Published: 20.06.2014
- Author:
- Maria Cristina Bergesio
- Edited by:
- Le Arti Orafe
- Edited at:
- Florence
The conversation widened in an attempt to outline the current overall situation in research jewellery and its history through the interaction between the two generations. On the latter point there was almost unanimous agreement: Babetto, Dahm and Peters’ generation was the one marked by revolution, by the tearing up of the rulebook, by the overstepping and destruction of the limits, and was consequently a generation in a constant battle to spread the word of another way to think and create jewellery.
Contemporary Jewellery exhibition organized by Le Arti Orafe Jewellery School, Florence
Exhibition’s Commissioner: Giò Carbone
Curator and catalogue’s texts: Maria Cristina Bergesio
Florence, May-June 2010
In its fifth year, Preziosa 2010, one of the few events in Italy exclusively dedicated to the discovery and promotion of research jewellery, was taking a new direction. The four previous exhibitions were each constructed around a specific theme, and the works were selected by the curator as emblematic words to shape a discourse that examined a pre-determined aspect of research jewellery: the alternative idea of ‘precious’ in The Inspiration of the Material in 2005; the jewellery-body relationship in No body decoration in 2006; a reflection on the perception of time in Timetales in 2007; and the metamorphosis of the aesthetic concept in Cutting the mirror in 2009.
At the conclusion of the last event, the need was felt to go beyond the rigour of an approach linked to a dominant theme to give more leeway to the development of a more open, fluid idea. The intention was to ‘offer the floor’ to the artists, to create an occasion in which they were more closely involved, for which their specific point of view was required, the opportunity to describe, comment on, criticize and reflect on the current state of jewellery, and also to compare it with its past.
The preparation for the exhibition was approached as a work in progress, developed and organized at the level of dialogue, of comparison and exchange. Three masters of jewellery were asked to choose a younger artist with whom to create a dialogue. The only requirement was that of choosing an artist from a later generation who had already carried out original research with an already-recognizable language.
The curator occupied the position of prompter and mediator, seeking to weave a plot of questions, answers, proposals, statements and reflections arising from the meetings with the various artists, with the objective of drafting a log of the paths explored. The curator initiated the process, inviting three artists of three different nationalities in a North-South geographical line: the Netherlands, Switzerland and Italy. These artists have in common that they belong to the same generation, are established award-winners and have extensive experience as teachers, but at the same time they represent three different approaches to jewellery research; three artists who have been active in the field for around forty years, following completely different paths, each with complex language, a personal and characteristic Kunstwollen, although they are similar in having a tenacious spirit of research and experimentation.
The suggestion of an exquisitely subjective view was intentional, to allow the six artists involved to have room for a good say in the matter, with the possibility of stimulating a comparison between the two generations – one playing a leading role in a decisive period in the battle for international recognition of a different concept of jewellery, the other being able to work in an established, structured scenario.
The dialogues are of essential importance within the exhibition project, and are presented both in video and as enclosures in the catalogue. This material should not be considered as being merely functional to the organization of the exhibition, but rather as an integral, fundamental part thereof, complementing that of the jewellery itself. The spoken part is the weft to the chosen works’ warp, together creating the connective fabric of the exhibition. Room has been left for what might or might not result from the exchange, from the confrontation between these different points of view. The exhibition layout itself, as with the selection of the works “in dialogue” in the catalogue, have been aligned with the exchanges between the artists involved. The initial project has changed direction several times, the exhibition has really been moulded by the dialogues.
The intention was to encourage a ‘spirit of dialogue’, not merely a ‘conversation’, but rather an exchange of thoughts, a relationship in thought, a dialogue based on the desire to learn, to compare one’s own ideas and opinions.
The public is offered the possibility of getting to know the work of the six artists in a more detailed manner, but also of making contact with the person behind them. The exhibition requires more involvement, a more active participation in listening to the dialogues and in viewing the jewellery whilst attempting to read the ‘dialogue’ between them.
It is this dialogue between the jewellery, their responses, their coming together or drawing apart, the perception of assonance in the apparent diversity or the discovery of unexpected affinities the artists have experienced during the dialogues, sometimes with surprise and amazement, which will only be fully experienced in the exhibition space.
The idea of the exhibition as a fluid event, a ‘becoming’, thus fulfils itself in the feedback at the very moment of the event.
The dialogues
Dialogue – from the Greek diàlogos, made up of dià, through, and logos, speech – refers to the type of knowledge constructed through an exchange between two or more people, and so places the perspective of the exhibition on one level of possibility: to offer the occasion for a moment of reflection.
The nine videos include the three dialogues between the pairs of artists and the six individual interviews with them. In the case of the dialogues, the artists were intentionally given totally free rein so that even the way of organizing the dialogue, the approach and the development of the discussion might provide further insights into their personality. The difference between the three invited artists is thus further confirmed by the three dialogues, in which it is not unusual to find statements and stances that may be mutually antithetical. Putting them together, they form pieces of the complex mosaic of research jewellery, of its area of independent creative expression in the vaster, variegated jewellery panorama.
The interviews were carried out both in person and using new methods of communication such as Skype, the latter obviously less personally involved but at least offering the possibility of visual contact, which encourages a certain liveliness in the conversation.
With minimal variations the same questions were put, attempting to shed light, in the case of the masters, on the reasons which led them to that particular decision, the relationship with the person and with his/her work, and in the case of the younger artists, mirror-like, their image and opinion of the artist who chose them, seeking to highlight the common characteristics or the differences.
Subsequently the conversation widened in an attempt to outline the current overall situation in research jewellery and its history through the interaction between the two generations. On the latter point there was almost unanimous agreement: Babetto, Dahm and Peters’ generation was the one marked by revolution, by the tearing up of the rulebook, by the overstepping and destruction of the limits, and was consequently a generation in a constant battle to spread the word of another way to think and create jewellery. The current situation appears more critical, and in general the argument has centred more around the deep social and economic divide between the two generations, on information bombardment and the large number of creations. A loss of authenticity and quality has been remarked upon: the relatively recent methods of communication such as the Internet have facilitated certain aspects, but from a certain point of view have led to a sort of globalization of contemporary jewellery.
The interview concludes with a question regarding the lack of recognition of the artistic status of jewellery as an expression of contemporary aesthetics, an old and perhaps even boring question which was put so as to have a perception of the different personal reactions of the six artists. Confronting the question from different points of view, focusing on one aspect more than another, has shown the argument to be both multifactorial and no longer central. The peculiarity of jewellery, its complexity of implications, meanings and content, its close relationship with the body, its lack of functionality and its power of non-verbal language render it one of mankind’s most original expressions. The attention of everyone who is involved in jewellery as a form of creative research should be concentrated on a serious assessment of the quality of the work, of its validity.
