If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
How was this made?
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 05:36:58 GMT, mbstevens
wrote: On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 20:05:40 +0000, Abrasha wrote: ignoramus of biblical proportions! Hey, Peter! How come I had to get that one by email! Because it was not a personal attack. It was simply an accurate description :-) -- Al Balmer Sun City, AZ |
Ads |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
How was this made?
On 27 Jan, 09:43, "Mick" wrote:
I'm not a jeweler, but I'd guess that most experienced jewelers know most, if not all, of the basic techniques used to create such an object. No, not at all. After all, it isn't magic, no matter how much experience or specialized know-how Japanese tsuba artisans had. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", so yes, Japanese craft metalworking techniques _are_ magic, as far as Westerners are concerned. Western smiths don't have the finesse, Western jewellers sneer at working with iron (yes they do, one sneered at me just this Saturday). To find someone in the West who has the high skill level for work of this quality (any style, any tradition) _and_ has also studied the particularly Japanese approach to these pieces is so unlikely that you can probably count them on one hand. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
How was this made?
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:05:18 +0000, Abrasha wrote:
Zen is a kind of religion which is quite different than many traditional religions, but it does have in common that its adherents tend to attribute their successes to it. Zen is not a religion, it is a practice. http://www.mkzc.org/kubisze.html http://www.yakrider.com/Buddha/Zen/Zen.htm The first article, near the beginning, does not at all contradict what I said. It says: "I believe that Zen is not a religion n the ordinary sense. " He did not deny that it *is* a religion. I am skeptical of all. Most likely, because you have never practiced Zen. If you believe you have had a satori experience, or some such, I can't prove you did or did not. I prefer to stick to systems whose claims are falsifiable. I find that just trying to figure out what's rational and what's BS is more than enough of a koan-like activity for me. Those who got the movie, became great apprentices, those who did not get it, quit. I think you might need to give the actual cause of their quitting some careful thought. Why? Always read ahead: One problem with the traditional master/apprentice relationship is that opinions opposed to the master's tend to be squelched. ....that's why. Might they have left because they felt pressured to pretend to like a movie they considered to be very bad? In a traditional master/apprentice relationship, the apprentice does not oppose the master. If he/she does, it is not a traditional master/apprentice relationship. In a traditional relationship, the apprentice never even questions the master. He trusts the master to teach, and he learns as the master teaches. *If* that is a correct depiction of the master/apprentice relationship, it sounds -- repressive. In a university setting, the student works with several dozen experts before graduating, and does not have to satisfy them all. This allows broader education than the training given by a master to an apprentice. Spoken like a true jack-of-all-trades. You don't go to a university to learn a trade! Jewelry is not a trade. Goldsmithing, a *subcategory*, may be. Jewelry can be pure ornament, fine art, craft, a trade, pure fun, conceptual, or some combinations of those. Or would you go to a university to learn to become a carpenter, a cabinet maker or a goldsmith. Again, see the above comment. You are talking about goldsmithing, I am talking about jewelry. Clearly, as usual when it relates to matters of craft and mastery, you are out of your league here, and once again do not know what you are talking about. You persist in miscategorizing what jewelry can be. You are confused in matters of general aesthetics. The trades, like goldsmithing, are monkey see, monkey do. Again persisting in categorizing jewelry as a trade. Considering the Darwanian twist you gave to that statement, let's hope some of the apprentices have enough resistance to evolve. One of my best apprentices left too early in my opinion. When he left I said "I have taught you almost everything you know. But I haven't taught you everything I know." He smiled. He now sends me bagels from H&H. Bit of a cliche, no? When I see a passage like that in the fiction section of the library, I pass on the the next book. Some narrow activities are clearly better taught through the master/apprentice relationship, but the trade off is a serious one. Would you please enlighten us, as to what that trade off might be? Training versus education. As it has developed in this subthread, goldsmithing versus jewelry, art, and ornament in the general sense. The battle, that all art has to be high craft, was fought in the late 1800's. By the time of the Armory show soon after the turn of that century, Duchamp had really drove the nail into the coffin. The art-MUST-be-high-craft aesthetic has been dead for a hundred years. -- mbstevens http://www.mbstevens.com |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
How was this made?
