Not Too Precious

Page 1

not too precious

not too precious Jewellery by 25 international makers

Contents 04 – 07 Foreword Philip Hughes 08 – 19 Not Too Precious: the waves behind us Elizabeth Goring 20 – 71 Makers’ statements and profiles 72 – 73 Not Too Precious: casting light Elizabeth Goring 74 – 75 Glossary 76 Acknowledgements

Published to coincide with the exhibition ‘Not Too Precious’ curated by Elizabeth Goring and Gregory Parsons for Ruthin Craft Centre, 11 July – 20 September 2015

02 | 03

Foreword In 1998 a seminal exhibition titled Jewellery Moves: Ornament for the 21st century was shown at the Royal Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh. Curated by Amanda Game and Dr Elizabeth Goring, its aim was to profile a wide range of international contemporary jewellery practice, place it in context and celebrate its diversity. The Introduction to its accompanying publication asked the question, ‘What is jewellery?’ Amanda Game and Elizabeth Goring wrote in response: Jewellery is the collective noun for a series of relatively small scale objects which can be attached to clothing, or worn directly on the body, for personal adornment. Jewellery is both a concept – adornment – and an object – the jewel. The art of jewellery is probably the most ancient human art of all and is practised all over the world. Long before people made and decorated pottery, or created and decorated cloth, they used natural objects such as shells, stones or flowers to decorate themselves, recognizing how such ornaments could transform the wearer and invest him or her with power and, often, magical status. Today the jeweller’s art is still practised all over the world. Jewellery’s importance to humans throughout their history is illustrated by the burial of jewellery in graves, the named bequests of jewellery in wills and the tendency of jewels to be preserved by successive generations, even if the original value and meaning have been lost. This concise statement draws together the timelessness and universality of jewellery within human culture, framing the wider context for exhibitions like Not Too Precious. Not Too Precious is an international survey exhibition curated by Dr Elizabeth Goring and Gregory Parsons which explores and celebrates innovative current work by artist jewellers using non-precious materials. Showcasing work by artists currently working in the UK, Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand, it is interesting to note that several have relocated from their native countries, choosing new places for their practice. To radical artist jewellers of the late 1960s and 1970s, the idea of jewellery being considered inherently ‘precious’ simply because of what it was made of was one to be vigorously rejected. It is difficult today to convey just how revolutionary this was. Many strands of thinking, both political and moral, lay behind this rejection, questioning conservative design and entrenched notions of ‘value’. The result was an explosion of creative practice, where ideas were explored and expressed in cotton, silk, rayon, wood, plastics, bone, leather, rubber, aluminium and titanium. Interest in creating jewellery from these materials grew exponentially through the 1970s, 80s and 90s driven by several factors including rising metal prices, developments in art

‘Holy Land’ neckpiece, Christel van der Laan, 2013; ceramic honeycomb, powder coated and oxidised silver, vintage findings. 130 x 290 x 45mm

04 | 05

education, and a series of inspirational exhibitions and publications. The ‘New Jewellery’ offered hitherto unimagined creative opportunities: innovative combinations of materials became possible, as did new approaches to using colour, and sophisticated graphic forms. Today, many artists work with non-precious materials. As an example of the scale of non-precious jewellery practice, by the turn of the millennium more than 120 materials were represented in the National Museum of Scotland’s jewellery collection alone. Some of the makers included in Not Too Precious use what are traditionally seen as ‘precious’ materials, chosen for their intrinsic qualities such as their beauty, strength or longevity, or to aesthetically enhance materials which are not in themselves seen as traditionally valuable. The title of the exhibition gives the curators the scope to explore such approaches. Elizabeth Goring says, ‘For me, the line comes where silver or gold is used simply to add ‘value’ to the work. In some cases, to avoid silver – for example, where it might be the right material for the job – would be perverse; but [for this exhibition] it must take the supporting role, not be the star material.’ Carina Chitsaz-Shoshtary’s work, illustrated on the book’s cover, speaks eloquently in this respect: here, the silver not only enhances the graffiti paint, it also supports it, even defers to it through its supporting role. ‘Value’ is a key term. As Elizabeth Goring writes in the following essay: If we care about our personal values we must continue to fight for them. In terms of jewellery, one way of doing that is to highlight the kind of inspirational work that reinforces popular understanding of ‘accrued value’; […] Not Too Precious focuses attention on talented jewellers dedicated to using materials for their expressive potential […] their work is meaningful, insightful and culturally resonant. It is exceptionally skilful, […] sometimes poignant, sometimes witty, sometimes breathtakingly beautiful. Deriving from an almost visceral sense of connection to material, their work communicates at many levels. It is, above all, honest and, for want of a better term, not too ‘precious’. The diversity of creative practice and choice of materials in this exhibition is significant, as is the choice of arena: from poetry and lyricism to the playful or political we encounter a body of work that, 40 years on from the earlier shifts in materials practice, clearly demonstrates creative confidence and maturity. The two curators’ selection of work highlights and challenges our assumptions and understanding of what ‘non-precious’ may mean today; this is a timely and truly inspirational exhibition for all those with a passionate interest in contemporary jewellery.

Philip Hughes Director, Ruthin Craft Centre

06 | 07

Neckpiece, Mirei Takeuchi, 2012; iron, steel. 420mm long

Not Too Precious:

the waves behind us1 1. ‘If men could learn from history, what lessons it might teach us! But passion and party blind our eyes, and the light which experience gives is a lantern on the stern, which shines only on the waves behind us!’ (Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Table Talk, 1831)

