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