"Peter W.. Rowe," "Mick wrote: "Peter W.. Rowe" wrote: Do you know anything at all about jewelry making? From your long- winded and extremely hostile reply, I'd have to guess that you don't. The object in question was created using common, well-understood techniques, such as inlay, chasing, engraving, etc. Yes, techniques that even stupid lazy westerners can understand. Japanese artisans were not magicians, no matter how high the pedestal that you personally put them on. Wasn't intended as hostile. Just trying to explain, no doubt in many times too many words, how my perception of the question seems to differ from yours. As to whether I know anything about jewelry making, um. You're new here, aren't you? Brief listing of my background, since that seems to have been a fad for this thread. BS in art education, specialty in jewelry making, Univ. Wisc. 1974 Graduate, non degree study at Cranbrook Acadamy of art, in jewelry/metals, 1976-1978 MFA in jewelry/metals from Tyler School of Art, 1988 Graduate Gemologist diploma, 1979 Practicing gold, silver, and platinum smith since about 1976, both in retail jewelry shops and the last 18 years, wholesame manufacturers. In my current job, I specialize in hand fabricated 18K gold and platinum custom orders. Several of the pieces I've put together (I take no credit for the designs, just the fabrication) for my employer have won Spectrum or Diamonds Today awards. I've been the moderator of this newsgroup since it was converted to a moderated group in march of 1996 (or was it 1997. I forget) And despite all that experience, I've still never quite figured out what to do with aggressive posters, or trolls. Sigh. It's easy. Don't feed the trolls. This guy had "Troll" written in flashing fuchsia neon lettering by his second post. I wouldn't be all that surprised if this wasn't ME or A (or whatever he calls himself) popping up once again. You're taken in by his questions. Put off by his come backs. Then finally angry by his insults. It's what he wants. snip a bunch of stuff Through the years, I've occasionally taught jewelry making too, including one semester as guest lecturer at the University of Washington here in Seattle. Peter Rowe 'hey' to a fellow PNW by way of Wiss-KAN-sin, Pepper Can't perform brain surgery but can humm a few bars |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
How was this made?
mbstevens wrote:
One problem with the traditional master/apprentice relationship is that opinions opposed to the master's tend to be squelched. ...that's why. Might they have left because they felt pressured to pretend to like a movie they considered to be very bad? Hmm, interesting. Where did I say, that they had to like the movie. As I said in my post ("Not the greatest movie, and at the same time it provides a glimpse into a traditional master-apprentice relationship."), I always told my apprentices, that I did not think it was a particular good movie, and it had valuable information about a traditional master/apprentice relationship. Do try to pay attention, and please do not put words in my mouth. In a traditional master/apprentice relationship, the apprentice does not oppose the master. If he/she does, it is not a traditional master/apprentice relationship. In a traditional relationship, the apprentice never even questions the master. He trusts the master to teach, and he learns as the master teaches. *If* that is a correct depiction of the master/apprentice relationship, it sounds -- repressive. To you it does, not so to many apprentices who have worked under masters through the centuries, learned from them, and became masters in their own right. Obviously, not something you understand a great deal about. In a university setting, the student works with several dozen experts before graduating, and does not have to satisfy them