Precious: 1. Beloved; dear; cherished. 2. Very costly or valuable. 3. Held in high esteem, esp. in moral or spiritual matters. 4. Very fastidious or affected, as in speech, manners etc. 5. (Informal) Worthless, as in ‘you and your precious ideas!’ ‘Precious’ has a wide range of possible meanings. As the dictionary definitions above indicate, they encompass the objective (‘expensive’), the subjective (‘esteemed’), the behavioural (‘mannered’) and even the sarcastic (where it is used to convey the very opposite of its more frequent usage). In its range of meanings it has much in common with that more transparently deceptive word ‘nice’. ‘Precious’ is often used as a kind of shorthand in the expectation that those we are addressing share our own perceptions of the cultural baggage it carries with it. Unfortunately this is by no means always the case. To draw attention to its potential ambiguity, the word is corralled throughout within inverted commas, as is its complicit counterpart, ‘non-precious’. Nevertheless, everyone understands what is meant by ‘precious jewellery’. And that being so, surely we all agree on its antithesis, ‘non-precious jewellery’? Well, no. We may think we mean the same things when we use these terms but in reality what is meant depends on a number of variables – the most obvious being our culture, our age and our socioeconomic status. Entangled with these are other more specific variables, such as our views on commerciality, our personal attitudes towards artistic endeavour and practice, and our awareness of the development of jewellery history. So is my ‘precious’ really the same as your ‘precious’? Not Too Precious explores that apparently obvious (but in truth ambiguous) territory where our understanding of ‘precious’ and ‘non-precious’ jewellery may conflict or coincide depending on who we are. It aims to draw attention to the underlying assumptions each of us makes and, in doing so, encourage us to challenge the nuances of our own value judgments. There is much room for misinterpretation of ‘preciousness’ even within the small world of contemporary art jewellery – a term that itself has generated passionate debate and carries much of the same potential for misconstruction. In that world, recent decades have seen significant changes in the weight the word ‘precious’ carries. However, the progression of these changes has been so subtle over time that those using it may be unaware that different generations may understand it in different ways. To see how this has come about, it is useful to take a brief look back at some of what Coleridge described as ‘the waves behind us’.

Brooch, titanium and silver, by Brian Podschies, 1989. Private Collection Brooch, Formica, by Louise Slater, 1985. Private Collection

08 | 09

The development of what became known as ‘The New Jewellery’, in the second half of the twentieth century, has been documented by commentators like Peter Dormer, Ralph Turner and James Evans, and its demise was heralded by Paul Derrez in 1987 2. To radical artist jewellers of the late 1960s and 1970s, the idea of jewellery being considered inherently ‘precious’ simply because of the materials of which it was composed became one to be vigorously rejected. Many strands of thinking, both political and moral, lay behind this rejection, which also delivered an explicit challenge to the perceived sterility of ‘commercial’ jewellery. In the mid-1980s, Ralph Turner wrote in his introduction to The New Jewelry: Most of the jewelry sold by large retailers is conservative in design, mainly because design is often the least important aspect of jewelry which is bought to celebrate or announce an event – an engagement, a wedding, a wedding anniversary. The principal consideration for people buying work for such occasions is that it should look ostentatiously impressive and expensive… Much commercial jewelry is therefore designed within a narrow conception of what jewelry ought to look like. And ideas that were once fresh and lively have become clichés. In most commercial jewelry the design matters only as a vehicle for gemstones and precious materials.3 The New Jewellery passionately questioned such entrenched and uncritical attitudes to ‘value’, offering in their place a focus on integrity of concept and the intrinsic qualities of materials. While there is no doubt the New Jewellery succeeded in freeing up approaches to making, the effect it had on ‘people buying work’ for key life events was limited. The default position for the vast majority of consumers is to buy ‘real’ jewellery for such occasions, an instinct apparently hard-wired by custom and time. Interest in creating jewellery from materials that were not traditionally regarded as inherently ‘precious’ grew exponentially through the 1970s, 80s and 90s, driven and reinforced by a number of factors. In the UK, an important element was the changing nature of art education. The establishment of Gerda Flöckinger’s influential experimental jewellery course

Earrings, niobium, by Ann Marie Shillito, 1987 or 1988. Private Collection 10 | 11

Earrings, anodised aluminium, by Jane Adam, 1985. Private Collection

2. James Evans provided a useful, if now dated, selected bibliography in ‘The New Jewellery, a documentational account’, in Designing Britain 1945–1975, The visual experience of postwar society, a project carried out between 2001–2 (http:// designingbritain/html/tnj.html). For the demise of the New Jewellery see Paul Derrez, ‘The New Jewellery. Death of a Movement?’, Crafts 86, May/June 1987. 3. Peter Dormer and Ralph Turner, The New Jewelry: Trends + Traditions, Paperback edition, London 1986, 7.

at Hornsey College of Art in 1962 had marked a watershed in British jewellery design, and recognition that jewellery could be a potent vehicle for expression sat comfortably within the direction being taken by other jewellery courses at art colleges such as the Central School of Art and Design in London, the Glasgow School of Art and the Royal College of Art. These offered an exciting alternative to jewellery’s more traditional entry route through technical-based apprenticeships within the industry. Significantly, they also produced successive generations of teachers whose training embraced a compelling combination of design excellence and mastery of technique. Further stimulus was provided by a number of highly influential exhibitions and publications. In the UK, the first was the inspirational ‘International Exhibition of Modern Jewellery 1890–1961’, curated by Graham Hughes, art director of the Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths, together with Shirley Bury of the Victoria and Albert Museum. This exhibition, which ran from October to December 1961, not only brought to London the work of jewellers from more than 30 countries but also commissioned jewellery from major sculptors and painters. As Hughes had intended, this initiative gave British jewellery design a much-needed injection of energy. Ten years later, in June 1971, the opening exhibition at London’s pioneering Electrum Gallery showed a collection of work by 25 designers which included acrylic jewellery by the German and Austrian jewellers Gerd Rothmann, Claus Bury and Fritz Maierhofer. Their work made a significant impact on the appreciation of ‘nonprecious’ materials. The combination of acrylic with gold and silver was thrillingly new and excitingly subversive at the time, and the above: International Exhibition of Modern Jewellery, The Goldsmiths’ Company, 1961 (text and plates). The New Jewelry, Thames and Hudson, 1986. right: Earrings, Perspex and silver, by Angus McFadyen, 1985. Private Collection

