The Importance of Synesthesia

Hey everyone, long time no blog. I have just finished a lot of things that have kept me away from the keyboard and I hope to get back to a semi-regular posting schedule. Sorry. Truly. 

In the pursuit of being worldly, and in order to seem really smart at exhibition receptions, I have been frequently watching TED Talks. If you have never heard of TED Talks, then I suggest you clear your schedule. TED stands for technology, entertainment, and design. In summary, the worlds greatest minds are brought together once a year in Long Beach, CA to give 18 minute lectures in their area of expertise. Everyone from Steven Pinker to Al Gore to Dave Eggers has been an invited guest. Lectures from 1984 - Present have been archived on their website www.ted.com. 

What spurred me back to the keyboard on this rainy Friday morning was an encounter with an amazing mind from the world of science. Dr. Vilayanur Ramachandran is a professor of Psychology and Neuroscience at the University of California at San Deigo. Wikipedia told me that has has been called the "Marco Polo of neuroscience." Anyhow, Dr. Ramachandran is one of the premier neuroscience researchers in the world. I have linked this post to his talk so you can check it out. It presents some of his research findings on synesthesia. Watch the video. OK? 

So synesthesia is cross sensory perception. It is genetic, and it also allows for abnormally diverse cross nuero connections to be made that result in creative thinking. In other words, synesthetes (people with synesthesia) have an amazing capacity for metaphorical thinking. Not only that, but this metaphorical thinking can be measured with a tool called an fMRI. 

So Dr. Ramachandran leaves us there, but from his research I think we can infer a little bit more. What does this mean? The ability to connect seemingly dissimilar (neural) information is that hallmark of an artistic mind. But what really gets me excited is that the aptitude to be an artist, or to think metaphorically, resides in our ability to make information fit together in novel ways. Everyday I am presented with material that I find corollary that is at the same time superficially dissimilar. It never occurred to me that this was a symptom of my creative disorder. Seeing a leading neuroscientist prove that metaphorical thinking is the basis of creativity and art has changed my life somewhat.

To bring it home, I am a metalsmith. For me this title falls under the scope of craft, which in turn falls under the larger heading of Art (feel free to disagree with any of the above). While I employ craft skills to make my work, it is truly my ability to think metaphorically that allows me to be an artist. Perfect execution makes my work presentable, but it does not make my work art. The ability to communicate my synesthetic thoughts, or unique perspective, is physiologically what makes me an artist. If there was ever an argument for the importance of conceptual metalsmtihing, I think this is it.

The ideas that we have make us artists, the skills that we have make us technicians, scientifically. Now, that is not to say that those things can't exist without each other, or one is better than the other. But if you want to work as an artist in metal, then you best bring your metaphorical thinking to the table.

Wow.

-Gabriel

 

The Revolution Begins...

I just wanted to let everyone know that the dialogue that I was praying for... it has begun. There was a long drought in the craft desert, then Bruce Metcalf (and Andrew Wagner) raised his hand and the heavens opened. I am joking of course, but only a kind of. This is amazing, and no matter what you thought about his presentation at SNAG, it is starting to look like it will only be a footnote to the catalyst it has become for a much more important exchange that is currently growing in the blogosphere.

Check out these links, and start posting in these dialogues!

http://imogene.org/blog/2008/03/09/confessions

http://www.americancraftmag.org/zoom-entry.php?id=1735

http://www.meganauman.blogspot.com

http://www.murketing.com/journal/?p=1105

http://printmag.com/design_articles/your_design_here/tabid/214/Default.aspx

More soon,

-Gabriel

Thoughts on the 2008 SNAG Conference - Talk is Cheap OR Barack is for Change (revisited)

I left for Savannah last Wednesday morning knowing that a post was overdue. After the first day at the 2008 Society of North American Goldsmiths conference it was clear that I better get writing. So I am pledging to you all that I will post as often as I can. My little disclaimer is this: These posts take a while to write, be patient and I will keep them coming. Comments are always good incentive, and feel free to have conversations on the comment boards.

