Messengers of Modernism

My thoughts and ruminations on Messengers of Modernism (American Studio Jewelry 1940-1960)by Toni Greenbaum

"A Craftsman's Creed:
All the fine traditions and the skill...
Are mine to use to raise my craft's renown,
And mine to teach again with reverent will...
Thus do I love to serve,
With fingers that are master of the tool."
This quote taken from the book was originally published in a 1942 artists manual.

How relevant is this today? What would be the changes and/or additions to make this resonate with artists/designers today?

I feel that the pure reverential treatment of the past in terms of technical skills does a disservice to the students today. I think that the traditions of our craft are important and should be passed along and acknowledged, I feel that all too often they are placed on a pedestal and not questioned. This worship of the old tends to leave no room for the new, and in many places breeds a fear and a reaction of inferiority and skepticism when dealing with new techniques and technologies. The rose colored lens that we view the past of our craft with is doing us a great disservice today by closing our eyes to possibilities for ensuring the future of our discipline and marginalizes our discussions and concerns about where we are headed.
However, I do feel that a broad and competent set of technical skills is necessary for a designer to be able to innovate and create. So how to reconcile these thoughts in the classroom and in practice? That needs more puzzling out, and is a question that all educators of craft fields should be examining closely.

It seems like the post WWII views in the crafts movement strongly echo the Arts & Crafts movement's ideologies at the turn of the 20th century- The emphasis on creating a more fulfilling life and society through the introduction of handmade crafts into everyday life. The idea that if people are surrounded by beautiful and meaningful objects that will raise their collective consciousness and give spiritual fulfillment to their lives. Industry and mass-produced products are the soulless opposition to be overcome.
The first part of that theorem, I don't mind- I do think that raising the status of designed objects is beneficial. I don't believe that it will somehow cure the world's ills or even really uplift anyone however. I think that it simply makes the world a more aesthetically pleasing place to exist in, and that to me has a soothing effect. Plus it benefits all of us financially as well, which is also a worthy aim.
The second part of that- where industry is viewed as the enemy of the handcraft, seems to still linger in studio practices today, and I think this is exceedingly detrimental to our field. We cannot continue to exist in our hermit's cave of pure compartmentalized studio arts, neatly arranged by discipline if we are to adapt and survive in an increasingly global networked society. It only serves to marginalize us further from relevence in today's society. I feel that instead we should look toward the post-war designers who seized the opportunity to work with industry to bring design to market. Right now this is the domain of "designers", but isn't that what we are as well? Why should we not be actively seeking these opportunities out? It is true that much of the work being produced in art jewelry and in academia is not suitable for the marketplace, however the kernel of the piece- that idea that drives it, can be. Designs can be adapted and reworked with the marketplace in mind while keeping the essence or purpose that initially spawned their creation.


Art Smith- He views jewelry as an incomplete sculptural expression until it relates to the human structure... I like that idea. It addresses the ideas that jewelry can be seen as its own object, but also that it needs to relate to the body to be complete.

Artists to look into further:
Harry Bertoia- hollowware
Art Smith
Paul Lobel
Everett MacDonald
Betty Cooke (local Baltimore!)