brilliant colour and sophisticated graphic forms were very much in tune with other aspects of contemporary popular culture. Many ‘non-precious’ materials besides acrylic offered opportunities for introducing colour. Twentieth-century mass-produced jewellery had long used glass or various forms of plastic for this purpose, while traditional ‘fine’ jewellery used gemstones and enamel. Now though, the rapidly expanding interest in ‘non-precious’ work encouraged art college-trained makers to cast their nets more widely. The readiness to explore was reinforced by the attempt of the Hunt brothers in 1979/80 to corner the market in silver, which resulted in a massive increase in its price. Jewellery students had little choice but to seek alternative materials with which to experiment. Synthetics like nylon, acrylic – poly(methyl methacrylate) and PVC – poly(vinyl chloride); metals like aluminium, steel, titanium and niobium; textiles such as cotton, hemp, silk and rayon; paper; and natural materials like wood, feathers, rubber and leather are only a few of the many different materials being explored. The 1980s were exceptionally rich in contemporary jewellery exhibitions and publications that changed perceptions; indeed, it was a decade which, in any other context than this, might be called a Golden Age. The British Crafts Centre’s 1982 exhibition ‘Jewellery Redefined’ was a source of enormous inspiration for many young jewellers who have since gone on to be well-known makers and teachers. Another significant show was the vast ‘Ornamenta’, at the Schmuckmuseum in Pforzheim in 1989. Influential publications included Angela Fisher’s breathtaking Africa Adorned, first published in the USA in 1984, which revealed the extraordinary range and beauty of African jewellery, body ornament and body modification, as well as the cultural value and meaning of the many materials used. Another was Richard Hughes and Michael Rowe’s The Colouring, Bronzing and Patination of Metals, published in 1982, which inspired jewellers to explore metals like bronze, brass and copper in exciting new ways. Three years later, The New Jewelry: Trends + Traditions further shaped thinking about materials and cultural values. Many other thought-provoking exhibitions and publications followed, among them Jewelry in Europe and America: New Times, New

left: ‘Precious plastics at the Electrum’, Ilse Gray, Design, issue 272, August 1971, 36–7; ‘Baubles, bangles and bricks’, Georgina Howell, The Sunday Times Magazine, June 23, 1985, 38–9. above: Jewellery Redefined, British Crafts Centre, 1982; Jewelry in Europe and America: New Times, New Thinking, Thames and Hudson, 1996; Ornamenta, Prestel-Verlag, Munich, 1989

12 | 13

Thinking (1996), Jewellery Moves (1998), and the revelatory Contemporary Japanese Jewellery (2001/2). By the turn of the millennium, more than 120 different materials were represented in the contemporary jewellery collection of the National Museums of Scotland; many more could easily have been added. Further impetus came from a supportive infrastructure that grew up around contemporary jewellery. This created an environment in which makers could explore all kinds of different materials and, most importantly, reach a market for their work. Its building blocks included

4. In addition to the UK it included representation from Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Japan, Malaysia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States.

private galleries that were either jewellery-specific or who had staff that understood the place of jewellery within the wider field of crafts (not least Sharon Plant’s greatly missed Aspects, in London, which she ran from 1981–6); Tony Gordon and Christine Bola’s Dazzle selling exhibitions, also initiated in 1981, which provided regular and, crucially, knowledgeable retail opportunities for emerging and established jewellers in cultural venues around the UK (and still does today); annual selling events (like Chelsea Crafts Fair, which ran for 26 years to 2005, to be succeeded by Origin), that enabled makers to meet new buyers face-to-face and show established buyers new work; the support offered by development organisations at national and local level; publicly-funded museums and galleries that built collections of contemporary jewellery and exhibited it to a largely non-specialist public; and, not least, informed and supportive private collectors who could physically take jewellery out into the wider world. Meanwhile, within art colleges links were fostered between ‘art’ jewellery and the commercial jewellery industry through the establishment of industry-based student work placements and industry-sponsored student design competitions. Such initiatives were mutually beneficial, and also gave a muchneeded boost to the employment prospects of the increasing numbers of young jewellers who were graduating from British art colleges in the latter decades of the 20th century. ‘Class of ’95’, an exhibition at Goldsmiths’ Hall in the summer of 1995, brought together a large body of graduate work by young silversmiths and jewellers from 76 institutions in 24 countries.4 The show captured an interesting moment in the development of a whole generation

left: (clockwise from top left): Aspects magazine, July – September 1985; Aspects poster, designed by David King, 1980s (no date); Aspects magazine, January – March 1985. above: Dazzle Invites…, City of Edinburgh Museums and Art Galleries, 1986; Dazzle Invites…, Glasgow Museums and Art Galleries, 1989; Class of ’95: A Goldsmiths’ Company Exhibition, 28 June – 28 July 1995, The Goldsmiths’ Company, 1995

14 | 15

of young makers from around the world. In many respects it marked a maturity of approach to the use of materials in jewellery; ‘non-preciousness’ had come a long way in 30 years. One of the most illuminating aspects of the multi-national ‘Class of ’95’ was how it reflected such different jewellery education systems and such different cultural values. For many visitors to the exhibition, some of the most extraordinary and striking work would have been that from Japan.5 Japan was represented by nine graduates of the Hiko Mizuno College of Jewellery in Tokyo, three of whom showed jewellery incorporating moss, wheat and charcoal. A few years later, in 2001/2, Simon Fraser’s ‘Contemporary Japanese Jewellery’ exhibition (shown in London, Leicester and Aberystwyth), further highlighted the Japanese facility with ephemeral, and often poignant, materials like domestic dust and burnt cardboard. While the breaking down of barriers around creative thinking and making is liberating for makers, freedom brings responsibilities. With jewellery, some of those responsibilities are to its potential wearer. The issue of wearability is a complex one that deserves a survey of its own, but it intersects with the development of ‘non-precious’ materials in jewellery at critical moments in its history, as well as expanding its potential range. The New Jewellery addressed wearability from the outset as part of its debate around the very nature of jewellery. In 1982, Diana Hughes was able to write in her Introduction to the ‘Jewellery Redefined’ catalogue, ‘Today the only limits of design, function or material [in jewellery] are those self-imposed by the designer-maker or the wearer.’ (In fact, most of the work in ‘Jewellery Redefined’ tested the boundaries of design or material rather than function, although Wendy Ramshaw, for example, widened the debate with her simple but striking Printing Set: Ink and Stamps, intended for printing designs on the body). A number of makers at this time were issuing explicit challenges to the traditional relationship between body and jewellery, among them Susanna Heron, with her Wearable and Non-wearable objects (made from papier-mâché, cotton and nylon) and Pierre Degen, with his Personal Environment (wood and string) and Ladder pieces (wood). Other work had meaning only

16 | 17

Contemporary Japanese Jewellery, Merrell/Crafts Council, 2001; New Times, New Thinking: Jewellery in Europe and America, Crafts Council, 1996 (flyer); Jewellery Moves, National Museums of Scotland, 1998 (flyer); Jewellery Moves, NMS Publishing, 1998

5. As Simon Fraser has noted, ‘By 1991 Japanese jewellers were exhibiting their work in Europe’ – only a few years earlier than ‘Class of ’95’. Simon Fraser, Contemporary Japanese Jewellery (London, 2001), 13.