I set out earlier this year to offer a perspective that I felt vital and necessary, though perhaps unpopular and overly critical. Despite my agitator tone, I hope that the readership will notice a deep-seated optimism and a willingness to actively participate in change. Which brings me to my topic for this post: a review/ overview of an overarching theme of Crosscurrents and applicable commentary as is relates to the unique view you have come to expect from this fine (virtual) publication.

Each of the issues I address would be enough to warrant its own essay, but for the sake of digestion... brevity where possible, right?

1. Do Titles Mean Anything? Seriously?

If I may start by applying the lessons learned in the previous post on titles, Crosscurrents: Diverse Solutions in a Global Environment was not an accurate title for this conference because it did not present solutions, let alone diverse solutions. I do not blame the organizers one iota, but the blame must belong to the presenters.


In support of the title, the professional development seminar presented perhaps the most applicable solutions with Megan Auman's presentation about Web 2.0 leading the way. Unfortunately this was not technically part of the conference. lol. Alas, the best solution I found for a global environment was Norman Cherry's models for alumni commercial success.

2. Follow the Leader

I do have to say that there were many riveting speakers. I have come away from the conference feeling energized and hopeful. Despite SNAG's current economic plight, the future of our field seems bright. The first speaker to bring that message of hope was Andrew Glasgow, the new Executive Director of the American Craft Council. Glasgow's message was abundantly clear, collaboration and partnership will allow everyone to go further. If SNAG and its members invest in the Craft Council and the Craft Council reciprocates we will be able to accomplish more. He also acknowledged the necessity of change for the continued vitality of Crafts (the noun), and also the fear of change expressed by trustees, practitioners, etc. Okay Andrew, I am with you! Lets meet the fear head on and join together to make the future of craft a place we can all be proud of.

How do we do that though? What can we (the members of SNAG) do to collaborate, and in turn allow everyone to go further? Do you have a plan? I asked Glasgow this question, I think he dodged it and eventually came to something that involved students scanning slides in the ACC office in New York. Dude? Bullshit.

I know Andrew has just started in his current position, and that his keynote speech was at short notice. I appreciate his vibrant, enthusiastic, optimism. However, talk is cheap. Here is Barack is for Change (revisited). I felt like I was listening to a politician. "Yes, I have a health care plan that can fix all the problems with our current health care system." What is it? How does it work?

Here is my personal challenge to Andrew Glasgow: outline a plan. Start at the grass roots level. How can the individual get involved? What can people be expected to do on an individual basis that will make a significant contribution to your vision, with only a reasonable contribution of personal time and resources. Give us opportunities to work together. In other words unite us. Lets share together the rewards of working collaboratively.

The ACC should provide smaller organizations (such as SNAG, NCECA, GAS, FS, and SDA) with opportunities to interface and to collaborate. The organization has been in place in most cases for 30+ years. Lets do it!

Scanning slides is something a trained monkey can do. If that is all you expect from people (specifically craft students) then that is all you will get. Bring everyone to the table and challenge everyone to do something. Students, collectors, practitioners, administrators, enthusiasts...everyone.

3. The Rename and the Relaunch

If we share hope for the future of SNAG in the 21st century, despite its current financial mini-crisis, as well as hope for the continued vitality through the innovation of member practitioners, then it is only logical to me that we indeed need an influx of new members. It seems that some of the same ideas and paradigms continue to be recycled and almost everyone was a bit jaded with the insular regurgitation of the same old same old. No where was this more evident than at the educator's dialogue. If one thing was agreed upon by the prestigious panel it was that there was no logical pedagogical design for the 21st century. Another solution that was elusive. I digress.

However, another set of promising opportunities presented itself. After the annunciation of financial woes, the annunciation of an initiative to dialogue about a possible name change was presented. This was closely followed by another enormous announcement, that of Metalsmith getting a face lift. Now I realize that all three of these things taken separately could lead one to drawn out and unproductive debates, but I see these three things as an incredible coincidence of interconnectedness.