all. This allows broader education than the training given by a master to an apprentice. Spoken like a true jack-of-all-trades. You don't go to a university to learn a trade! Jewelry is not a trade. Did I ever say it is. You're putting words in my mouth again. Allow me to quote myself again: "The trades, like goldsmithing, are monkey see, monkey do." Goldsmithing, a *subcategory*, may be. You are as ignorant as the guy who started this thread. I will not even dignify that remark with an answer. Jewelry can be pure ornament, fine art, craft, a trade, Hey, didn't you just say two sentences ago, and I quote "jewelry is not a trade". Make up your mind pal. pure fun, conceptual, or some combinations of those. Or would you go to a university to learn to become a carpenter, a cabinet maker or a goldsmith. Again, see the above comment. You are talking about goldsmithing, I am talking about jewelry. You are talking nonsense about matters you know nothing of. And as usual, you are not paying attention either. Read my last few posts again please, I was talking about mastery and apprenticeships. Clearly, as usual when it relates to matters of craft and mastery, you are out of your league here, and once again do not know what you are talking about. You persist in miscategorizing what jewelry can be. You are confused in matters of general aesthetics. Coming from a man who makes things like this, http://tinyurl.com/3dw38l and this http://tinyurl.com/2kpmvc, I find that a very amusing statement. You don't even know how to make an URL that adheres to certain conventions of "general aesthetics". I used tinyurl, in the links above, because the aesthetically pleasing ones you provide are http://www.mbstevens.com/cgi/mbsim.p...ver/opal%20pin.. and http://www.mbstevens.com/cgi/mbsim.p...yst,%20citrine respectively. The trades, like goldsmithing, are monkey see, monkey do. Again persisting in categorizing jewelry as a trade. What is it with you, are you really that ignorant? Can't you even comprehend a simple English sentence? It says: "The trades, like "GOLDSMITHING"! Considering the Darwanian twist you gave to that statement, let's hope some of the apprentices have enough resistance to evolve. One of my best apprentices left too early in my opinion. When he left I said "I have taught you almost everything you know. But I haven't taught you everything I know." He smiled. He now sends me bagels from H&H. Bit of a cliche, no? When I see a passage like that in the fiction section of the library, I pass on the the next book. Some narrow activities are clearly better taught through the master/apprentice relationship, but the trade off is a serious one. Would you please enlighten us, as to what that trade off might be? Training versus education. As it has developed in this subthread, goldsmithing versus jewelry, art, and ornament in the general sense. The battle, that all art has to be high craft, was fought in the late 1800's. By the time of the Armory show soon after the turn of that century, Duchamp had really drove the nail into the coffin. The art-MUST-be-high-craft aesthetic has been dead for a hundred years. Whoa, hold on to your horses dude. You have now really proven beyond any doubt, that you are also an ignoramus of biblical proportions! You are not even capable to stick to a thread. Haven't you learned anything in that philosophical debating club of yours? You just jump around like a bunny rabbit, or a fox full of buckshot. When did I bring art into this? I was talking about goldsmithing as a trade. I never brought up art. I don't make art. I make jewelry. When I have an apprentice, I teach that apprentice to make jewelry the way I make jewelry. I do not teach that apprentice to make art. Abrasha http://www.abrasha.com |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
How was this made?