in the context of photography or performance; chapters 2 and 3 of The New Jewelry are titled ‘Jewelry as Image’ and ‘Jewelry as Theatre’. With the arrival of computers, some pieces existed only virtually (perhaps conceptual jewellery taken to its logical conclusion); and here materiality itself has arguably been superseded. The first decade of the 21st century saw an encouraging revival of interest in the use of traditionally ‘precious’ materials for their intrinsic qualities (rather than for their capacity to impress). Jewellers re-discovered how wonderful gold and silver are to work with and their potential for expression. A re-invigoration of excellence in contemporary gold and silverwork, in both design and execution, brought with it a palpable sense of confidence and enthusiasm, not least among young makers entering the field. New techniques arrived alongside tempting new technologies and equipment: CAD, laser welding and 3D printing, all ideally suited to The Digital Age. It was possible to view ‘precious’ metals, although costly, as materials to be explored like any other. Unfortunately, when the global economic recession post-2008 again pushed up the price of gold and silver to new heights, there was a predictable rush to bullion for ‘safety’. The economic turmoil even assigned ‘value’ to something as dubious as 9 carat ‘gold’. In the UK, a popular reversion to conservative thinking in many areas of national life brought with it a re-investment of faith in the ‘intrinsic value’ of ‘precious metal’ jewellery, at least on the part of purchasers. Up to this date, excellent progress had been made in changing popular perceptions about the ‘value’ of jewellery. Opportunities to discuss their work face-to-face with their customers at fairs, exhibitions and degree shows allowed makers to explain the meaning of ‘accrued’ value (through what the maker has brought to the work) rather than ‘intrinsic’ value (what the piece might fetch in the marketplace – sometimes only melt-down price). But the continuing lack of an informed secondary market that grasps the real ‘worth’ and history of non-commercial jewellery, and that assigns commensurate prices to it, in combination with the entrenched popular belief in the safety of pure bullion, now

All you can eat necklace, David Poston, 2013. Printed steel welded over wood, eight articulated components; worn by Ruth McCabe.

risks leaving many makers largely preaching to the converted: their existing collectors. This is one reason why the creation of exhibitions like Not Too Precious is still important. When Gregory Parsons and Philip Hughes first suggested I work with them on an exhibition of ‘non-precious’ jewellery my initial reaction was one of scepticism. Was this not rather an old chestnut? Mine was the reaction of someone who has been involved with contemporary jewellery for more than three decades: long enough to see more than one reinvention of the jewellery wheel. My reaction was echoed by one of the most established jewellers we invited to take part in the exhibition. This jeweller asked, with great courtesy tempered with an air of understandable weariness, how we were defining ‘non-precious’. Was it a 1970s-not-precious-metal-and-stones-definition or did we have something more significant in mind? To paraphrase this individual’s words, surely if we have learnt anything by now about preciousness and materiality, it is that they are not located solely in the realm of commercial value; preciousness is not determined by price. This response made me try to capture my clear sense that it was important to revisit these issues, and to do it now. Fundamental parts of the support structure for those making ‘non-precious’ jewellery have collapsed or been eroded since those Golden Years. Private galleries, public museums, development organisations, collectors are all under significant economic pressure. Most importantly, art college courses offering jewellery as a single subject discipline are rapidly disappearing. This has affected, among others, the teaching of jewellery at Middlesex University, partly formed from Hornsey College of Art where Gerda Flöckinger had established her pioneering course in 1962. In early 2014, Graeme Brooker, Head of Middlesex’s Department of Fashion and Interiors, announced: To balance priorities given to skills based teaching, creative enquiry, material thinking, critical analysis, and cultural theories across our School of Art and Design, the jewellery area is leading on the development of a new and wider undergraduate programme with international reach: BA Design Craft, which will be promoted from 2014. The last Middlesex students on the current, highly-regarded jewellery programme will graduate in 2015/16; it remains to be seen how jewellery will fare there in the future. Although the debate around the meaning of ‘value’ in jewellery was aired and at least partially won several decades ago, centuries of cultural preconceptions cannot be overturned so easily. We have to re-engage in debate each time circumstances demand it – circumstances that will doubtless arise in many different ways for many future generations of jewellers. The continuing need for exhibitions like Not Too Precious was underlined when

we spoke to a young jeweller who had graduated only a couple of years earlier. We had been interested in her striking ‘non-precious’ college work, and asked why she was now showing work only in ‘precious metal’. She told us, ‘I use silver because that’s what people want to buy.’ Jewellers have livings to make. This means producing what people want to buy, and the majority of people want to buy what they understand to be The Real Thing. For them, Real Precious Metal still takes precedence over imagination, creativity, artistic integrity, hours of labour, finely-honed bench skills or sensitive design. Another young jeweller we approached wrote, At the moment I am focusing on making my fine jewellery collection…I tried really hard to combine the two under two different names but I found it almost impossible, and because of the response people gave me, I had to focus more on the fine jewellery part. As much as I find your offer a great opportunity, I will not be able to fulfil this commitment. Maybe one day I will be comfortable enough to return to the world of experimental jewellery, but for now I will have to stick to a collection that reaches more people. This was a sensible, pragmatic answer, but it saddened us that we would not have an opportunity to exhibit what is, to us, much more interesting and ‘valuable’ jewellery. If we care about our personal values we must continue to fight for them. In terms of jewellery, one way of doing that is to highlight the kind of inspirational work that reinforces popular understanding of ‘accrued value’; and that reinforcement must reach both buyers and new young makers. Not Too Precious focuses attention on talented jewellers dedicated to using materials for their expressive potential rather than for their intrinsic value. Their work is meaningful, insightful and culturally resonant. It is exceptionally skilful, both technically and aesthetically. It is sometimes poignant, sometimes witty, sometimes breathtakingly beautiful. Deriving from an almost visceral sense of connection to material, their work communicates at many levels. It is, above all, honest and – for want of a better term – not too ‘precious’.