I hope you agree with the presumption that a larger base membership will help to alleviate the financial struggles of the organization. To this end, an examination and subsequent clear direction of organizational purpose coupled with a new name that reflects this realization of identity, and the redesign of Metalsmith would serve to facilitate an easy membership initiative. This of course seems like an impossibly tall order. Let me be the first to suggest that we should either:

1. Trim the fat and narrow our organizational focus, thus raising our standards to that of a professional association.

OR

2. Expand to be more inclusive of marginal groups (beaders, hobbyists, commercial jewelers, bench jewelers, blacksmiths, and the ever elusive "hyper-trendy urban cool hipsters").

Personally I think option 2 is the way to go, but option 1 does have its merits also. Regardless, with one fell swoop SNAG could propel itself into the 21st century revitalized and ready to move forward with a larger membership base and a renewed and updated purpose. Marketing and attracting new members would surely prove easier in this scenario, as compared with the unwieldy disparately diverse organization at present.

At the very least an aggressive membership campaign should accompany the launch of the redesigned Metalsmith in 2009 in order to maximize its impact. I do have hope for the rename and the relaunch, and I would love to see the board propose a five year plan. I hope there is some vision left...somewhere.

4. Bruce Metcalf the Perennial Voice of Critical Dialogue in Metalsmithing (also revisited)

In perhaps the strangest set of circumstances that have befallen my young career I present you with the following:

Act I: I wrote with outrage at the imperialistic nature of a longstanding and well respected critic and by association his co-conspirator.

Act II: Through a dialogue with Andrew Wagner I become less skeptical of his presentation.

Act III: I am disarmed by a great presentation and a pat on the back from the perps.

Epilogue: So my original issue was that there was an alarming disconnect between Bruce Metcalf's work (objects) and the movement he seemed to be both championing and forecasting. As Bruce rightly pointed out on the comments section and in person (to me) he has every right to write and talk about both the DIY and new trends in craft practice. However, despite Bruce Metcalf's excellent analysis and application of taxonomies to allow us to understand the underpinnings of the movement(s) (I see DIY and socially conscious craft practices as separate albeit intertwined movements), his view point is that of an outsider. I maintain my original beef. Postmodernism paved the way for political correctness and anyone 35 or under will surely know that PC is something that is a social norm, not a law. The same political correctness that repatriates art objects to their homelands from western museums, is the same political correctness that allows women to make feminist art. While it would not be illegal for a misogynist to make feminist art, it certainly would be misguided and inappropriate. I invite you to see the parallel in Bruce Metcalf's commentary about both DIY and socially conscious craft practice when compared to his own work. Bruce Metcalf has written and made work for the past 30 years about narratives and formal aesthetics.
http://www.charonkransenarts.com/artists/Metcalf_6_2005/artist_metcalf.html

To tie this all back to the theme of this post, Bruce Metcalf and Andrew Wagner set up an fairly accurate picture of the phenomenon that they sought to define. What was noticeably absent was a contemporary social context for this phenomenon, and its relevance to the audience at hand. I stand by my assertion that there is chasm between the DIY movement and metalsmithing because of the disparity between domestic and specialized skill sets. And if you are so inclined, proof of specialized skills at the inception of the studio jewelry movement is contained in the book Messengers of Modernism: American Studio Jewelry 1940-1960. Further contemporary evidence can be seen in the extremely high level of craftsmanship in the work of SNAG members as exhibited at the Savannah conference.

And just to be sure I have made myself clear, we all owe Bruce Metcalf a debt of gratitude for being the major voice in our field for such a long time. He will no doubt continue to be important to our critical discourse in the future. However, let's bring our standards up to those of other fields of cultural production. Political correctness and the lessons of revisionist postmodern writers have become the standard in canonical historical texts. I know it is not en vogue anymore to compare ourselves to art, but seriously...what is the mark of the professional in cultural critical writing?

Conclusion

No matter what the topic was there seemed to be much cause for hope at the Savannah conference. I got the feeling that everyone recognized the urgency, both speakers and attendees. What is there to do now but turn hope into cause for celebration. Vive La Revolucion!

