"Which misuse of a jewelry term most annoys you?"
Friday, December 18, 2009 at 12:55AM "Which misuse of a jewelry term most annoys you? (i.e. cold enamel for resin)"
This is our monthly topic for several jewelry artists who participate in what we call our blog "carnival."
I can't think of anything directly related to "misuse" of a term, so much as I get annoyed by misinterpretation of a term. Examples:
When I say "fabrication" to non-metalsmiths, they first think of "fabricate" as in "lie" or "fake," rather than something hewn from metal using hammers, saws, bending/forming and such. Whereas "forge" would conjure a more accurate image of the process.
The second annoyance is the still-common misperception of what metal clay is — it starts out as something more than clay: it's clay with metal in it. But it ends up solid metal. To the metalsmithing snobs out there who think that casting is "real metal work" but think working in metal clay isn't, consider this: there are (basically) three whole processes involved in casting, in order to get the end result of a metal object, and two of those processes involve no interaction with actual metal. Metal clay, however, is (basically) only two processes: forming and firing. The metal is there the whole time — you can even feel its heft in the piece as you work. There is no substitution of materials involved (as in casting, with the exchanging of wax for a void, and then filling that void with metal). So the misperception that metal objects created using metal clay are somehow less than metal or inferior, yeah — that irks me.
If you really want to be a metalworking purist, then you need to do all of your work with manual hand tools and hammers, an anvil, and flame only — no rolling mills, no draw plates, no casting, no flex shaft motor tools, etc. But I'm not interested in puritanical views of metalwork. What I'd like to see is beautiful metal objects and jewelry created without anyone judging anyone else on how they got from concept to finished metal piece. What should matter is the creation.
Oh and here's another annoyance: people who string together only pre-made beads and parts, and call themselves "jewelry designers." That's not design. That's assembly.
See how my fellow jewelry artists responded to this topic (links will be added as I receive them from participants):
carnival 
Reader Comments (8)
Using a kit that has no imagination or to string something patterned substantially after someone else's design... that is what I would call "assembly".
I don't have the particular skill set that you obviously enjoy with metal fabrication. You make absolutely incredibly, drop dead gorgeous works of art. But to say that I am not a jewelry designer specifically becasue I created a piece of wearable art but didn't create the clasp, or set a stone, or form the clay, and fire it... that seems a bit arrogant to me. I think that there is room in this world for all of us to express our talents...and I celebrate that artistry in you. Someday I would love to have the time, money, training and talent to create my own unique components. I personally relish the challenge of finding artisan made components and using my imagination to inspire me to make those components sing and tell the story of the wearer... I like to incorporate those hand made pieces to my work to make it special but also to collaborate and support those jewelry designers as well. I make no two pieces alike and believe as you also do that each piece I make was intended to stand out, to be inspiring, to be one-of-a-kind.
I may not fully agree with you, but I thank you for making me think about this....
Enjoy the day!
Erin
sandrs
Assembly is a normal part of jewelry construction except for monolithic pieces that have no jewels. Does it really matter if the parts assembled are made by the same person as the finished piece? At the Bead and Button show I've seen outragiously beautiful art and jewelry constructed by the assembly technique. These makers are highly qualified to call themselves "jewelry designers" in my opinion.