Elizabeth Goring Edinburgh, February 2015

18 | 19

Makers’ statements and profiles

Attai Chen

22 | 23

Carina Chitsaz-Shoshtary

24 | 25

Eunmi Chun

26 | 27

Warwick Freeman

28 | 29

Emmeline Hastings

30 | 31

Christel van der Laan

32 | 33

Felieke van der Leest

34 | 35

Sari Liimatta

36 | 37

Märta Mattsson

38 | 39

Jasmin Matzakow

40 | 41

Kazumi Nagano

42 | 43

Shinji Nakaba

44 | 45

Lina Peterson

46 | 47

Zoe Robertson

48 | 49

Michihiro Sato

50 | 51

Mariko Sumioka

52 | 53

Emiko Suo

54 | 55

Tore Svensson

56 | 57

Janna Syvänoja

58 | 59

Mirei Takeuchi

60 | 61

Timothy Information Limited

62 | 63

Terhi Tolvanen

64 | 65

Catherine Truman

66 | 67

Flóra Vági

68 | 69

Heather Woof

70 | 71

‘Subscribe Series’ neckpiece, Zoe Robertson, 2014; hand drawn sublimation, free spun and thermoformed plastic, turned aluminium components, flocked fibre, silicone rubber and stainless steel. 800 x 350 x 150mm

20 | 21

Attai Chen Born: Jerusalem, Israel, 1979 Studio: Munich, Germany Training: Bezalel Academy of Arts and Design, Jerusalem; Akademie der Bildenden Künste, Munich Awards: Winner of the Herbert Hofmann Prize, Schmuck, Munich, 2011; Winner, Oberbayerischer Förderpreis für Angewandte Kunst, 2012; the Andy Prize for Contemporary Art, 2014 Work included in the collections of: The Israel Museum, Jerusalem; The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, USA; Die Neue Sammlung, Staatliches Museum für Angewandte Kunst, Munich; Tel Aviv Museum of Art, Israel

My current work relies primarily on recycled paper as the source material, which is collected in fragments and compiled. I have always been intrigued by the cyclical motion of growth in nature: the fleeting moment of its realisation, its decay, and its new beginning from the remains of what came before. It is my intention to capture a moment in this endless motion, to reflect the fragility of the temporary, and at the same time to convey the vitality contained within the constancy of motion.

‘The free radicals (part 3)’ brooch, 2011; paper, paint, glue, silver, brass, stainless steel. 100 x 73 x 50mm 22 | 23

Necklace, 2014; paper, coal, paint, glue, oxidised silver. 220 x 170 x 950mm

Carina Chitsaz-Shoshtary Born: Augsburg, Germany, 1979 Studio: Althegnenberg, Germany Training: Staatliche Berufsfachschule für Glas und Schmuck, Neugablonz; Akademie der Bildenden Künste, Munich, Gemany Awards: Bayerischer Staatspreis für Nachwuchsdesigner, 2012; Winner, Oberbayerischer Förderpreis für Angewandte Kunst, 2012 Work included in the collections of: The Rotasa Foundation, Mill Valley, California, USA; Die Neue Sammlung, Staatliches Museum für Angewandte Kunst, Munich

Karma Chroma series My recent works are created from completely opposite kinds of materials. On one hand I use graffiti paint, scraped from a heavily-sprayed wall in the city. On the other, I include materials I found while wandering about in the natural environment – pieces of wood, dried plants, corals, shells and stones. What they have in common is that they contain a secret tale which desires investigation. The world of graffiti has its own language and rules, and the messages of the wall paintings are usually cryptic for outsiders. The thick sheets of paint I gather from the wall include hundreds of layers of forgotten graffiti; each layer was once part of a big wall painting or lettering. A “fictional ‘archaeological’ research” begins when I start removing the layers and separating the material into fine sheets.1 Each small piece I collected from nature was once a fraction of a great mysterious scene: a shell on the beach was once part of the vast alien cosmos under the sea. The pieces that emerge from my transformation, and the combination of these materials, appear to come from a parallel world. They may seem like artefacts from a past civilization, fossils from another planet or the ornaments of fabulous beings. 1. Ellen Maurer-Zilioli, The Lunatic Swing. Carina Chitsaz-Shoshtary, Munich, 2013, 5

‘Shine Not Burn’ pendant, 2014; wood, graffiti, glass, silver, string. 208 x 84 x 44mm 24 | 25

‘Raduga Tree’ brooch, 2014; graffiti, silver, stainless steel. 180 x 72 x 54mm

Eunmi Chun Born: Chungbuk, South Korea, 1971 Studio: Munich, Germany Training: Seoul Women’s University (Mathematics); Sookmyung Women’s University, Seoul (Craft); Kookmin University, Seoul (Metalwork and Jewellery); Akademie der Bildenden Künste (Jewellery), Munich Awards: BKV Preis für junges Kunsthandwerk, Munich; Winner of the Herbert Hofmann Prize, Schmuck 2008 Work included in the collections of: CODA Museum, Apeldoorn, Netherlands; The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, USA; The Museum of Arts and Design, New York; Die Neue Sammlung, Munich, Germany; The National Museum of Art, Architecture and Design, Oslo, Norway; Service des Affaires Culturelles, Mairie de Cagnes-sur-Mer, France

I asked myself, ‘What is beautiful in jewellery? And how can I pursue this beauty?’ I thought one of many possible ways would be working with unpleasant or rejected materials since, within the context of art, something that is disgusting can also be beautiful. That was how my use of organic materials started. The impermanence of such materials was unintentional but it connects with my central theme: the circulation of life between humans, plants and animals; they will all return to dust and be re-born one day.

‘Panda’ brooch, 2015; human hair, small intestine of cow, seeds, silver. 130 x 70 x 95mm 26 | 27

‘Wing’ brooch, 2012; human hair, small intestine of cow, gold leaf, silver. 170 x 150 x 35mm

Warwick Freeman Born: Nelson, New Zealand, 1953 Studio: Auckland, New Zealand Training: Largely self-taught Awards: Laureate, New Zealand Arts Foundation, 2002; Laureate, the Françoise van den Bosch Foundation, 2002; ‘Klassiker’ der Moderne, Schmuck, Munich, Germany, 2013 Work included in numerous collections including: Auckland Museum; the Danner Stiftung, Munich; the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston (Helen Drutt Collection), USA; The National Gallery of Australia, Canberra; the Powerhouse Museum, Sydney, Australia; the Schmuckmuseum, Pforzheim, Germany; Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Te Papa, Museum of New Zealand, Wellington; V&A Museum, London, UK

Materials present certain truths that you can feel obliged to work with. ‘Precious’ is one of those truths. But I don’t feel any need to work with that truth – I prefer to be in charge of another.