Taken together, these may be considered some of the most crucial points in the history and the present of research jewellery, and it was therefore decided to reintroduce them in the shape of dialogue, to exploit them in a more immediate, lively way. This is an openly arbitrary reconstruction which has selected and summarized the various replies and statements mostly taken from the individual interviews. They are free translations, related in direct speech and produced to create the effect of an imaginary dialogue faithful to the thoughts put forward by the artists.
The revolution of the 70s
Babetto: In many parts of Europe in the 70s, lights came on. We artists created a bonding, a connection between us which led to meetings and exchanges, the birth of ideas and projects. Interest grew, galleries opened, a specific form of collecting emerged and even museums began to show an interest in the sector. We lived through an extremely stimulating period, full of positive energy, when you were aware that you were ‘doing something’, changing the rules, and enjoying yourself at the same time. The economic situation was different, it was easier to sell and there was less pressure. A world was created that hadn’t existed before. In Padova, in addition to the school, there was intense activity in artists’ studios, the opportunity to learn, converse, to have the experience of training in the field which recalled the Italian educational tradition of the ‘Renaissance bottega”.
Dahm: Ours is really the second generation; the first, that of our fathers (because they were all men), is my teachers’ generation, those who started making jewellery using an artistic approach. They still worked gold and silver, and used precious stones. What I wanted to do was to break with all this, to use plastic, aluminium and steel. I was lucky enough to live through that period, when it was easier than now to upset conventions. Certainly, I expect them to cause further upsets, because there is clearly still much to do. Our aim was the revolution, which we all perceived as a great revolution which could generate strong creative energy. I was fascinated with the possibility of finding new materials and, above all, new ways of linking the object to the body, inserting it into clothing and investigating the space around it.
Nijland: The most important thing I’ve learnt from the previous generation is the freedom to use any kind of material. For me it was obvious that I didn’t have to use gold and silver, while they fought to bring aluminium, steel and plastic into the world of jewellery. The possibility of choice is one of the most important inheritances from that generation.
Peters: I belong to the generation that constantly fought for jewellery, to get it known, to put it on the spot, to have galleries, spaces and opportunities to exhibit it. Those people are getting older, so are the collectors and myself. Sometimes I think this jewellery will disappear with my generation.
Britton: I have a lot of respect for the previous generation, because they built something that wasn’t there before. It must have been an extremely exciting time, being able to work in an area that was so unexplored.
Gut: They were the ones who demonstrated that anything was possible, in the jewellery world as elsewhere, and I still believe in that.
The current scene
Peters: For the new generation interest is focused on sales – they say “There are galleries, so good, sell my work”. From this point of view things have been easier for them, they have many more opportunities to study, places where they can exhibit – they don’t have to fight as hard. Certainly, society has changed profoundly. The excessive help that parents give their children isn’t a positive thing. My generation had to fight a lot, we didn’t get anything for nothing. “No pain, no gain”. A lot of young people say that it’s all my fault, that I’m an obstacle, that I’m there at all the exhibitions, and that they will only be able to come onto the stage when I’m gone. But I don’t agree, you have to be able to win your place, take up a position and discover new directions.
Babetto: In my opinion there’s a lack of solid basic training – I feel the schools are somewhat lightweight these days. In my day we used to learn drawing, life drawing, plastic forms, all related subjects that gave you the possibility to express yourself. We learnt how to free ourselves from the pure knowledge of a particular technique in order to use it as a function of the form, the way of thinking and our creativity. My generation is more structured.
Britton: These days it’s very easy to produce something which seems to be ‘contemporary jewellery’. A lot of things seem the same, there isn’t a definite cultural language anymore – a lot of works can appear to have been made in Barcelona or Munich. A lot of young people want to become ‘famous contemporary jewellery creators’, without knowing why, without any awareness of what they’re doing. A relevant, lucid critical appraisal of the situation is lacking, and there isn’t enough dialogue between the artists on this point. The current panorama seems unclear, therefore. For myself, it’s absolutely fundamental to understand what makes a piece of jewellery, to examine this specific area in detail, but today many of the works you see around are reflections on contemporary jewellery, a hermetic dialogue that doesn’t go any further. The sector tends to close in on itself.
Nijland: The generation after mine grew up with the Internet, and the younger people have become good at copying. I’ve seen a lot of similar things, and many limit themselves to looking at what is happening within the world of jewellery. Where are the other sources of inspiration? If the students opened up to what is beyond that world, we might see significant work. I miss a personal point of view a lot.
Dahm: It seems to me that today’s jewellery is more bound up with the stories and emotions which are put into it, and is also more decorative. I feel that the work doesn’t get to the essence, doesn’t go for the crucial point of expressing something strong.
Keyword: quality
Babetto: In my opinion it’s important to aim for quality, there should be more rigour. These days there is too much, but very often too little. I’m attracted when I feel there’s a strong idea and I see that the object has been made for that strong idea. The way of expressing the object is given by an ensemble of elements that give it a structure. It’s like writing an interesting novel in appropriate language, well-written – but sometimes these days people don’t write well.
Peters: Only quality is important. Everyone can smell quality when it’s there. You have to fight for the profundity of your work. You need to carry out a real research study, to work hard, make and remake without tiring, because the early pieces aren’t good, and so it’s important to take all the time you need to produce a valid, interesting piece of work. Your passion must be strong, you should work in your own studio like a monk, in solitude, concentrating totally on what you’re doing.
Dahm: For me the term “quality” is linked to the ability to distance oneself from one’s work, to take a step backwards, which cannot happen in the same moment, so you need time. The important thing is to view your work with a critical eye, look at it not only from the formal point of view, whether or not it has the right proportions, but asking yourself what you wanted to say, what is there in this work, and consequently reflect honestly. Only in this way can any external influence be detected. I myself think that this is a necessary step for the young, who shouldn’t just limit themselves to a teacher’s assessment, but develop a critical consciousness about what they’re doing.
Nijland: The greatest challenge these days is that everything is possible. Certainly there’s a problem of defining the levels of quality, what’s good and what isn’t. It often seems to me that valid artists receive the same attention as those that are not. The scenario isn’t clear, this is a serious problem.
Gut: I don’t have many illusions about what we can change. I have a very pragmatic view: we have to focus our attention on making good works, I don’t think there are that many good works around today. With quality you can find a way. You have to ask yourself what you’re doing, how to reach the public, and above all keep on fighting. My greatest investment is in quality. As a teacher, I have to help my students to find the quality in what they do, and I myself have to produce quality work. For me it’s the most important value now.