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 23:55:50 -0800, in rec.crafts.jewelry Abrasha
wrote: You are as ignorant as the guy who started this thread. I will not even dignify that remark with an answer. Other than to call him ignorant? Not exactly a neutral professional statement. Coming from a man who makes things like this, http://tinyurl.com/3dw38l and this http://tinyurl.com/2kpmvc, I find that a very amusing statement. While you may not find Mikes work to your aesthetic liking, others do. Your way of designing is one way, which undenyably produces wonderfully precise and concise visual statments. Mikes work is quite different, addressing different aesthetic concerns. While it's not my style either (and your style also isn't much like my own work for that matter), I rather enjoy it, frankly. To each his own. Allow that, please. You don't even know how to make an URL that adheres to certain conventions of "general aesthetics". I used tinyurl, in the links above, because the aesthetically pleasing ones you provide are http://www.mbstevens.com/cgi/mbsim.p...ver/opal%20pin.. and http://www.mbstevens.com/cgi/mbsim.p...yst,%20citrine respectively. How is this remotely on topic for a jewelry discussion group? Whoa, hold on to your horses dude. You have now really proven beyond any doubt, that you are also an ignoramus of biblical proportions! You are not even capable to stick to a thread. Haven't you learned anything in that philosophical debating club of yours? You just jump around like a bunny rabbit, or a fox full of buckshot. C'mon, Abrasha. get creative. your favorite term, "Ignoramous" either the presumably normal type of one of some sort of biblical proportions (whatever that means), is getting rather overused of late. You're gonna have to come up with some better ones. It's getting boring. Or better, how 'bout starting to refrain a bit from the name calling? I really should be blocking these posts in which you sink to this level, and would, if i didn't have the sneaky suspicion that Mike too, is still somehow enjoying this increasingly confusing and angry semblance of a discussion. From where I sit, neither one of you is clearly addressing the posts of the other, which of course sets off the other one with posts like this one, with accusations of straying off the subject or whatever it is you're accusing each other of this time. Frankly, I'm not sure whether to put a stop to this, or to go make another bag of microwave popcorn. I know you feel strongly about these issues, but frankly, you're making just a little bit less sense than you may think you are, and though you don't seem to realize it, agree on some of the points you seem to be arguing about, at least I think so. Please tone it down a bit. Quit quibbling about minor issues of exact wording, will ya? The nit picking is getting annoying. And I'm not just talking to Abrasha. Mike, you're doing the same thing, though without the angry name calling (which I appreciate, by the way) If you back off a little, you might realize that although you both approach these issues from different sides, with some different views an aims, you don't seem to be quite as different in views as you seem to argue. From my seat, seeing between the lines, it's as though one is insisting white is white, while the other insists that no, black is black. Different arguments, but not totally opposed. Lighten up, will ya? And Abrasha, please stop with the name calling. Peter Rowe moderator |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
How was this made?
Peter W.. Rowe, wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 23:55:50 -0800, in rec.crafts.jewelry Abrasha wrote: You are as ignorant as the guy who started this thread. I will not even dignify that remark with an answer. Other than to call him ignorant? Not exactly a neutral professional statement. Coming from a man who makes things like this, http://tinyurl.com/3dw38l and this http://tinyurl.com/2kpmvc, I find that a very amusing statement. While you may not find Mikes work to your aesthetic liking, others do. Your way of designing is one way, which undenyably produces wonderfully precise and concise visual statments. Mikes work is quite different, addressing different aesthetic concerns. While it's not my style either (and your style also isn't much like my own work for that matter), I rather enjoy it, frankly. To each his own. Allow that, please. You don't even know how to make an URL that adheres to certain conventions of "general aesthetics". I used tinyurl, in the links above, because the aesthetically pleasing ones you provide are http://www.mbstevens.com/cgi/mbsim.p...ver/opal%20pin.. and http://www.mbstevens.com/cgi/mbsim.p...yst,%20citrine respectively. How is this remotely on topic for a jewelry discussion group? Whoa, hold on to your horses dude. You have now really proven beyond any doubt, that you are also an ignoramus of biblical proportions! You are not even capable to stick to a thread. Haven't you learned anything in that philosophical debating club of yours? You just jump around like a bunny rabbit, or a fox full of buckshot. C'mon, Abrasha. get creative. your favorite term, "Ignoramous" either the presumably normal type of one of some sort of biblical proportions (whatever that means), is getting rather overused of late. You're gonna have to come up with some better ones. It's getting