Larger Than Life
August 3, 2018
Inspirational Art
Here’s another image dug up from my Pinterest board, a piece done by a jewelry artist who was a real game changer.
What you see here is not polymer, although it so easily could be. This is a piece by Marjorie Schick, who passed away in late 2017. This bit of unique sculpture, titled Henri’s Garden, is painted paper, wood, canvas, plastic laminate, and bronze. Quite a mix of materials. Its wide-ranging pallet of saturated color and busy repetition is anchored by the symmetry of a common radiating form. Classic and yet, with the range of materials to use, quite unique.
Emerging during the time when many jewelers are rejecting traditional materials and techniques, Schick really formed a unique and, as she put it, “quietly rebellious” style.
The article on the Craft Council’s website that was posted after her passing does a beautiful job of giving you a picture of this woman and the how and why of her creations. Take a moment to jump over there and read about this highly influential jeweler, or you might enjoy this enlightening interview with her back in 2016. See if her work and words don’t influence you.
Outside Inspiration: Is it a Necklace?
October 4, 2013
Inspirational Art
I had a great conversation this past week with the wonderful Mitchell sisters. We are, all three of us, very big on function. Just because something can’t funtion as the object it was created as doesn’t mean it’s not art. But if it can’t function as the type of object it is labeled as, should it actually be categorized as such?
For example, look at this ‘necklace’ … it’s huge! I don’t see it being worn comfortably or well for any length of time. So is it a necklace? Some people will say yes–it fits over the head and rests on the neck and shoulders. But what is a necklace for? It is to adorn the wearer, right? But what if no one will wear it long enough to say the person was even adorned with it? If something doesn’t really fit its function, I am for simply calling it art, usually sculptural art since sculpture doesn’t have a particular function. But if not, do we call if a failure for not fulfilling its function? I don’t know if we should go so far as to say it’s failed. let’s reserve that bit of labeling for things like bad toupees and monstrous high heels.
I am certainly not saying this piece is a failure or not worthy of our consideration. I saved it for a reason. I like the careful consideration of every plane on this piece–the sides, top, bottom, and insides are all colored and coordinated through their saturation. And the artist, Marjorie Schick, recognizes that her work pushes the boundaries of what can be called functional. A book collection of her work was titled “Sculpture to Wear” rather than something about art jewelry or sculptural jewelry. The work is acknowledged as sculpture first, and so we can say it fulfills its primary intended ‘function’–as art to be viewed without undue expectation about how it will operate and survive as anything beyond that.
But this brings us to a notable point about our work. If you are making something that is expected to perform a particular function, it should be able to fulfill the role–it should be able to hang, stand, or move as needed, it will not come apart when used with reasonable care, it won’t harm people when it is worn or displayed, etc. Looking good is, of course, important; but if you neglect to consider how it will hold up, how it will be worn or displayed, or whether it will be comfortable enough for the wearer to keep it on for the day or even a few hours, you haven’t made a successful piece, not to mention you’ll probably disappoint someone. Creating functional art means creating the functional aspects as well as the art.
Here’s another image dug up from my Pinterest board, a piece done by a jewelry artist who was a real game changer.
What you see here is not polymer, although it so easily could be. This is a piece by Marjorie Schick, who passed away in late 2017. This bit of unique sculpture, titled Henri’s Garden, is painted paper, wood, canvas, plastic laminate, and bronze. Quite a mix of materials. Its wide-ranging pallet of saturated color and busy repetition is anchored by the symmetry of a common radiating form. Classic and yet, with the range of materials to use, quite unique.
Emerging during the time when many jewelers are rejecting traditional materials and techniques, Schick really formed a unique and, as she put it, “quietly rebellious” style.
The article on the Craft Council’s website that was posted after her passing does a beautiful job of giving you a picture of this woman and the how and why of her creations. Take a moment to jump over there and read about this highly influential jeweler, or you might enjoy this enlightening interview with her back in 2016. See if her work and words don’t influence you.
Read More
I had a great conversation this past week with the wonderful Mitchell sisters. We are, all three of us, very big on function. Just because something can’t funtion as the object it was created as doesn’t mean it’s not art. But if it can’t function as the type of object it is labeled as, should it actually be categorized as such?
For example, look at this ‘necklace’ … it’s huge! I don’t see it being worn comfortably or well for any length of time. So is it a necklace? Some people will say yes–it fits over the head and rests on the neck and shoulders. But what is a necklace for? It is to adorn the wearer, right? But what if no one will wear it long enough to say the person was even adorned with it? If something doesn’t really fit its function, I am for simply calling it art, usually sculptural art since sculpture doesn’t have a particular function. But if not, do we call if a failure for not fulfilling its function? I don’t know if we should go so far as to say it’s failed. let’s reserve that bit of labeling for things like bad toupees and monstrous high heels.
I am certainly not saying this piece is a failure or not worthy of our consideration. I saved it for a reason. I like the careful consideration of every plane on this piece–the sides, top, bottom, and insides are all colored and coordinated through their saturation. And the artist, Marjorie Schick, recognizes that her work pushes the boundaries of what can be called functional. A book collection of her work was titled “Sculpture to Wear” rather than something about art jewelry or sculptural jewelry. The work is acknowledged as sculpture first, and so we can say it fulfills its primary intended ‘function’–as art to be viewed without undue expectation about how it will operate and survive as anything beyond that.
But this brings us to a notable point about our work. If you are making something that is expected to perform a particular function, it should be able to fulfill the role–it should be able to hang, stand, or move as needed, it will not come apart when used with reasonable care, it won’t harm people when it is worn or displayed, etc. Looking good is, of course, important; but if you neglect to consider how it will hold up, how it will be worn or displayed, or whether it will be comfortable enough for the wearer to keep it on for the day or even a few hours, you haven’t made a successful piece, not to mention you’ll probably disappoint someone. Creating functional art means creating the functional aspects as well as the art.
