the comments
> made. Now I'm interested in this Mr Calder! My friend might think we'd like
> Calder's work as she considers we also retain something of our own joy of
> shapes, joy of making in our jewellery,
>
> I don't know this man Calder nor his work. Can anyone enlighten me? Any
> sites, or images to share? I'll take a look round my (few) jewelry books -
> maybe I know the work but don't connect that name to it.
>
> Brian
> --
> B r i a n A d a m R u t h B a i r d J e w e l l e r y
> http://www.adam.co.nz ph/fx +64 9 817 6816 NEW ZEALAND