A rising trend in jewelry/ornament design is the intentional use of a repulsive aesthetic. We do not use the term "repulsive" in a judgmental way, but rather as a descriptor of the artistic intent. To our knowledge, this is unprecedented in the history of ornament. It also represents one edge of an incredibly diverse spectrum of creative expression within our field, which is again unprecedented.

Having witnessed the reaction of the general public to our own aesthetic experiments, which are mild by comparison to some, we wonder how other artists feel about a repulsive aesthetic? How is this impacting your view of the field or your own work. How do you think this will evolve?

Views: 698

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Ahh Very interesting point. I believe that even conventional, shiny, pretty jewellery uses this idea of 'convulsive beauty', but less obviously and more subtly. People often purchase items that are not just pretty, but have elements that fight with the lacy pretty elements. For example, many popular pieces for women take on the shape of the universal symbol for a vagina and a lot of masculine pieces reference male genitalia. (Not that sexual organs are repulsive, but they would not be sold in Walmart if they were a direct representation of the organs they are subtly referring to.) So we are drawn to things that reference what makes us uncomfortable, or challenges what is socially acceptable, but we don't like to see just what repulses us, we want to disguise it to make it more comfortable to look at so we don't have to admit exactly why something repulses us.

I definitely see the trickle down effect happening from high end art jewellery to mass produced jewellery products. I think the repulsive conceptual work opens doors for products to reference 'repulsive' elements, but not repulse with them. For example there was work like Nanna Melland's real heart bracelet. Now work referencing real hearts is SO popular, but they aren't bloody and real, they are representations of something that is bloody in real life. They romanticize the original object rather than enhance it's repulsive elements.
Attachments:
Car wreck jewelry has a nice ring to it.

Roadside rings. Free squirrel ring with every deer ring purchased!

I am not one to say that jewelry or art of any kind has to be beautiful but how many organ brooches can I digest?

At some point when that line is pushed a bit too far the repulsive aesthetic community (Is there such a thing?) will have to pull back a bit, and that pulling back may kill the whole "movement" if one can call it that. I just don't understand why the powers that be (a popular metals mag, various high end galleries, etc) buy into this look. Is it just the buzz it creates? Must be, I don't see many people walking around wearing colon brooches...

Meanwhile I am working on finding a caster that is willing to work with my s***. Literally.
Ok kids, lets all agree amongst us art jewelers right now. When we approach the National Endowment for the Arts, for Christ's sake, nobody mention the poop jewelry!
Ha!
We should probably frame it as "scatalogical" like the "fine arts" people do.
My first post here on Crafthaus. I usually don't write too much, I'm very dyslexic and not the most articulate writer, thank goodness for spell check!

Not jewelry but if I could imitate it in jewelry I would; I took some pieces to Baltimore clayworks for a show. The current exhibition had ceramic works by Jason Briggs, I LOVED it, it was beautiful yet repulsive, I couldn't stop myself from becoming totally engrossed in his work. The work had hairs, openings, wounds, puckers, etc. If I win the lottery I am buying one of his pieces.

I even went so far as to spend a day making really strange slabs of polymer clay with veins and hairs, yet I can't bring myself to use it in my jewelry. I do like making "pretty" stuff that people want to wear in real life. My experiments just didn't have the elegant yet repulsiveness that Jason's pieces did, I think it's very difficult to make gross yet beautiful work together, but he does, my pieces where just gross-period.

So I will continue to make my work as is and not include the gross element, thou if others can do it like Jason I'm all for it.

Here is a link to his work in case you are interested http://www.jason-briggs.com/
It's interesting that you mention this because I have been noticing this trend in clothing for about 2 years; elements that I call "anti-design principles" or "oppositional design", elements like seams on the outside, then it progressed to torn and holey jeans, then gathers that look like they were made by mistake creating a look of asymetry and dissonance.

In a sense it appears to be an attempt at anti-intellectualism or anti-education. There are some probably in all mediums who believe that if traditional thought says to do X then one should do the exact opposite (going on the assumption that tradition means limitation to one's creativity).

There may be at least a grain of truth to that belief, but if an artist seeks to communicate his/her art to others then there is always going to be a point that is "going too far" at which you lose yiour audience (whether by too loose an association to what you are communicating or by repulsion in the sense of the word meaning not endearing or off-putting, causing the viewer to look away or to go away). Since art is generally visual then I don't think that is really the goal, and to those who say that an artist who uses "repulsive" imagery is "doing it for attention", that theory doesn't entirely hold water either.

