Smithsonian, Renwick.... then Philly

Last Friday, I played hooky and went to go see the Smithsonian show as well as the exhibition at the Renwick. The show had me shrug- I think I'm pretty jaded at this point. The work was nice, it was pretty much the work you would expect to see- a sub-set of ACC Baltimore. There were some new artists, but not really anything *new* happening with the work. Which was disappointing to me. This show is so hard to get into, and yet it seems the same as all of the rest of the shows. Nothing innovative about it. So even with Lauren and I talking to people we knew, it took us an hour to go through the whole thing. I think that the most interesting thing I saw was a ceramics artist who had manipulated the media such that his works looked like wood. Not just kind of, but I needed to touch them to find out that they were clay. Very convincing. Which is more of a technical virtuosity impressed, but it was still the most unusual (in a good way) thing I saw.
The show at the Renwick was great! Since I've been reading so much contemporary jewelry history (while accurate, that phrase doesn't make that much sense...) that it was wonderful to see the pieces in person. I never really get a full sense of the work from the photo. I want to walk around it, see the back and the sides, and take in the piece as an entire object not as a 2d photo. As I expected, I found some work that I was really struck by, others I admired for this or that, and a lot of things that just didn't do anything for me. It was reassuring quite a bit to be able to inspect the craftsmanship and construction of the pieces and realize that these artists were human after all... From the tone of many of the books, it's easy to lose sight of that.
One of the things that I am and have been constantly fascinated by is mechanisms. This is also one of the things that I found most frustrating in production, as I never really found an elegant, easy to use (for customers), and time-efficient solution to neck cables. While I never wear brooches, one of the most alluring elements of them is how they connect to the body. There was some stretching and craning of the neck to peek at the back sides, but we managed to see most of the connections and mechanisms. I was surprised at the amount to commercial or less-than-thought out clasps. A lot of the photographs don't show you the clasps, and I assumed that many of them would follow the (my) ideal of being incorporated into the piece and complimentary of it. Nope. Several of the necklaces simply had bayonet or spring ring clasps thrown on. On the flip side there were several really nice mechanisms as well, and I do need to remember that some of these mechanisms that are commonplace now, were fresher when the pieces were made.
I confirmed that I don't really get or prefer narrative jewelry. I can appreciate the technical excellence and detail (Mawdsley) but it doesn't draw me at all. I think that much of it is too busy for me. I also re-confirmed that I am drawn to Gerd Rothmann's work. Even a piece that I hadn't seem before and is unlike his better-known body print pieces caught my eye.
Seeing Stanley Lechtzin's electroformed early work gave me a much greater appreciation for those pieces, as they are like mini subterranean landscapes. In the photos that dimensionality doesn't come across.
A couple of other thoughts- It was really great to see some of the sketches (and not just Hermann Junger!) alongside of the work. I like seeing how other artists conceive of their work and translate it onto paper. Also the display of several of the neckpieces (Caroline Broadhead's veil and sleeve, Gijs Bakker's Dew Drop, LAM de Wolf's work, etc.) was perfect. By putting the work on simplified white head (or arm) forms, the pieces really stood out. You could see the full intent and impact of the work.
Yesterday we drove up to Philadelphia to check out the Gijs Bakker show at the Phildelphia Art Alliance- totally worth the trip. And I really should remember that Philly isn't far away... and go more often. The exhibit had a very comprehensive selection of his work from the mid-60s onwards. He has explored so many different avenues in his work that seeing collections from each time period helped the work seems much more cohesive. The best example I can cite is a series of mobius strip bracelets and rings from the late 60's-early 70's. Seeing one of them, *shrug*. It's a form that has been used a lot. Seeing the exploration of that shape and the evolution of a series of bracelets from that time (20? or so) gives me a much deeper appreciation for how he works through an idea in iteration. The same with the Shot series of brooches. Seeing one displayed doesn't really show you the exploration of the idea (In this case shooting bullets into a sphere-on the computer-at different angles and then cutting away or slicing the sphere to create the bracelet forms. The holes left by the bullets become the opening for your hand.)
The exhibit has drawing up of some of the pieces, but unfortunately they are all in one room rather than with the pieces they are illustrating. I was also curious as to who did some of the more formal sketches from the 60's work- the stovepipe and neck collar pieces- and I think that the actual drawing may have been by Emmy VanLeersum.
The exhibit has several of his pvc neckpieces, but they are displayed flat rather than on forms which makes me want to pick them up in order to see how they sit (as most of the ones they had were cut in spiral form so that they would drape) on the body, otherwise the exhibit did a very nice job of displaying the work.
So, if you get the chance, both the Renwick show and the Philly show are worth it!