The problem of lack of recognition by the art world of the artistic status of jewellery
Gut: At the beginning of the 90s the previous generation probably felt frustrated by the failure of jewellery to enter the art market, to the latter’s lack of openness towards this form of creativity. In my opinion it is essential not to waste energy in despair because the art world doesn’t have room for us. Jewellery is small, a private thing. Our strength lies in being bound up with people’s lives. We cannot compete from the viewpoint of money, of means of communication – there are only a few of us. For me, we need to focus on who wears this jewellery, on the relationship that it has with the body, to be versatile and work hard on these points.
Britton: People have a restricted mentality. Put simply. They are not open enough. Certainly, this is an old battle. Every type of hierarchy has its roots in class, race and gender. The old hierarchies were constructed in a system that aimed at containing particular types of activity for centuries. If you continue along these lines you reach a decision about what is art and what is not. I find it rather amusing that apparently well-prepared artists or gallery-owners have a very narrow opinion when you say you work in contemporary jewellery as an art form. Certainly, the use of the word ‘art’ is a problem, because it’s a construct which derives from a specific European historical viewpoint designed to build hierarchies. If you continue with this idea, you clearly reach a decision about what is and isn’t allowed to be admitted into the circuit. People are very scared. I often use this example: at Documenta, Kassel in 1972, some artists refused to take part because photographs were exhibited. 1972 isn’t so far in the past, after all.
Dahm: The crux of the problem is linked to the fact that there aren’t enough people who know this world, and above all that there aren’t critics, art historians and philosophers involved with it. It’s important to expand the jewellery scene, to attract the art world with works that cross the boundaries. We have to use other types of approach to jewellery, such as when in the 80s I researched the light dimension, its ability to be a body ornament.
Babetto: There’s no market interest. Everything involving jewellery is commercialized in a different way, and as far as the art is concerned it’s not interesting enough at the market level. If you ask 10,000 Euros for a piece of jewellery they think you’re mad, but if you ask the same for a painting it’s considered very little. The lack of recognition of its artistic status is linked to many factors, for example saying that jewellery is something for young ladies. One of the reasons can be found in the difficulty in wearing a piece of contemporary jewellery, because the relationship is very intimate, you have to wear it in contact with the skin, it’s more difficult than architecture. People aren’t used to this jewellery, wearing it becomes an important but difficult step to take. You often see people with conceptually-advanced clothes who nevertheless wear traditional jewellery.
Peters: People are scared of being different. They want to be distinct, but not too much. There are firm boundaries, and if you cross them you’re out. If you move outside the boundaries you become an alien, and aliens have to explain why they’re on earth. Walking down the street wearing a strong piece of jewellery isn’t easy, you really have to have courage. I much admire the people who wear the more powerful jewellery. Beyond that, if I have to reply bluntly to why jewellery isn’t recognized as an art form, I say “It’s their fault!”. Jewellery creators aren’t investing enough, they aren’t fighting for profundity in their work.
Nijland: It’s a difficult question, there are many reasons. The most obvious are its close link to the body, to the fact that it is worn mostly by women and that therefore from the outside people don’t see it as an independent art form. What is certain is that if we remain closed inside our circle asking ourselves why we aren’t understood, we won’t be. I believe it’s important to create works with content that can be of interest to more people, escape from a purely self-referential language. It’s a challenge, but I believe that the whole world can be expressed with jewellery, jewellery can be really strong.
Dialogue 1 Giampaolo Babetto – Helen Britton
The particular aspect of this dialogue is that it came about at the time of the exhibition project itself. The personal introductions, in this case, were fortuitous, the dialogue was a real encounter at a moment dedicated (to the exhibition) and which held a few surprises.
Giampaolo Babetto chose the work of Helen Britton on the basis of the emotions he felt when coming face to face with her jewellery at various exhibitions. Helen Britton became familiar with Babetto’s work from a book while she was studying in Australia; for her, he represented a completely European, and specifically Italian, artistic milieu.
Babetto’s choice arose from the desire for a comparison with an effectively opposite approach in which one can recognize the originality, the freshness, but above all an emotional intensity which can’t be described in words – “a subterranean poetry which exists within the object and which you can only perceive, not define in words”.
The greatest attraction which Britton finds in Babetto’s work is the materiality of his jewellery, which makes them alive, pulsating – the simplicity and essentiality of the shapes are distanced from coldness and pure abstraction thanks to the intensity and quality of work on the materials.
Before the dialogue took place, the differences were perceived as much more numerous than the similarities. Above all, their backgrounds are completely different: while Babetto has his roots in European Modernism, Britton declares herself a daughter of Post-Modernism. This belonging to profoundly different cultural perspectives has led to the development of opposing needs. Roots in a European background laden with the weight of an incredible stratification and wealth of artworks led Babetto to search for a reduction to the minimum in order to rediscover the fundamental elements, whilst in Australia the vastness of the available space and the meagre amount of traces of human activity led to Britton adopting a mechanism of conservation, a natural stimulus to keep, collect and put together.
In the video of their dialogue you can see the lack of a real plan, everything happens (symbolically but also in reality) as if it was “putting their cards on the table”, guided by the desire to tell and listen to their stories in turn.
When the jewellery and drawings were placed next to each other, however, the differences started to thin out, allowing previously unimaginable points of contact to emerge. Both demonstrate the importance they give to the structure, to the construction of a volume, of shapes that enclose space – there is an evident common interest in architecture, but above all the express a similar passion for the creative process. This is a long process, given that up to two years can elapse from an idea developed in a drawing taking shape as a piece of jewellery.
The drawings show a similar outline and energy, marked lines, a constructive function given to colour, which recall the pieces by the other artist, and this is why they are beside each other in the catalogue.
In noting the affinity between their drawings, Britton suggested the idea of an experiment: to exchange a drawing each and develop a piece of jewellery from this, provide the other one with starting point to see what might emerge.
Surprised witnesses of this intense dialogue between their works, both considered it absolutely logical and natural to opt for a joint presentation.
There is not only a formal harmony between their jewellery; it is also possible to perceive a rational sub-stratum which has characterized a particular way of thinking of the object, an act of selection of its components. The pieces complement each other, they dialogue with the intrinsic language of the works, so that they spontaneously establish an empathetic relationship.
Dialogue 2 Johanna Dahm – Andi Gut
This dialogue is between teacher and student, in this case with the peculiarity that nowadays the student occupies the position that his teacher held for fifteen years.
The fundamental theme that comes through is the passage of involvement from one generation to the other, focussed on the commitment to developing the young.