With art being a visual medium doesn't that by definition imply that all artists in one form or another really want others to look at their work? In otherwords; all artists are creating their art for attention on some level. I mean this without the negative connotations that are often attached to that phrase.

Unless artists hid their art with no intention of ever letting anyone see it then I think it is reasonable to assume that whatever their individual motivations for creating it (message or feeling they wish to express or convey), that the universal underlying common ground is the wish to connect.

Whether that connection is with 1%, 20%, or 100% of the population, with more mainstream viewers, or with a minority counter-culture market, human connection is probably the common thread.

If one is going to "break the rules" he/she must do so in a way that "works" or that artist has missed the boat. Playing it too safe gets a ho hum response while being too risky threatens to alienate the very people one seeks to attract. The tricky part is that nobody really knows what will work until they try it.

I have a line of Holloform Broken Heart necklaces that while not bloody and gory anatomical hearts have garnered various positive and negative responses. The concept behind them is supposed to be transformative, reframing the broken heart as creating the space for new growth (like an egg hatching). The breaking of an egg in the event of the birth of baby chicks is not seen as destructive but rather an awe-inspiring event. Out emerges something fresh and new and that is generally what people associate with eggs hatching.

Inside my jagged broken heart focals is a gemstone dangling respresenting rebirth, renewal, regeneration and resilience. Some people look at my work and see that and others look at it and see that the heart is a broken one with jagged-looking edges.

A friend of mine said one day, "I would never wear a broken heart necklace. The idea of a broken heart is a depressing image." Even after I gave her the explanation of what I was trying to convey (which was to symbolize hope, not dispair), she still saw it in negative terms.

On the other hand I have another friend who absolutely got it and loved these.

One store owner I showed them to was afraid to take them on consignment because she was worried that they were "bad luck".

Yet another store owner did take a few and they seemed to draw interest there.

The jury is still out as to whether there is enough of a market for them or not.

I guess that just like anything else, what is popular and in demand will change like the weather. Who knows how long a trend will last and what the next one will be and what part of the population drives it. If we could know that (and harness it) we'd all be rich!
Hi everybody! I am brand new to Crafthaus. My background in art is art history and ceramics (20 years ago in college).

One loosely related topic I would like to add to this idea of the repulsive is this. I look at huge volumes of jewelry on the internet, and visit many websites regularly. I see a trend going on of folks making jewelry that really has poor mechanics, sloppy solder seams, ragged bezels with gaps, etc. and they add texture to the piece and call it a design style. Then there are these highly conceptual pieces that if you saw them sitting on a table somewhere in a normal, everyday environment, you'd likely determine that either a child made it, or it was possibly discarded project to be scrapped. I look at these pieces online and the professional photography seduces me. I think it is context that makes the difference in many cases. A person could make a Kleenex look like sculpture with the right photography. I really appreciate great photography and strive to get better at my own. But, I try to be objective and ignore the context of a piece of jewelry or art when I view it. Often times this takes a piece from being glorified by fancy lighting and dramatic black background, to really being just an awful piece of art. To me, that represents repulsive. Poor craftsmanship is repulsive. Deliberately not taking the time to produce quality work, regardless of whether or not it is pretty or ugly, is repulsive in my opinion.
"Poor craftsmanship is repulsive. "

Absolutely. I feel the same way.

I think there are two kind of topics in this discussion: Jewelry pieces for marketing purposes (which you might want to target a large audience), and art jewelry. Art is art. It comes from inside, you make it because you have that need. You are not thinking "is this going to sell?". I think beauty attracts larger audiences and therefore might be safer, but it is not always true to the artist. If you have the need to create what might be labeled "repulsive", then you will likely not have a large audience... so what? your art is not for everyone, and that's that.

I don't know what the current "trend" is, but if you are making repulsive jewelry just because it's a trend, then you're in the wrong path. 

RSS

Latest Activity

Aleksandra Vali posted a status
"2023 Fortezza da Basso, Florence, Italy"
Sep 19, 2023
Aleksandra Vali and Letitia Pintilie are now friends
Sep 19, 2023
Catherine Marche liked Rebecca Skeels's discussion streamlining our pages
Feb 3, 2021
Jonathan Leo Brown posted a status
"An art deco inspired ocean liner container with multiple containers."
Nov 9, 2020

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

© 2024   Created by Brigitte Martin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service