I think it is so cliche that every period in history seems to consider their own time on the planet the most important to date. I don't consider now to be the most important period in history, or even in SNAG's history, but I recognize it as important, and I recognize that we shouldn't squander an opportunity to make it a great time in SNAG's (or whatever we call it) history. Kris Patzlaff came really close to saying word for word, the quote on the sidebar, but here is what she said, "Its not what SNAG can do for you, Its what you can do for SNAG." Talk is cheap.

Until next time,
-Gabriel

Sans-titre

I wanted to shoot out a quick and short post this week after the monster on January 26th, but it seems that I am quite incapable. Thanks to the faithful who stay with me until the end, I am trying to be more concise. As always I appreciate your comments no matter what they say. It takes two to dialogue...and also to tango.

I have been stewing for a while on the topic of titles. Those who know me well have heard me rail regularly against the foolish words we put in front of our exhibitions and now I share my concerns with you all (or y'all as they say where I live). Metalsmithing is plagued by exhibitions with less than mediocre titles. The work in these exhibitions is quite irrelevant, they could be either the best or worst exhibitions in the history of metalsmithing, but the titles of these exhibitions condemn them to obscurity and banal oblivion.

I frequently check my regular sources for the posting of exhibition announcements and calls for entry. Routinely I find to my amusement and disappointment that another show has become the next in a long line of ridiculous and ill-advised titles. I realize that there is no conspiracy to name exhibitions poorly, but our record is less than exemplary. Setting out to understand this deficiency I must start out with some speculation. Many exhibitions which are either curated or have a formal call for entries are marked by their relationship to an organization rather than an exhibition venue. This means that officers and artists often fulfill the role of curator and/or juror. When this occurs it can be likened to a hobbyist substituting for a professional. The results are often adequate, and rarely exceptional. What a curator usually has at their disposal is training in using analytical skills to synthesize taxonomies thus allowing for insights into work to be placed in a digestible context for the viewer. Without this vital curatorial training a clear curatorial vision for a show is rarely established. Devoid of a clear cohesive theme, the resultant exhibition is a haphazard regurgitation by 20 or more artists responding to a word or words which pose as a title.

To illustrate the difference between a professional curator and an amateur curator I will discuss two shows. While admittedly outside of the field of metalsmithing, the recent exhibition at the Museum of Art+Design, Radical Lace and Subversive Knitting, has a clear curatorial vision and a potent and descriptive title. The show and the title highlighted practices that were progressive. This was done by implication through the use of the words radical and subversive. The title also tied the show to specific traditions through the use of technical processes; lace and knitting. The work in the show delivered on its promise and indeed the title characterized the work in the exhibition. While I think that shows based on trend watching are dangerous because they delineate a central idea of successful contemporary work, if anyone is qualified to make such selections it would be David McFadden.

I must pick a counter point to be pitted against David McFadden, and of course it is hardly fair, but let's dissect Evolutionary Metal: Exploring Boundaries. (In the interest of full disclosure, I was rejected from this show and that has nothing to do with why I chose it as a counterpoint.) The title starts off good with an interesting premise Evolutionary Metal. Ok good this show will be about either Darwinism in silver and copper or avant-garde metalsmithing. Then a colon, promising. We are going to get a clarification, but then, no. The colon is followed by two words that essentially repeat the previous two. So as viewers or potential viewers we gain no additional insight into what might be considered avant-garde or on the edge. Now admittedly I am no curatorial expert but if I was to put together a show with a title that started Evolutionary Metal:, here is how I might finish it:

Evolutionary Metal: The Empire of the Idea
Evolutionary Metal: Communicating through Semiotics and the Body
Evolutionary Metal: Plastics, Polymers, and Urethane
Evolutionary Metal: The Digital Generation

Do you see what I did there? After the colon there is information that makes the first part more clear. What is evolutionary metal? If it is exploring boundaries then all that says is that the curators have no idea what evolutionary metal is. We are all exploring boundaries in our studios. Is the name of this show a euphemism for a biennial show of contemporary metalsmithing work that Barbara Heinrich, Sun Young Park and Stephen Saracino like? Because that is what it looks like. I should also mention that none of these people are curators, and that I have no idea who named this show. Just to round out the ambiguity I wanted to include the brief description on the call for entries:

EXPLORING BOUNDARIES: Evolutionary Metal: a juried exhibition presenting a wide spectrum of art from innovative and visionary metal artists whose work combines traditional and non-traditional approaches, breaking conventions and evoking evolution in contemporary metal work.