boring. Or better, how 'bout starting to refrain a bit from the name calling? I really should be blocking these posts in which you sink to this level, and would, if i didn't have the sneaky suspicion that Mike too, is still somehow enjoying this increasingly confusing and angry semblance of a discussion. From where I sit, neither one of you is clearly addressing the posts of the other, which of course sets off the other one with posts like this one, with accusations of straying off the subject or whatever it is you're accusing each other of this time. Frankly, I'm not sure whether to put a stop to this, or to go make another bag of microwave popcorn. I know you feel strongly about these issues, but frankly, you're making just a little bit less sense than you may think you are, and though you don't seem to realize it, agree on some of the points you seem to be arguing about, at least I think so. Please tone it down a bit. Quit quibbling about minor issues of exact wording, will ya? The nit picking is getting annoying. And I'm not just talking to Abrasha. Mike, you're doing the same thing, though without the angry name calling (which I appreciate, by the way) If you back off a little, you might realize that although you both approach these issues from different sides, with some different views an aims, you don't seem to be quite as different in views as you seem to argue. From my seat, seeing between the lines, it's as though one is insisting white is white, while the other insists that no, black is black. Different arguments, but not totally opposed. Lighten up, will ya? And Abrasha, please stop with the name calling. Peter Rowe moderator Well the first thing I do when Ive made the coffee is to go to our newsgroup to see what the latest blow by blow post has been written in this thread I suspect that our moderator has allowed this one to run for the same reason, maybe im wrong but still Ive enjoyed it so far. The bottom line statement by our notorious Abrasha that hes god in his workshop is one of the best ive seen written here over the years. Its absolutely right that anyone thats being creative as well as practical in the making of whatever has to be confident in their skills and vision. One needs to be god like to do this. Notwithstanding that any creative effort in real time is open to mistakes being made and the effort becomes wasted. To move on.. now im somewhat concerned about the statement of our other protagonist, Mr. Stevens, that the art MUST be hgh craft aesthetic, has been dead for 100 yrs. Now that ART can be anything anyone wants it to be just makes the artist out of anyone wether theve any skill in their execution or none whatsoever. This has lead to the sad state where real creative work of the highest traditional standard is completly ignored by the so called "ART" establishment, because its no longer in fashion!!. IE there wasnt any new money to be made out of it. For example, Jackson Pollock's drip paintings, Damien Hirst's Shark in formaldehyde, Anthony Caro's steel sculptures , there are too many to list. In my sitting room, Ive a portrait of Leopold the 11nd painted by Butoni in 1797. My mother bought it in Prague in 1933. I get pleasure from it everyday, it captures the essence of that period however fragile it was to become later on in the Hapsburg dynasty. Ive an Amari japanese plate , medieval pewter, Doulton flambe ceramics etc these are enduring and traditional works of art today,s artwork has completly *******ised the traditional concept of art. I wouldnt lower myself to make crap like that. Just my opinion. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
How was this made?
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 10:09:16 +0000, ted frater wrote:
I wouldnt lower myself to make crap like that. Just my opinion. Maybe you're just picking the wrong examples. What about Gauguin, Rousseau, Cezanne, all of which could barely draw? |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
How was this made?
mbstevens wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 10:09:16 +0000, ted frater wrote: I wouldnt lower myself to make crap like that. Just my opinion. Maybe you're just picking the wrong examples. What about Gauguin, Rousseau, Cezanne, all of which could barely draw? The ability to draw like an angel, is a rare guift an art master said to me once. And no I didnt pick the wrong examples. I picked those because they produced non art and called it art. the 3 example you gave didnt need to draw in order to paint, any more than my trainng as an aircraft engineer set me up to be an applied art metal smith. tho it helped in the mental processes that drive everything ive done since. not that it really matters, so long as I know when Ive turned in for the night, im pleased with what ive done today. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hand made chains | pasternak Findings - Jewelry findings | Jewelry | 0 | November 30th 06 02:58 AM |
Need Some Finance For Your Hobby Read ON | sirray | Needlework | 0 | January 14th 05 07:37 PM |
HOW RUBBER STAMPS ARE MADE & how i made $$$ - I AM SELLING MY MACHINE AND METAL SHEETS | Nintendo DS 4 Sale | Rubberstamps | 3 | November 28th 04 12:28 PM |
For discussion: Hand made | Shirley Shone | Beads | 13 | September 22nd 04 11:22 PM |
I made another tablerunner - go look | MerryStahel | Quilting | 5 | September 8th 03 06:34 PM |