Dahm’s choice is certainly linked to Andi Gut’s work, but also to the relationship that has been established between the two, seeing that it was Dahm who convinced him to study at the University of Pforzheim Design School. Pforzheim is the symbolic place in their relationship, and it is no coincidence that their dialogue took place there, both in the space dedicated to the personal exhibition by Dahm in the Schmuckmuseum and in Gut’s studio.
The fact that they are both German-Swiss, that they speak “Schwyzer Dütsch” together, has naturally led to a close relationship, and Gut stated that, as a student, he had to create his own space in order to develop his own identity.
It is in this element that one can find the key to reading their dialogue, focussed largely on the work of a teacher, on what it is important to transmit to their students, and how much commitment and involvement the work requires.
What Gut recognizes as his greatest inheritance from Dahm’s teaching is the approach to assessment of the works: the adoption of a neutral viewpoint which remains on the objects, on their meaning, on what they evoke, describing them without preconceived ideas, without thinking about what they should be. An approach to teaching which is not founded on recipes, therefore, but which is directed towards the development of a critical, reflective spirit regarding what one is doing – an independent, autonomous approach finds its own path compared with that of the mentor.
In my opinion this is the most interesting result brought to light in the dialogue, evidenced by the stronger emergence of differences rather than similarities.
On the one hand Dahm says that she always aims for control, even when she tries to “do the impossible”, as in the fast Ashanti works, when she models the piece by working solely on the empty space of the form, or in her research with light at the end of the 80s and beginning of the 90s. Her way of working is intense, passionate and without pause; what she makes has to be just right, and if something doesn’t work out, then, after a moment of frustration, she starts again, seeks a different way, tries another time. A clear example can be seen in the books full of notes and sketches for her cast works Ashanti and fast Ashanti.
Gut, on the other hand, develops his work in a more carefree, more playful way, following the ideas that come to him, remaining open to the possibilities that might present themselves, not forcing the direction but trying to let himself be carried along by his own current.
The still more surprising aspect is the almost reverse development of their work: Dahm started with an extremely rigid Modernist approach, while one sees greater freedom and fluidity in the latest work.
Gut’s path, however, shows his passage from strong spontaneity, humour and lightness to works which are more planned and considered.
When their works are placed next to each other the differences become still clearer, their essence pushes them in opposite directions, distancing them – one can perceive a kind of centrifugal force between them.
Looking at Moving Line (Dahm, 1983) and Aereal Roots (Gut, 2002), they can at first be seen as works that investigate the space around the body, but these forms emerge from the body with a completely different way of thinking and effect: Dahm’s undulating line takes firm possession of areas not yet explored in traditional forms of jewellery, whilst Gut’s ‘roots’ appear to be microorganisms which live and grow because they are fed by the body.
A limited-series work was Dahm’s first work in 1974, as was Gut’s Eyelashes with finegold balls (1998); it was not conceived as a one-off piece, but the rational language of Dahm’s works in Plexiglas has no relationship with a work bound up with the transitory nature of a moment, in which small gold spheres are fixed on the eyelashes of the commissioner of the piece.
The works that show a more similar spirit are the Anamorphotic Brooches (Dahm, 1990) and the Dingring series (Gut, 1999); both require the viewer to bring their eye close up to the object in order to see, in the former, the reflection of the image and, in the latter, the microfilm inside the ring.
The dialogue between Dahm and Gut exemplifies the possibility of attraction in diversity, and shows how a similar cultural background and the teacher-student relationship can nevertheless lead to deep diversity in the creative language with the change of generation.
Dialogue 3 Ruudt Peters – Evert Nijland
Starting with the video produced by the two artists, the particular features of the dialogue between Ruudt Peters and Evert Nijland are apparent. The care taken in shooting it, in the framing and the backgrounds, bears witness to a more cerebral approach to the discussion, revealing much about the personality and work of the two. The space around them (Peters’ studio) has much less importance, the focus is on the coherent dialogue between them. A discussion that starts from the reasons for the choice, but which then enters into an examination of the stages of the creative process, how it develops and is organized, to probe more deeply the reasons for the work, what they tend towards, what is considered more important.
Nijland, the student, who has been working for ten years, has closed the gap with the master, is now at the same level and can therefore express his judgement with complete freedom of thought. The fundamental reason for Peters’ choice is in fact connected to the sensation of being able to communicate with him at a profound level.
The similarities between them are indeed many, starting with the work organized in collections around a central theme, which involves a stage of detailed study of the argument, and then making a clean sweep in order to be free, in the executive stage of the work, to enjoy an active experience, to find the language and the solutions that can best express the idea that they want to communicate.
Both seek their sources of inspiration outside the jewellery environment, religion and alchemy for Peters, the history of past art for Nijland. The possibility of being connected to the world, providing their own reinterpretation and being capable of transfusing it into the small dimension of jewellery is the greatest challenge perceived by the two artists.
In reality, in the dialogue the term “artist” is disputed by Peters, who prefers “creator of jewellery”, which also appears more correct to Nijland. For both, it is important not to deny the discipline of jewellery, the work that for days and days requires great concentration on a small scale, careful observation, turning the object in the hand again and again, the attention to detail up to the point of obsession. Jewellery is perceived in its specific nature, in its relationship with the body. For Nijland, all the parts have to respond to the content, must support it, in order to give more strength to the finished piece, something he learnt from Peters.
The only obvious difference that emerged is linked to the generations to which they belong. The minimal culture in which Peters developed continues to be seen in the extreme precision and rationality with which he constructs his pieces. Nijland, on the other hand, has breathed the Post-Modern air, his generation has welcomed the past with open arms, rejecting the rational regime of Modernism.
Bringing their works close to each other, there emerged a clear semantic force, the shapes evoke each other, there are similar effects of shading and use of colour. This amazed the two artists, who did not imagine how closely their jewellery was connected, but their sharing a way of thinking also has a clear reflection in the expressive language.
In this case the dialogue appears to have originated and developed from an attraction grounded in a similar wave of energy. Next to each other, the works enter into an urgent dialogue, symmetrical with the one we hear in their video.
I would like to thank the six artists for the commitment and work they have dedicated to this project, and also for the warm welcome they have given me.
Maria Cristina Bergesio-2016-2016
Exhibition’s Commissioner: Giò Carbone
Curator and catalogue’s texts: Maria Cristina Bergesio
Florence, May-June 2010
In its fifth year, Preziosa 2010, one of the few events in Italy exclusively dedicated to the discovery and promotion of research jewellery, was taking a new direction. The four previous exhibitions were each constructed around a specific theme, and the works were selected by the curator as emblematic words to shape a discourse that examined a pre-determined aspect of research jewellery: the alternative idea of ‘precious’ in The Inspiration of the Material in 2005; the jewellery-body relationship in No body decoration in 2006; a reflection on the perception of time in Timetales in 2007; and the metamorphosis of the aesthetic concept in Cutting the mirror in 2009.