‘Link’ bangle, 2012; lignum vitae, paint. 125 x 110 x 35mm Blue, Red & Yellow cuffs, 2011; lapis lazuli, jasper, petrified wood, lignum vitae, oxidised silver. 95mm (dia of wooden discs) 28 | 29

Yellow Cuff, 2011; petrified wood, lignum vitae, oxidised silver. 95mm (dia of wooden disc)

Emmeline Hastings Born: London, UK, 1987 Studio: Bristol Training: University of the Creative Arts, Farnham, Surrey Awards: Best New Design, Goldsmiths’ Fair 2011 Work included in the collections of: The Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, UK

The treatment and amalgamation of my chosen materials have consistently incited curiosity and raised questions of ‘worth’. They move between realms of ‘value’ and ‘idea’. However, my choices have always been motivated by aesthetic uniqueness, and what my jewellery ‘feels’ like, in all senses of the word.

Brooch, 2013; acrylic (Perspex), titanium, gold. 50 x 40 x 30mm 30 | 31

Clear Collar, 2013; acrylic (Perspex), titanium, gold. 170mm

Christel van der Laan Born: Son en Breugel, Netherlands, 1963 Studio: Perth, Australia Training: Murdoch University, Perth; West Coast College, Carine, Perth Awards: Precious Metal Prize: National Contemporary Jewellery Award, Griffith Regional Art Gallery, Griffith, Australia, 2004; Open Prize, National Contemporary Jewellery Award, Griffith Regional Art Gallery, 2006 Work in the collections of: Alice and Louis Koch Collection of Rings, Basle, Switzerland; The Art Gallery of South Australia, Adelaide; Griffith Regional Art Gallery, Griffith; The National Gallery of Australia, Canberra; Powerhouse Museum, Sydney, Australia

The idea of preciousness in jewellery and the search for beauty in what is often overlooked or discarded are recurring themes in my work. Since 2008 I have worked extensively with carved ceramic honeycomb, a refractory material used as a soldering aid on the jeweller’s workbench. The selection and organisation of diverse materials is often the most exhilarating and challenging aspect of the making process. I strive to create poetic jewellery objects where each element is transformed when it is juxtaposed with another, and where each part plays a crucial role in the final composition.

‘Holy Land’ brooch, 2012; ceramic honeycomb, powder coated silver. 55 x 70 x 20mm 32 | 33

Pendant, 2013; ceramic honeycomb, powder coated and oxidised silver, Victorian cut steel beads, agate seal blank. 65 x 90 x 30mm

Felieke van der Leest Born: Emmen, Netherlands, 1968 Studio: Øystese, Norway Training: Vakschool Schoonhoven, Netherlands; Gerrit Rietveld Academie, Amsterdam, Netherlands Awards: Laureate, Profiel Prijs 2008, Stichting Profiel, Netherlands; Laureate, Prix de la Communauté Française Wallonie-Bruxelles 2008, World Crafts Council-BF, Belgium Work in the collections of: CODA Museum, Apeldoorn, Netherlands; KODE – Kunstmuseene i Bergen, Norway; Los Angeles County Museum of Art, USA; Miaao – International Museum of The Applied Arts Today, Turin, Italy; mima – Middlesbrough Institute of Modern Art, Middlesbrough, UK; Museum Arnhem, Netherlands; Museum of Decorative Arts, Montreal, Canada; Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, USA; Nasjonalmuseet for kunst, arkitektur og design, Oslo, Norway; National Museums of Scotland, Edinburgh, UK; Nordenfjeldske Kunstindustrimuseum, Trondheim, Norway; Racine Art Museum, Racine, USA; Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam; TextielMuseum, Tilburg, Netherlands; V&A Museum, London, UK and others

When I am working with colours I feel like a painter. When I am working with metal I feel like a constructor. When I am working with toys I feel like a child.

‘Pregnant Grizzli Bearmaid’ brooch, 2013; crocheted and knitted textiles (alpaca, polyester, viscose, felt, cotton), plastic animals, gold jasper. ‘Bearmaid’ 140 x 115 x 50 mm. ‘Bear Cub’ 100 x 35 x 30 mm 34 | 35

‘The Beaver Family from Pencil Creek’ necklace, 2011; textile, plastic animals, silver, turquoise, cubic zirconia, pencils, hemalyke ®. 165 x 160 x 7mm

Sari Liimatta Born: Lappeenranta, Finland, 1977 Studio: Lappeenranta Training: South Karelia Polytechnic, Lappeenranta; exchange student, Gerrit Rietveld Academie, Amsterdam, Netherlands Work included in the collections of: Berner Design Stiftung, Bern, Switzerland; The CODA Museum, Apeldoorn, Netherlands; The National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; South Karelia Art Museum, Lappeenranta, Finland, and others

Unfortunately we too often overlook the most precious parts of the world around us. In my work I try to make people pay more attention to problems in the environment and our shared neighbourhoods.

‘Shared’ brooch, 2014; glass beads, garnets, glass and metal object, peridots, steel, plastic toys, copper wire. 95 x 100 x 45mm 36 | 37

‘All Rights Reserved’ jewellery sculpture, 2013; glass beads, brass chains (self-made), gold leaf, pins, plastic toy. 320 x 135 x 65mm

Märta Mattsson Born: Stockholm, Sweden, 1982 Studio: Stockholm Training: HD – Hantverk och Design på Nääs fabriker, Tollered, Sweden; exchange student, Hawaii Pacific University, USA; HDK – School of Design and Crafts, Göteborg, Sweden; exchange student, Hiko Mizuno College of Jewelry, Tokyo, Japan, and Rhode Island School of Design, Providence, USA; Royal College of Art, London, UK Awards: Talente Prize, Internationale Handwerksmesse, Munich, Germany, 2012; Award of Excellence, ‘Pushing Boundaries and Chasing Challenges’, International Contemporary Metal Art Exhibition, Beijing, China, 2013 Work included in the collections of: China Academy of Art, Hangzhou; Grassi Museum für Angewandte Kunst, Leipzig, Germany; Museum of Arts and Design, New York, USA; Nationalmuseum, Stockholm; Röhsska Museum, Göteborg, Sweden; Schmuckmuseum, Pforzheim, Germany and others

In a world where not many new and exotic breeds are discovered I use dead creatures in my pieces to evoke wonder. The creatures are transformed and reborn; given a new life as objects of astonishment.