Boundaries are defined as “something that indicates or fixes limits.”
Evolution is defined as “A gradual process in which something changes into something different.”

Traditional jewelry and metalwork utilizes processes and mediums that have been well-established and utilized by metal artists for centuries, indeed millenniums in some cases. Exploring Boundaries: Evolutionary Metal will exhibit work from contemporary metal artists who push the boundaries of what is traditional metal work through their use of mediums, processes and/or subject matter.

In the last sentence they finally say what they are looking for and I have to say that if that is what their curatorial vision was, they might as well have said, "just send whatever." That is the vaguest of vagaries. Have some conviction about what is evolutionary and what the boundaries are!

To their credit the Rochester Institute of Technology's Biennial Exhibition of 2005 has a much better title, Made in America. This is a very clear title. Acceptable criteria for a major biennial metalsmithing exhibition? You decide for yourself.

I want to try and lay down some rational and logical criteria as to what I think makes a good exhibition title. So, according to the dictionary widget on my dashboard, title comes from the latin titulus meaning inscription. Titulus was a placard placed on an object giving it descriptive information. This makes sense. Titles should be descriptive and informative. We've talked about this already. The title of a book helps us to understand what the book is about, even to decide whether the book is something worth reading. This holds true for an exhibition as well. I automatically think of the 1999 show Sensation at the Brooklyn Museum. I want to see a show called Sensation without knowing anything else about it. Can the same be said of Cresting? Laughable.

Some more criteria: Long titles are often distracting and hard to use as promotional tools. For that reason it seems that titles need to be short. The colon is a great way to say something general and then to specify. With the colon you can say a lot with a little. For example the upcoming show at PS1, Wack!: Art and the Feminist Revolution.

So here is my list of things to think about when titling a show. My challenge for you is to take these criteria and apply them to recent exhibitions in metalsmithing and in art. Notice any trends? Can you spot the good ones? For your convenience I have listed some exhibition titles below and their sponsoring institution when applicable.

The Criteria:

1. Descriptive
2. Effective
3. Accurate
4. Interesting
5. Dignified (optional)

Let's look at and puzzle out some recent titles:

Parameters of Preciousness
Petal Pushers
The Ring Show: Putting the Band Back Together
Co-Laboratory
Touching Warms the Art
Brooching it Diplomatically; A Tribute to Madeline Albright (1999, I know this is old but it is my personal favorite)
And How! Celebrating Art and Soul in Contemporary Metalwork

MCA Chicago:
Daria Martin: Sensorium Tests
Italics: Italian Art between Tradition and Revolution, 1968-2008
Mapping the Self

PS1:
Wack!: Art and the Feminist Revolution
Take Your Time: Olafur Eliasson

Demand greatness in exhibition titles.

-Gabriel

A Call for Submissions

If this site is to be a forum for dialogue then surely I shouldn't be the only one talking. Therefore:

An Open Call for Submissions

conceptualmetalsmithing.com is looking for intelligently written essays that address contemporary idea based metalsmithing practices and related topics. Essays should be between 250 and 3,000 words. All accepted essays will be posted on conceptualmetalsmtihing.com.

Please email entries to gabriel.craig@gmail.com:
1. as a mac compatible word document

OR

2. in the body of the email

Disclaimer: conceptualmetalsmithing.com is an informal publishing venue. Essays must meet editorial standards. Gabriel Craig is a subjective entity. Essays will NOT be denied based on content or point of view. Particularly encouraged to submit are young practicioners.

Lunch with Andrew Wagner

On a personal note, despite advocating for young practitioners to become commentators (in my last blog entry) as a young person you cannot help but be star struck sometimes. I remember being in an elevator with Harlan Butt at my first SNAG conference and reading his name-tag. I turned bright red and when the doors opened I ran out to tell my girlfriend I was just in the presence of THE Harlan Butt. In my humble experience it always starts out that way. I, for one, am certainly not experienced enough to be above this feeling. And so it began...