At the conclusion of the last event, the need was felt to go beyond the rigour of an approach linked to a dominant theme to give more leeway to the development of a more open, fluid idea. The intention was to ‘offer the floor’ to the artists, to create an occasion in which they were more closely involved, for which their specific point of view was required, the opportunity to describe, comment on, criticize and reflect on the current state of jewellery, and also to compare it with its past.
The preparation for the exhibition was approached as a work in progress, developed and organized at the level of dialogue, of comparison and exchange. Three masters of jewellery were asked to choose a younger artist with whom to create a dialogue. The only requirement was that of choosing an artist from a later generation who had already carried out original research with an already-recognizable language.
The curator occupied the position of prompter and mediator, seeking to weave a plot of questions, answers, proposals, statements and reflections arising from the meetings with the various artists, with the objective of drafting a log of the paths explored. The curator initiated the process, inviting three artists of three different nationalities in a North-South geographical line: the Netherlands, Switzerland and Italy. These artists have in common that they belong to the same generation, are established award-winners and have extensive experience as teachers, but at the same time they represent three different approaches to jewellery research; three artists who have been active in the field for around forty years, following completely different paths, each with complex language, a personal and characteristic Kunstwollen, although they are similar in having a tenacious spirit of research and experimentation.
The suggestion of an exquisitely subjective view was intentional, to allow the six artists involved to have room for a good say in the matter, with the possibility of stimulating a comparison between the two generations – one playing a leading role in a decisive period in the battle for international recognition of a different concept of jewellery, the other being able to work in an established, structured scenario.
The dialogues are of essential importance within the exhibition project, and are presented both in video and as enclosures in the catalogue. This material should not be considered as being merely functional to the organization of the exhibition, but rather as an integral, fundamental part thereof, complementing that of the jewellery itself. The spoken part is the weft to the chosen works’ warp, together creating the connective fabric of the exhibition. Room has been left for what might or might not result from the exchange, from the confrontation between these different points of view. The exhibition layout itself, as with the selection of the works “in dialogue” in the catalogue, have been aligned with the exchanges between the artists involved. The initial project has changed direction several times, the exhibition has really been moulded by the dialogues.
The intention was to encourage a ‘spirit of dialogue’, not merely a ‘conversation’, but rather an exchange of thoughts, a relationship in thought, a dialogue based on the desire to learn, to compare one’s own ideas and opinions.
The public is offered the possibility of getting to know the work of the six artists in a more detailed manner, but also of making contact with the person behind them. The exhibition requires more involvement, a more active participation in listening to the dialogues and in viewing the jewellery whilst attempting to read the ‘dialogue’ between them.
It is this dialogue between the jewellery, their responses, their coming together or drawing apart, the perception of assonance in the apparent diversity or the discovery of unexpected affinities the artists have experienced during the dialogues, sometimes with surprise and amazement, which will only be fully experienced in the exhibition space.
The idea of the exhibition as a fluid event, a ‘becoming’, thus fulfils itself in the feedback at the very moment of the event.
The dialogues
Dialogue – from the Greek diàlogos, made up of dià, through, and logos, speech – refers to the type of knowledge constructed through an exchange between two or more people, and so places the perspective of the exhibition on one level of possibility: to offer the occasion for a moment of reflection.
The nine videos include the three dialogues between the pairs of artists and the six individual interviews with them. In the case of the dialogues, the artists were intentionally given totally free rein so that even the way of organizing the dialogue, the approach and the development of the discussion might provide further insights into their personality. The difference between the three invited artists is thus further confirmed by the three dialogues, in which it is not unusual to find statements and stances that may be mutually antithetical. Putting them together, they form pieces of the complex mosaic of research jewellery, of its area of independent creative expression in the vaster, variegated jewellery panorama.
The interviews were carried out both in person and using new methods of communication such as Skype, the latter obviously less personally involved but at least offering the possibility of visual contact, which encourages a certain liveliness in the conversation.
With minimal variations the same questions were put, attempting to shed light, in the case of the masters, on the reasons which led them to that particular decision, the relationship with the person and with his/her work, and in the case of the younger artists, mirror-like, their image and opinion of the artist who chose them, seeking to highlight the common characteristics or the differences.
Subsequently the conversation widened in an attempt to outline the current overall situation in research jewellery and its history through the interaction between the two generations. On the latter point there was almost unanimous agreement: Babetto, Dahm and Peters’ generation was the one marked by revolution, by the tearing up of the rulebook, by the overstepping and destruction of the limits, and was consequently a generation in a constant battle to spread the word of another way to think and create jewellery. The current situation appears more critical, and in general the argument has centred more around the deep social and economic divide between the two generations, on information bombardment and the large number of creations. A loss of authenticity and quality has been remarked upon: the relatively recent methods of communication such as the Internet have facilitated certain aspects, but from a certain point of view have led to a sort of globalization of contemporary jewellery.
The interview concludes with a question regarding the lack of recognition of the artistic status of jewellery as an expression of contemporary aesthetics, an old and perhaps even boring question which was put so as to have a perception of the different personal reactions of the six artists. Confronting the question from different points of view, focusing on one aspect more than another, has shown the argument to be both multifactorial and no longer central. The peculiarity of jewellery, its complexity of implications, meanings and content, its close relationship with the body, its lack of functionality and its power of non-verbal language render it one of mankind’s most original expressions. The attention of everyone who is involved in jewellery as a form of creative research should be concentrated on a serious assessment of the quality of the work, of its validity.
Taken together, these may be considered some of the most crucial points in the history and the present of research jewellery, and it was therefore decided to reintroduce them in the shape of dialogue, to exploit them in a more immediate, lively way. This is an openly arbitrary reconstruction which has selected and summarized the various replies and statements mostly taken from the individual interviews. They are free translations, related in direct speech and produced to create the effect of an imaginary dialogue faithful to the thoughts put forward by the artists.
The revolution of the 70s
Babetto: In many parts of Europe in the 70s, lights came on. We artists created a bonding, a connection between us which led to meetings and exchanges, the birth of ideas and projects. Interest grew, galleries opened, a specific form of collecting emerged and even museums began to show an interest in the sector. We lived through an extremely stimulating period, full of positive energy, when you were aware that you were ‘doing something’, changing the rules, and enjoying yourself at the same time. The economic situation was different, it was easier to sell and there was less pressure. A world was created that hadn’t existed before. In Padova, in addition to the school, there was intense activity in artists’ studios, the opportunity to learn, converse, to have the experience of training in the field which recalled the Italian educational tradition of the ‘Renaissance bottega”.