‘Beetlejuice’ brooch, 2010; beetle, resin, silver, cubic zirconias. 70 x 40mm 38 | 39

‘Slices’ brooch, 2014; copper electroformed beetles, cubic zirconias, resin, laquer, silver. 150 x 100mm

Jasmin Matzakow Born: Aachen, Germany, 1982 Studio: Stockholm, Sweden Training: Apprenticeship in goldsmithing, Freiburg, Germany; Burg Giebichenstein University of Art and Design, Halle/Saale, Germany; residency and training in Arabic ornamentation with calligrapher Ayten Teryaki, Istanbul, Turkey; residency and research in the Museo Reina Sofia, Madrid, Spain; Konstfack, Stockholm, Sweden Awards: Istanbul Scholarship of the Kunststiftung Sachsen-Anhalt, Germany, 2010; Mention, Kunstpreis 2010 der Stiftung der Saalesparkasse, Germany; Grassipreis der Sparkasse Leipzig, Germany, 2011; Talente Prize, Internationale Handwerksmesse, Munich, Germany, 2011; 1st Prize, Cominelli Award, La Fondazione Cominelli and the Associazione Gioiello Contemporaneo, Italy, 2012; Scholarship of the Kunststiftung Sachsen-Anhalt und Kloster Bergesche Stiftung, Germany, 2012 Work included in the collections of: Grassi Museum fĂźr Angewandte Kunst, Leipzig, Germany; Stiftung Moritzburg-Kunstmuseum des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt, Halle, Germany

My working method is shifting more and more to a content-based approach. Rather than starting to work outwards from a material investigation, I start from a topic and research my materials accordingly. I consider its character, history, historical and contemporary use and cultural meaning in my own and other societies. I do the same with shapes and seek to discover where a material and a shape intersect with my theme. And then it’s time to dig myself into the materials, start a dialogue with them and allow myself to lose control over the process.

Neckpiece, 2015; lime wood, skin. 600 x 200 x 50mm 40 | 41

Neckpiece, 2015; lime wood, shibuichi. 500 x 300 x 50mm

Kazumi Nagano Born: Nagoya, Japan, 1946 Studio: Tokyo, Japan Training: Tama University of Art, Tokyo (nihonga, a traditional Japanese painting technique); later studied with Minato Nakamura (jewellery) Awards: Fine works Prize, Japan Art Jewellery Competition, Tokyo, 2002 Work included in the collections of: Alice and Louis Koch Collection of Rings, Basle, Switzerland; La Fondazione Cominelli and the Associazione Gioiello Contemporaneo, Italy; V&A Museum, London, UK

The act of holding has been nurtured throughout Japan’s long history. Using a hand loom, I weave a sheet from paper tape and fold it into three-dimensional jewellery using the traditional Japanese technique of origami. Folding the sheet requires only my fingers. All my pigments and paper are made from natural materials.

Brooches, 2015; linen paper thread, bamboo fibre, nylon thread, gold, silver pin, coloured with sumi ink. 85 x 90 x 50mm each 42 | 43

Brooch, 2015; Linen paper thread, bamboo fibre, nylon thread, gold, silver pin, coloured with sumi ink. 85 x 90 x 55mm

Shinji Nakaba Born: Sagamihara, Kanagawa Prefecture, Japan, 1950 Studio: Sagamihara Training: Hiko Mizuno College of Jewelry, Tokyo, Japan Work included in the collections of: Montreal Museum of Fine Arts, Canada; Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, USA; Museum of Arts and Design, New York, USA; National Museum of Western Art, Tokyo, Japan

My aim is to bring brand new life to something that has no value. I use not only precious metals and stones but also plastic bottles, aluminium beer cans and other discarded materials from surprising sources like polyvinyl water pipes, iron bolts and garbage. Whether using precious gemstones, seashells, fallen leaves or plastic bottles, I enjoy the process of making jewellery and revealing the hidden beauty of the materials. I treat all materials equally to bring out their hidden qualities, and I transform each piece into beautiful and wearable sculptural treasures.

‘Cut Body’ ring, 2015 (2013); carved seashell, brass. 35 x 35 x 30mm 44 | 45

‘Aluminium Chrysanthemum’ brooch, 2015 (2003); thin aluminium (beer can), steel. 150 x 150 x 80mm

Lina Peterson Born: Göteborg, Sweden, 1979 Studio: London, UK Training: London Guildhall University; University of Brighton; Royal College of Art, London Awards: Association for Contemporary Jewellery Award, New Designers, London, 2004; Crafts Council Development Award Winner, 2007; Jerwood Contemporary Makers Award winner, 2010 Work included in the collections of: Crafts Council, London; Röhsska Museum, Göteborg, Sweden

I work with a range of different materials, including wood, plastics, metals and textiles, as the inherent materiality of each of these allows me to explore and express something different. The processes of working these different materials – carving wood, punching metal, stitching cloth – influence the work. I have an ongoing interest in combining different materials as well as translating the visual qualities of one material in another, for example, mimicking a stitched textile pattern in metal.

‘Carved in Yellow’ brooch, 2013; carved and painted lime wood. 90 x 90 x 15mm ‘Carved in Colour’ brooch, 2014; carved and painted wood, silver, gold, quartzite. 130 x 90 x 15mm 46 | 47

‘Carved in Blue’ neckpiece, 2014; carved and painted lime wood. 400 x 180 x 20mm

Zoe Robertson Born: Reading, UK, 1974 Studio: Birmingham, UK Training: Plymouth College of Art and Design; London Guildhall University; UCE (University of Central England), Birmingham (Postgraduate Certificate of Education) Awards: First Prize, Fashion Jewellery Design, The Jerwood Foundation, 1997; Silver Award for Gallery Jewellery, Goldsmiths’ Craft and Design Awards, London, 2010; Honourable Mention, Cominelli Award, La Fondazione Cominelli and the Associazione Gioiello Contemporaneo, Italy, 2012 Work included in the collections of: Alice and Louis Koch Collection of Rings, Basle, Switzerland; Galeria Sztuki w Legnicy, Poland

The exploration of materials is the driving force behind my work. Industrial processes and non-traditional materials are explored in combination, enabling me to experiment with new possibilities which are ‘not too precious’, leading to jewellery creations which express my artistic desires.

