Today Francis Upritchard brought up some great questions about jewellery in general and my practice coming out of art school.
Why would it be considered jewellery if too big /awkward/delicate to be worn?
Yes, why would it? I find these features very interesting in contemporary jewellery. Maybe the work is more informative in how it relates to the body when it has these awkward features attached? Too big or too heavy or too fragile to be worn. What does that say about wearing it? Or viewing it?
Is there a difference between audience and client?
Yes absolutely. One is the voyeur the other the wearer. The audience is many, the client only one. Public vs private. Visual vs tactile.
Is it important that your work is wearable?
Maybe its more important that it references the body somehow. If its thought-provoking, I am happy to stray into some esoteric areas of what the body means.
Why so many necklaces?
Part of the format for my project Possession meant I made many many necklaces. It was a way of keeping some unity in the project that used many unknown objects.
Black. Is it a conscious decision or default?
A bit of both. I love black and white, the high contrast and use of negative space and for objects to be optically stripped bare. But its definitely a comfort zone too.
If it is not jewellery is it art?
Yes, it is art. Its design and craft too. For me, there are some important questions behind contemporary jewellery practice, including why we decorate ourselves and surround ourselves with certain objects? Why do we covet certain objects so much that we put them on our body? What is the value of an object; is it just money or is it the narrative or symbolism associated with that object? Contemporary jewellery has blurred the lines between sculpture and jewellery by asking these critical questions.