Dahm: Ours is really the second generation; the first, that of our fathers (because they were all men), is my teachers’ generation, those who started making jewellery using an artistic approach. They still worked gold and silver, and used precious stones. What I wanted to do was to break with all this, to use plastic, aluminium and steel. I was lucky enough to live through that period, when it was easier than now to upset conventions. Certainly, I expect them to cause further upsets, because there is clearly still much to do. Our aim was the revolution, which we all perceived as a great revolution which could generate strong creative energy. I was fascinated with the possibility of finding new materials and, above all, new ways of linking the object to the body, inserting it into clothing and investigating the space around it.
Nijland: The most important thing I’ve learnt from the previous generation is the freedom to use any kind of material. For me it was obvious that I didn’t have to use gold and silver, while they fought to bring aluminium, steel and plastic into the world of jewellery. The possibility of choice is one of the most important inheritances from that generation.
Peters: I belong to the generation that constantly fought for jewellery, to get it known, to put it on the spot, to have galleries, spaces and opportunities to exhibit it. Those people are getting older, so are the collectors and myself. Sometimes I think this jewellery will disappear with my generation.
Britton: I have a lot of respect for the previous generation, because they built something that wasn’t there before. It must have been an extremely exciting time, being able to work in an area that was so unexplored.
Gut: They were the ones who demonstrated that anything was possible, in the jewellery world as elsewhere, and I still believe in that.
The current scene
Peters: For the new generation interest is focused on sales – they say “There are galleries, so good, sell my work”. From this point of view things have been easier for them, they have many more opportunities to study, places where they can exhibit – they don’t have to fight as hard. Certainly, society has changed profoundly. The excessive help that parents give their children isn’t a positive thing. My generation had to fight a lot, we didn’t get anything for nothing. “No pain, no gain”. A lot of young people say that it’s all my fault, that I’m an obstacle, that I’m there at all the exhibitions, and that they will only be able to come onto the stage when I’m gone. But I don’t agree, you have to be able to win your place, take up a position and discover new directions.
Babetto: In my opinion there’s a lack of solid basic training – I feel the schools are somewhat lightweight these days. In my day we used to learn drawing, life drawing, plastic forms, all related subjects that gave you the possibility to express yourself. We learnt how to free ourselves from the pure knowledge of a particular technique in order to use it as a function of the form, the way of thinking and our creativity. My generation is more structured.
Britton: These days it’s very easy to produce something which seems to be ‘contemporary jewellery’. A lot of things seem the same, there isn’t a definite cultural language anymore – a lot of works can appear to have been made in Barcelona or Munich. A lot of young people want to become ‘famous contemporary jewellery creators’, without knowing why, without any awareness of what they’re doing. A relevant, lucid critical appraisal of the situation is lacking, and there isn’t enough dialogue between the artists on this point. The current panorama seems unclear, therefore. For myself, it’s absolutely fundamental to understand what makes a piece of jewellery, to examine this specific area in detail, but today many of the works you see around are reflections on contemporary jewellery, a hermetic dialogue that doesn’t go any further. The sector tends to close in on itself.
Nijland: The generation after mine grew up with the Internet, and the younger people have become good at copying. I’ve seen a lot of similar things, and many limit themselves to looking at what is happening within the world of jewellery. Where are the other sources of inspiration? If the students opened up to what is beyond that world, we might see significant work. I miss a personal point of view a lot.
Dahm: It seems to me that today’s jewellery is more bound up with the stories and emotions which are put into it, and is also more decorative. I feel that the work doesn’t get to the essence, doesn’t go for the crucial point of expressing something strong.
Keyword: quality
Babetto: In my opinion it’s important to aim for quality, there should be more rigour. These days there is too much, but very often too little. I’m attracted when I feel there’s a strong idea and I see that the object has been made for that strong idea. The way of expressing the object is given by an ensemble of elements that give it a structure. It’s like writing an interesting novel in appropriate language, well-written – but sometimes these days people don’t write well.
Peters: Only quality is important. Everyone can smell quality when it’s there. You have to fight for the profundity of your work. You need to carry out a real research study, to work hard, make and remake without tiring, because the early pieces aren’t good, and so it’s important to take all the time you need to produce a valid, interesting piece of work. Your passion must be strong, you should work in your own studio like a monk, in solitude, concentrating totally on what you’re doing.
Dahm: For me the term “quality” is linked to the ability to distance oneself from one’s work, to take a step backwards, which cannot happen in the same moment, so you need time. The important thing is to view your work with a critical eye, look at it not only from the formal point of view, whether or not it has the right proportions, but asking yourself what you wanted to say, what is there in this work, and consequently reflect honestly. Only in this way can any external influence be detected. I myself think that this is a necessary step for the young, who shouldn’t just limit themselves to a teacher’s assessment, but develop a critical consciousness about what they’re doing.
Nijland: The greatest challenge these days is that everything is possible. Certainly there’s a problem of defining the levels of quality, what’s good and what isn’t. It often seems to me that valid artists receive the same attention as those that are not. The scenario isn’t clear, this is a serious problem.
Gut: I don’t have many illusions about what we can change. I have a very pragmatic view: we have to focus our attention on making good works, I don’t think there are that many good works around today. With quality you can find a way. You have to ask yourself what you’re doing, how to reach the public, and above all keep on fighting. My greatest investment is in quality. As a teacher, I have to help my students to find the quality in what they do, and I myself have to produce quality work. For me it’s the most important value now.
The problem of lack of recognition by the art world of the artistic status of jewellery
Gut: At the beginning of the 90s the previous generation probably felt frustrated by the failure of jewellery to enter the art market, to the latter’s lack of openness towards this form of creativity. In my opinion it is essential not to waste energy in despair because the art world doesn’t have room for us. Jewellery is small, a private thing. Our strength lies in being bound up with people’s lives. We cannot compete from the viewpoint of money, of means of communication – there are only a few of us. For me, we need to focus on who wears this jewellery, on the relationship that it has with the body, to be versatile and work hard on these points.
Britton: People have a restricted mentality. Put simply. They are not open enough. Certainly, this is an old battle. Every type of hierarchy has its roots in class, race and gender. The old hierarchies were constructed in a system that aimed at containing particular types of activity for centuries. If you continue along these lines you reach a decision about what is art and what is not. I find it rather amusing that apparently well-prepared artists or gallery-owners have a very narrow opinion when you say you work in contemporary jewellery as an art form. Certainly, the use of the word ‘art’ is a problem, because it’s a construct which derives from a specific European historical viewpoint designed to build hierarchies. If you continue with this idea, you clearly reach a decision about what is and isn’t allowed to be admitted into the circuit. People are very scared. I often use this example: at Documenta, Kassel in 1972, some artists refused to take part because photographs were exhibited. 1972 isn’t so far in the past, after all.
