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?
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.
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?
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
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
Posts
8 comments:
Always an interesting post though this one felt a bit more discombobulated than others. Still, as always, thanks for taking the time.
I do want to make a point about your post and the presentation that Bruce and I gave. It seemed in your post that you think that there is no relevance in the "DIY" movement to SNAG and if there is any then we (Bruce Metcalf and I) failed to point it out in our presentation. Perhaps we just weren't clear enough in our presentations but I thought both of us laid out quite succinctly what the relevance is: The DIY movement is not necessarily about skill set (as you seem to imply is the foundation of the studio jewelry movement) but about risk-taking and pure, raw, emotional output.
While you may not think those things have any relevance to SNAG or to studio jewelry makers that is exactly my point (and though I don't want to speak for him, what I think Bruce's was too). The lack of exploration into these really raw, often chaotic social phenomenons like the DIY movement is perhaps what is holding back much of craft and I would venture to guess is some of the cause for SNAG's lagging membership levels which you point out.
The reason the DIY movement has picked up so much steam in the last few years is that it is completely tapped into the current social dialogue outside of its small group of practitioners. These are communicators to the umpth degree and with their fingers on the pulse of what is happening in contemporary culture at large, they have managed to garner the attention of millions - something that SNAG and any other organization in the throes of financial and political upheaval could do well to pay attention to. And that is why the DIY movement is relevant to SNAG and that was the point or Bruce's and my presentation!
Now, link up to our site already would you? Ha! Till next post...
- Andrew Wagner
Thanks. If you keep reading, I will keep writing.
I see DIY as a skill set because it seems to be a reaction to formal training. As far as the relevance, and what the major themes of DIY are, I am afraid I can only speculate.
Alternative craft practices, socially conscious craft practices, and DIY might be in bed together, but they are different things.
I consider my studio practice socially and ecologically conscious, but that does not mean I am part of DIY, even if I want to communicate. I have a lot of energy as well, and while that may be another characteristic of the DIY, that also does not make me part of it.
Most SNAG members have formal training and this sets up a dichotomy between the raw creativity of the DIY and the precision polished skills of trained metalsmiths.
There are many lessons to be learned between the two, and there is indeed a spectrum or gray area in between. But think about how many jewelers really Do-it-Themselves? Most work I see in cyberspace charting the DIY is done with a non-specialized or domestic skill set.
I got more on the way...
-Gabriel
I have a question about your comment on a facelift for Metalsmith. Is this a cosmetic alteration or an actual overhaul? I think the magazine needs an earth-shaking rebuild, but I don't see how an facelift is going to help a magazine that already seems reasonable from the view of appearance.
Taylor,
It's not a content overhaul. The design is 10 years old and they wanted to update it. The graphic design firm Pentagram will be doing the design and they are excellent. http://www.pentagram.com/
I tend to like the content in Metalsmith though it is heavily academic. It is a little bit rigid and uninviting to outsiders. I think a facelift will help with that.
-Gabriel
Hey there Gabriel...thanks for your answer to my post. I'm not suggesting that you or anyone else is "part" of the DIY scene but I am suggesting there are similarities - that is all. My main point is that too often there is this COMPLETE disconnect between the various practitioners that is very particular to the "craft" world and that is really confounding. Again, the point is that everyone should really just open their eyes to EVERYTHING going on around them (within and without their various professions) because there is a lot to learn (obviously) - and that cuts both ways. In that sense, I think that our presentation was successful because it's sparked a little dialogue here (not part of the DIY scene) and here:
http://www.imogene.org/blog/2008/03/09/confessions/#comment-30488
And that really was the intention. Let's get both groups thinking about the other and see what happens.
Along these lines, one of my favorite articles that I've seen relating to this type of dialogue and attempts at understanding between "professional" and "non-professional" makers was written by Virginia Postrel in Print Magazine:
http://printmag.com/design_articles/your_design_here/tabid/214/Default.aspx
She, obviously, is talking about graphic design but it may as well be about the craft world. Anyhow, take a look and thanks for linking to our site Gabriel! Once we get our friends list working we will do the same!
Keep writing and I'll keep responding! Ha!
Hi Gabriel! On your commentary re: the Metcalf & Wagner lecture, I guess I'm confused and could use clarification:
You state, "While it would not be illegal for a misogynist to make feminist art, it certainly would be misguided and inappropriate." I'm at a loss here because it's not possible for a misogynist to make feminist art. Anti-feminist art yes, not feminist art. Am I just having semantics issues now?
In the next paragraph, "While certainly within his intellectual grasp, the DIY movement and movement is severely disconnected from socially conscious craft practice merit further study."
ahh! I don't understand this sentence, can you clarify?
And finally, "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." I might agree with you on this point. DIY did start as a movement in what was sometimes called "women's work"- knitting, sewing, etc. (Just for the record- I stand tall, loud and proud when I say 'women's work'.) However, the chasm that you are referring to is slowly closing (non-existent?). As DIY gains momentum, the population is filling with mediums requiring non-domestic skill sets- printmaking, ceramics, metalsmithing, illusraion, painting. . . you name it.
Annie,
1. Yes that is a semantic issue. For the record though I think a misogynist could make feminist art it just would not be honest, it would be ironic. But I think you can see the point there, someone from an opposing view is likely to give problematic commentary as you yourself pointed out in your blog yesterday.
2. Typo! Shit! I fixed it. I have no idea what I was saying. lol.
3. You are right partially. My question is: Can SNAG's members with multiple degrees and almost a decade of education really be part of DIY? or is there another more accurately named movement down the pipe for us to join? Or should we not worry about labels? Problem is that when you are in the business of critical writing you need to have words to describe phenomenon you are observing.
Perhaps my definition of DIY is incorrect. I am open to finding a better one...just haven't found one yet.
-Gabriel
Just thought I'd let you know that I posted a bit on this whole topic on our site including a bit of the back-story about how this all came to be (Bruce's and my talk) and a very interesting response to all of this from Garth Johnson from extremecraft.com. Check it out if you have a moment:
http://americancraftmag.org/index.php
Oh yeah, we just updated our whole site to reflect the current issue of American Craft that just came out and it looks pretty damn good if I do say so myself! Enjoy!
Post a Comment