In the first five minutes I knew Andrew Wagner, the Editor in Chief of American Craft Magazine, he knew I had a blog (this one) and that I found his collaboration with Bruce Metcalf suspect. After about 10 minutes I realized he was not some demigod above talking to me, and quickly I realized he was not who I thought he might be. In the last entry I said it was a bit confusing on the surface. Since the relaunch of American Craft there has been a marked shift in the content. After talking with Andrew here are the main points that are relevant to the dialogue here:

1. Andrew Wagner and by extension American Craft employ a holistic approach to cultural production in general and to craft. That means (in my not so humble opinion) that it is a good fit for Andrew to be commenting on socially driven studio practices in the employ of craft artists. Andrew is like Switzerland (means neutral) and talking with him made me feel a little reactionary, which I am consequently. He is not for or against working or talking about anything, but what he did stress in abundance was personal responsibility. American Craft is to be a tool for people to educate themselves about craft in whatever form craft may take. There is in an egalitarian feeling that once you have enough information you can form a responsible interest in craft. Andrew I am on board.

2.As for the odd couple that will be giving a presentation at SNAG, all I can say is wait. I want to see what happens before I pass judgment on this union. I did get the impression from Andrew that he was scratching his head a little bit too. I never asked Andrew whether what we were talking about was on or off the record, but I never really thought is was that kind of lunch either. Flat out I think Bruce Metcalf is using Andrew Wagner's position and expertise to legitimize a presentation that would otherwise be ethically questionable. Andrew put it like this, "Bruce is going to do his thing, and then he asked me to show some of the wildest stuff I have seen." So in large part it is the Bruce Metcalf Show. It is clear that Andrew Wagner is not responsible for the theoretic content of the presentation but for the examples of the application of this content.

Onward to SNAG. I hope that I am blown away by their presentation and that I have to write a big fat apology post for doubting, but all evidence to the contrary so far...

-Gabriel

Bruce Metcalf the Perennial Voice of Critical Dialogue in Metalsmithing

The subject of this post is a response to the recent article in Metalsmith magazine by Bruce Metcalf entitled Alt-Craft in Theory and In Practice. As my brain works in a circuitous way I want to start with some long standing opinions that I have and work my way up to the article. I hope you can bear with me.

It is my perception that practitioners in the fields of both Metalsmithing and Craft have largely chosen not to engage in art historical rhetoric, including the use of devices and mechanisms which art historians use to categorize, label, and ultimately understand the field of Contemporary Visual Art. I feel that this ignorance of scholastic contemporary dialogue is in part how we find ourselves in our current climate, one that is devoid of professional commentators. (This is a generalization, increasingly we are seeing competent commentators.) It is of crucial importance that we are able to engage with art historians on their terms. We need to know how to participate in their dialogue because they will be the ones to chart our course. Paul Greenhalgh rants about this very issue in the first issue of the newly relaunched American Craft (Oct/Nov of 2007). In retrospect, it will not matter what is done, only what is recorded. If we want to be participants in that record then we need to be attentive to the culture of art historians. It seems that despite the interesting and progressive work that is being made now, metalsmithing is only marginally being recognized by "decorative arts" historians.

So, who are some of the people charting our course? Our good friends at American Craft have really changed their tune since they relaunched their magazine. For those of you who read American Craft please note the slew of critical self assessment articles in the last three issues. The section entitled Critic's Corner has featured most of craft's recognized critics. To illustrate this let's look at who's been in the Critic's Corner.
1. (Oct/Nov 2007) Paul Greenhalgh author of The Persistence of Craft.
2. (Dec 2007/Jan 2008) Glenn Adamson in promotion of his new book Thinking Through Craft.
3. (Feb/Mar 2008) Howard Risatti author of A Theory of Craft: Function and Aesthetic Expression.

I guess where I am going with this is that Andrew Wagner (editor of American Craft) is creating a discourse in his magazine. This discourse is an awesome thing, but...there is a problem looming. It is this same problem that has prompted me to write this post, which hits closer to home with Mr. Metcalf.