Dahm: The crux of the problem is linked to the fact that there aren’t enough people who know this world, and above all that there aren’t critics, art historians and philosophers involved with it. It’s important to expand the jewellery scene, to attract the art world with works that cross the boundaries. We have to use other types of approach to jewellery, such as when in the 80s I researched the light dimension, its ability to be a body ornament.
Babetto: There’s no market interest. Everything involving jewellery is commercialized in a different way, and as far as the art is concerned it’s not interesting enough at the market level. If you ask 10,000 Euros for a piece of jewellery they think you’re mad, but if you ask the same for a painting it’s considered very little. The lack of recognition of its artistic status is linked to many factors, for example saying that jewellery is something for young ladies. One of the reasons can be found in the difficulty in wearing a piece of contemporary jewellery, because the relationship is very intimate, you have to wear it in contact with the skin, it’s more difficult than architecture. People aren’t used to this jewellery, wearing it becomes an important but difficult step to take. You often see people with conceptually-advanced clothes who nevertheless wear traditional jewellery.
Peters: People are scared of being different. They want to be distinct, but not too much. There are firm boundaries, and if you cross them you’re out. If you move outside the boundaries you become an alien, and aliens have to explain why they’re on earth. Walking down the street wearing a strong piece of jewellery isn’t easy, you really have to have courage. I much admire the people who wear the more powerful jewellery. Beyond that, if I have to reply bluntly to why jewellery isn’t recognized as an art form, I say “It’s their fault!”. Jewellery creators aren’t investing enough, they aren’t fighting for profundity in their work.
Nijland: It’s a difficult question, there are many reasons. The most obvious are its close link to the body, to the fact that it is worn mostly by women and that therefore from the outside people don’t see it as an independent art form. What is certain is that if we remain closed inside our circle asking ourselves why we aren’t understood, we won’t be. I believe it’s important to create works with content that can be of interest to more people, escape from a purely self-referential language. It’s a challenge, but I believe that the whole world can be expressed with jewellery, jewellery can be really strong.
Dialogue 1 Giampaolo Babetto – Helen Britton
The particular aspect of this dialogue is that it came about at the time of the exhibition project itself. The personal introductions, in this case, were fortuitous, the dialogue was a real encounter at a moment dedicated (to the exhibition) and which held a few surprises.
Giampaolo Babetto chose the work of Helen Britton on the basis of the emotions he felt when coming face to face with her jewellery at various exhibitions. Helen Britton became familiar with Babetto’s work from a book while she was studying in Australia; for her, he represented a completely European, and specifically Italian, artistic milieu.
Babetto’s choice arose from the desire for a comparison with an effectively opposite approach in which one can recognize the originality, the freshness, but above all an emotional intensity which can’t be described in words – “a subterranean poetry which exists within the object and which you can only perceive, not define in words”.
The greatest attraction which Britton finds in Babetto’s work is the materiality of his jewellery, which makes them alive, pulsating – the simplicity and essentiality of the shapes are distanced from coldness and pure abstraction thanks to the intensity and quality of work on the materials.
Before the dialogue took place, the differences were perceived as much more numerous than the similarities. Above all, their backgrounds are completely different: while Babetto has his roots in European Modernism, Britton declares herself a daughter of Post-Modernism. This belonging to profoundly different cultural perspectives has led to the development of opposing needs. Roots in a European background laden with the weight of an incredible stratification and wealth of artworks led Babetto to search for a reduction to the minimum in order to rediscover the fundamental elements, whilst in Australia the vastness of the available space and the meagre amount of traces of human activity led to Britton adopting a mechanism of conservation, a natural stimulus to keep, collect and put together.
In the video of their dialogue you can see the lack of a real plan, everything happens (symbolically but also in reality) as if it was “putting their cards on the table”, guided by the desire to tell and listen to their stories in turn.
When the jewellery and drawings were placed next to each other, however, the differences started to thin out, allowing previously unimaginable points of contact to emerge. Both demonstrate the importance they give to the structure, to the construction of a volume, of shapes that enclose space – there is an evident common interest in architecture, but above all the express a similar passion for the creative process. This is a long process, given that up to two years can elapse from an idea developed in a drawing taking shape as a piece of jewellery.
The drawings show a similar outline and energy, marked lines, a constructive function given to colour, which recall the pieces by the other artist, and this is why they are beside each other in the catalogue.
In noting the affinity between their drawings, Britton suggested the idea of an experiment: to exchange a drawing each and develop a piece of jewellery from this, provide the other one with starting point to see what might emerge.
Surprised witnesses of this intense dialogue between their works, both considered it absolutely logical and natural to opt for a joint presentation.
There is not only a formal harmony between their jewellery; it is also possible to perceive a rational sub-stratum which has characterized a particular way of thinking of the object, an act of selection of its components. The pieces complement each other, they dialogue with the intrinsic language of the works, so that they spontaneously establish an empathetic relationship.
Dialogue 2 Johanna Dahm – Andi Gut
This dialogue is between teacher and student, in this case with the peculiarity that nowadays the student occupies the position that his teacher held for fifteen years.
The fundamental theme that comes through is the passage of involvement from one generation to the other, focussed on the commitment to developing the young.
Dahm’s choice is certainly linked to Andi Gut’s work, but also to the relationship that has been established between the two, seeing that it was Dahm who convinced him to study at the University of Pforzheim Design School. Pforzheim is the symbolic place in their relationship, and it is no coincidence that their dialogue took place there, both in the space dedicated to the personal exhibition by Dahm in the Schmuckmuseum and in Gut’s studio.
The fact that they are both German-Swiss, that they speak “Schwyzer Dütsch” together, has naturally led to a close relationship, and Gut stated that, as a student, he had to create his own space in order to develop his own identity.
It is in this element that one can find the key to reading their dialogue, focussed largely on the work of a teacher, on what it is important to transmit to their students, and how much commitment and involvement the work requires.
What Gut recognizes as his greatest inheritance from Dahm’s teaching is the approach to assessment of the works: the adoption of a neutral viewpoint which remains on the objects, on their meaning, on what they evoke, describing them without preconceived ideas, without thinking about what they should be. An approach to teaching which is not founded on recipes, therefore, but which is directed towards the development of a critical, reflective spirit regarding what one is doing – an independent, autonomous approach finds its own path compared with that of the mentor.
In my opinion this is the most interesting result brought to light in the dialogue, evidenced by the stronger emergence of differences rather than similarities.
On the one hand Dahm says that she always aims for control, even when she tries to “do the impossible”, as in the fast Ashanti works, when she models the piece by working solely on the empty space of the form, or in her research with light at the end of the 80s and beginning of the 90s. Her way of working is intense, passionate and without pause; what she makes has to be just right, and if something doesn’t work out, then, after a moment of frustration, she starts again, seeks a different way, tries another time. A clear example can be seen in the books full of notes and sketches for her cast works Ashanti and fast Ashanti.
Gut, on the other hand, develops his work in a more carefree, more playful way, following the ideas that come to him, remaining open to the possibilities that might present themselves, not forcing the direction but trying to let himself be carried along by his own current.
The still more surprising aspect is the almost reverse development of their work: Dahm started with an extremely rigid Modernist approach, while one sees greater freedom and fluidity in the latest work.
Gut’s path, however, shows his passage from strong spontaneity, humour and lightness to works which are more planned and considered.
When their works are placed next to each other the differences become still clearer, their essence pushes them in opposite directions, distancing them – one can perceive a kind of centrifugal force between them.
Looking at Moving Line (Dahm, 1983) and Aereal Roots (Gut, 2002), they can at first be seen as works that investigate the space around the body, but these forms emerge from the body with a completely different way of thinking and effect: Dahm’s undulating line takes firm possession of areas not yet explored in traditional forms of jewellery, whilst Gut’s ‘roots’ appear to be microorganisms which live and grow because they are fed by the body.
A limited-series work was Dahm’s first work in 1974, as was Gut’s Eyelashes with finegold balls (1998); it was not conceived as a one-off piece, but the rational language of Dahm’s works in Plexiglas has no relationship with a work bound up with the transitory nature of a moment, in which small gold spheres are fixed on the eyelashes of the commissioner of the piece.
The works that show a more similar spirit are the Anamorphotic Brooches (Dahm, 1990) and the Dingring series (Gut, 1999); both require the viewer to bring their eye close up to the object in order to see, in the former, the reflection of the image and, in the latter, the microfilm inside the ring.
The dialogue between Dahm and Gut exemplifies the possibility of attraction in diversity, and shows how a similar cultural background and the teacher-student relationship can nevertheless lead to deep diversity in the creative language with the change of generation.
Dialogue 3 Ruudt Peters – Evert Nijland
Starting with the video produced by the two artists, the particular features of the dialogue between Ruudt Peters and Evert Nijland are apparent. The care taken in shooting it, in the framing and the backgrounds, bears witness to a more cerebral approach to the discussion, revealing much about the personality and work of the two. The space around them (Peters’ studio) has much less importance, the focus is on the coherent dialogue between them. A discussion that starts from the reasons for the choice, but which then enters into an examination of the stages of the creative process, how it develops and is organized, to probe more deeply the reasons for the work, what they tend towards, what is considered more important.
Nijland, the student, who has been working for ten years, has closed the gap with the master, is now at the same level and can therefore express his judgement with complete freedom of thought. The fundamental reason for Peters’ choice is in fact connected to the sensation of being able to communicate with him at a profound level.
The similarities between them are indeed many, starting with the work organized in collections around a central theme, which involves a stage of detailed study of the argument, and then making a clean sweep in order to be free, in the executive stage of the work, to enjoy an active experience, to find the language and the solutions that can best express the idea that they want to communicate.
Both seek their sources of inspiration outside the jewellery environment, religion and alchemy for Peters, the history of past art for Nijland. The possibility of being connected to the world, providing their own reinterpretation and being capable of transfusing it into the small dimension of jewellery is the greatest challenge perceived by the two artists.
In reality, in the dialogue the term “artist” is disputed by Peters, who prefers “creator of jewellery”, which also appears more correct to Nijland. For both, it is important not to deny the discipline of jewellery, the work that for days and days requires great concentration on a small scale, careful observation, turning the object in the hand again and again, the attention to detail up to the point of obsession. Jewellery is perceived in its specific nature, in its relationship with the body. For Nijland, all the parts have to respond to the content, must support it, in order to give more strength to the finished piece, something he learnt from Peters.
The only obvious difference that emerged is linked to the generations to which they belong. The minimal culture in which Peters developed continues to be seen in the extreme precision and rationality with which he constructs his pieces. Nijland, on the other hand, has breathed the Post-Modern air, his generation has welcomed the past with open arms, rejecting the rational regime of Modernism.
Bringing their works close to each other, there emerged a clear semantic force, the shapes evoke each other, there are similar effects of shading and use of colour. This amazed the two artists, who did not imagine how closely their jewellery was connected, but their sharing a way of thinking also has a clear reflection in the expressive language.
In this case the dialogue appears to have originated and developed from an attraction grounded in a similar wave of energy. Next to each other, the works enter into an urgent dialogue, symmetrical with the one we hear in their video.
I would like to thank the six artists for the commitment and work they have dedicated to this project, and also for the warm welcome they have given me.
Maria Cristina Bergesio-2016-2016
Remarks
PREZIOSA 2010, the exhibition organized by LAO –Le Arti Orafe Jewellery School in Florencewww.preziosa.org/en/2010.html
- Author:
- Maria Cristina Bergesio
- Edited by:
- Le Arti Orafe
- Edited at:
- Florence
Forum Shortcuts
-
Mia Copíková. Hochschule Trier. Selected Graduate 2017
14Aug2017 -
Hayan Kim. Hochschule Düsseldorf, Peter Behrens School of Arts, Applied Art and Design. Selected Graduate 2017
06Aug2017 -
The City Goldsmith Tabea Reulecke visits Hanau
20Jul2017 -
Chih Jou -Yolanda- Chiu. Academy of Art University. Selected Graduate 2017
12Jul2017 -
Lucy Ganley. Central Saint Martins. Selected Graduate 2017
06Jul2017 -
Laura Salguero. EASD Valencia. Selected Graduate 2017
04Jul2017 -
Preziosa 2017 - Florence Jewellery Week: an overview
27Jun2017 -
Sam Lane. University for the Creative Arts. Selected Graduate 2017
23Jun2017 -
Reality is fiction. Gallantly valuable jewels
21Jun2017 -
Jussi Järvinen. Saimaa University of Applied Sciences. Selected Graduate 2017
21Jun2017 -
Su Yu Ching. LAO - Le Arti Orafe Jewellery School. Selected Graduate 2017
19Jun2017 -
Back to the Wearable. On Peter Bauhuis and his 'Replika' project by Pravu Mazumdar
16Jun2017 -
Jewellery as Free Form and Visual Impact
02Jun2017 -
Zoe Brand. A.N.U. School of Art & Design. Selected Graduate 2015
01Jun2017 -
On Camp Ceramics and Other Diversions
25May2017