As a preface to the metalsmith article I would like to say this: I applaud the work of torchbearers of the critical writing tradition in both crafts and metalsmithing for the last few decades. Metalsmith practitioners/ writers such as Bruce Metcalf have been the voice of critical discourse in the field for a long time. We can look to illustrious careers like that of Bruce Metcalf as an example of how to balance the practices of writing and making, both of which he has done successfully.

The problem that we have now is that Bruce Metcalf is old. Ouch! Before someone accuses me of being ageist, let me qualify that. First, read the article. Okay. Bruce (can I call you Bruce?) went to a conference in Dundee Scotland this past summer and got the cliff notes about where the next generation of phd bearing euro-crafties is taking the field. As it happens, Bruce has gotten it right for the last 20 or so years. Craft is its own unique snowflake (coincidentally Glenn Adamson agrees in his book in the first 3 pages!). We are not subordinate to art. Oddly enough though, there are a great number of artists who use craft's perceived subordinate position as the content of their art (Check out the book By Hand, The Use of Craft in Contemporary Art for some examples). The new guard is using craft as an instrument of social critique, of social change, of community, and of humanization. What it really is, is the beginning of another Arts and Crafts movement. This time we are reacting against corporatization and globalization. Whoa. I will hit up the cultural impetus for this movement in the next week or two.

God love you fogeys but you are just now realizing that the future has nothing to do with the advances that you made in aesthetics and techniques for the past 60 years. Bruce rightly pointed this out in his article. So my question is this: Bruce you have written and made work for the past 30 years about narratives and formal aesthetics, do you get to claim the social craft revolution for your canon? Let me be the first to say no. This is not yours. You called it man, oh yes, you held tight for so long. I see you like Moses leading the Israelites through the desert (only for 30 years though) all the while speaking of reaching the promised land. Well we have arrived in the promised land, but you Moses Metcalf cannot enter the land of Canaan.

This is really the bottom line. This new trend belongs to the practitioners who have brought it about and who are living it. The institutionalized goons can go back to the craft fairs. It honestly scares the shit out of me that the first person to write about metalsmithing as a social instrument competently is someone who has openly opposed alternative craft practices in the past. There is no unified voice or leader to speak yet (like Ruskin or Morris), and I doubt there will be. But as someone who believes and practices craft's intangible aspects I feel justified in writing this post. My studio practice has never been about aesthetics as much as it has been about challenging the status quo. The graphic above I made previous to this hoopla. But for me it is a symbol of metalsmithing's ability to bring about social change in a egalitarian and utilitarian way. Perhaps the Manifesto of the New Jewellry has influenced this loaded iconography. Let's not forget though that William Morris was a staunch Marxist.

Before I get to far off topic, let me tie it all together. Andrew Wagner and Bruce Metcalf are giving a presentation at this year's SNAG conference entitled D.I.Y., Websites, and Energy: The New Alternative Craft. Can American Craft, replete with aging critics, call the play by play for the youngsters? Wagner and Metcalf are interesting bedfellows. Wagner is trying to steer a giant tanker in iceberg infested waters and Metcalf is.......an extremely experienced captain at the helm with horrible eye sight and no corrective lenses? I don't know really. I just get defensive when critics write about stuff they aren't involved with.

So, through an amazing set of circumstances I am eating lunch with Andrew Wagner on Monday. Sweet, I know right? (Thank you Sonya) I will post an addendum after that if there is anything new to say after talking with him.

I'll leave you with this and you tell me what you think: How different is Bruce Metcalf writing about new craft practices from colonialism? When middle aged white guys wrote about and plundered the artistic treasures of the world (1700-1950), the post-modern revolution came through and rewrote the history through a multiculturalist post-modern lens. If metalsmithing and crafts are to finally understand and apply postmodernism, then realize now that the people who canonize should be either:
a) the practitioners
b) the yet to emerge social, critical, and art historical commentators of this generation
c) Bruce Metcalf after making a body of work, or at least an attempt to use craft as something more than a formal exercise

See you next time, and keep those comments coming.
Best,
-Gabriel