‘Subscribe Series’, neckpiece (detail), 2014; hand drawn sublimation, free spun and thermoformed plastic, turned aluminium components, flocked fibre, silicone rubber and stainless steel. 70 x 35 x 15mm

48 | 49

‘Subscribe Series’, neckpiece, 2014; hand-drawn sublimation, free spun and thermoformed plastic, turned aluminium components, flocked fibre, silicone rubber and stainless steel. 800 x 350 x 150mm

Michihiro Sato Born: Takasaki, Gunma, Japan, 1961 Studio: Osaka, Japan Training: Gunma University, Japan (BA in Art Education); Fachhochschule Pforzheim, Germany (Jewellery Design); Oslo National Academy of the Arts, Norway (MA in Fine Arts) Awards: Grand Prix, International Craft Exhibition Itami (jewellery), 2001; Grand Prix, Japan Jewellery Art Exhibition, 2002; Norwegian Government Scholarship, 2002 Work included in the collections of: Alice and Louis Koch Collection of Rings, Basle, Switzerland; Museum of Arts and Crafts, Itami, Japan; National Museums of Scotland, Edinburgh, UK

For me, jewellery signifies the inner person and their individual sense of value or beauty. I find the impermanence of worldly things beautiful, and I want the jewellery I make to reflect this. The fragility and sensibility of paper allow me to achieve this aim. My mother died in 1990. Soon after her funeral a small blue budgerigar flew on to my balcony. Two years later, on the same date as my mother’s death, it died too. I buried it at the base of a tree in front of my apartment, and some years later I found a small branch growing there. From this I understand that the impermanence of worldly things is just one aspect. We may need to recognise the continuity of worldly things in order to overcome sadness and pain.

‘I Don’t Have an Evil Heart’ brooch, 2014; paper, brass, cashew paint, silver, stainless steel. 180 x 40 x 40mm 50 | 51

‘Hana-Cho-Chin’ brooch, 2014; paper (commercial catalogue), silver, brass, stainless steel, synthetic Japanese lacquer. 210 x 65 x 50mm

Mariko Sumioka Born: Aichi, Japan, 1981 Studio: London, UK Training: Osaka University, Japan (Economics); Akasaka Jewelry Design School, Tokyo, Japan; Japan College of Foreign Languages, Tokyo; Edinburgh College of Art, UK Awards: Among top six contenders for New Designer of the Year, New Designers, London, 2011; Runner-up, Best New Design, Goldsmiths’ Fair, London, 2014; Winner of Jewellery of the Year, Collect, London, 2015

I am inspired by Japanese architectural elements and the spirit of Zen to create one-of-a-kind pieces made from unique materials like enamel, kimono, patinated and precious metals. Using such colourful and personal materials and skilful collage my playful and sculptural pieces are allowed to unfold their own stories.

‘Wabi Sabi’ brooch, 2014; oxidised copper, enamel on copper, oxidised silver, stainless steel pin. 58 x 50 x 15mm ‘Bamboo’ brooch, 2014; oxidised copper, enamel on copper, bamboo, oxidised silver, stainless steel pin. 44 x 55 x 15mm 52 | 53

‘Pray for Japan’ brooch, 2014; oxidised silver, enamel on copper, gold-plated silver, cotton cord, stainless steel pin. 95 x 80 x 15mm

Emiko Suo Born: Tokyo, Japan, 1966 Studio: Tokyo Training: Tokyo University of the Arts (formerly the Tokyo National University of Fine Arts and Music) Awards: Bayerischer Staatspreis and Talente Prize, Munich, Germany, 1995; Grand Prize, Japan Jewellery Art Competition, Tokyo, 1998; 16th Tansuiou Prize/The Sato Artcraft Research and Scholarship Foundation, Tokyo, 1999; Merit Award, Japan Jewellery Art Competition, Tokyo, 2006; 17th Gotoh Commemorative Fine Arts Prize/The Gotoh Memorial Foundation, Tokyo, 2006 Work in the collections of: Alice and Louis Koch Collection of Rings, Basle, Switzerland; Mint Museum of Craft + Design, North Carolina, USA; Museum of Arts and Design, New York, USA; Museum of Kyushu Sangyo University, Fukuoka, Japan; National Museums of Scotland, Edinburgh, UK; The National Museum of Modern Art, Tokyo; Pinakothek der Moderne, Munich, Germany; V&A Museum, London, UK

I was brought up to the sound of an iron hammer and a file. The sounds made by the five or six people in my father’s jewellery workshop shaped the person I am today. I did not want to be limited to working only in precious metals; experimenting and ‘playing’ with a variety of materials can lead to new works. I mostly use thin wire, thin metal sheet and mesh. I like the contradiction between the apparent intrinsic weakness of the materials and the ultimately strong structures they can create. My jewellery is like a filter separating the outside of the heart from its interior. I am interested in how far I can give concrete expression to my ideas within the boundary of the human body. I attempt to make the wearer complete.

Brooches, 2015; stainless steel, brass, ceramic coating Blue: 66 x 37 x 13mm, Green: 64 x 32 x 10mm, Red: 55 x 43 x 10mm 54 | 55

Bracelet, 2014; stainless steel, copper, brass, ceramic coating, top: 120 x 110 x 105mm, bottom: 110 x 95 x 77mm

Tore Svensson Born: Alfta, Sweden, 1948 Studio: Göteborg, Sweden Training: Västerbergs Konstskola, Gävle, Sweden; HDK-Högskolan för Design och Konsthantverk, Göteborgs Universitet, Sweden Awards: Bayerischer Staatspreis, Munich, Germany, 1999; Winner of the Herbert Hofmann Prize, Schmuck, Munich, 2012 Work in the collections of: Contemporary Art Society, London, UK; Los Angeles County Museum of Art, USA; Museé des Arts Decoratifs de Montreal, Canada; The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston (Helen Drutt Collection), USA; National Gallery of Australia, Canberra; National Museum, Stockholm, Sweden; Nordiska Museet, Stockholm; Röhsska Museum, Göteborg

When I began to work with steel in the early 80s it was an attempt to develop silversmithing, to find another way of working with an old trade filled with unwritten rules about how to treat silver. It interested me to see how, through the working process, I could refine a cheap material into something more precious. Later, when I also started to use steel in my jewellery, I found it to be a material that suited my interest in the field of geometry and in surfaces.

‘Åsa’ brooch, 2015; steel, gilt. 50 x 60mm ‘Box’ brooch, 2012; steel, paint. 40 x 40 x 20mm ‘Inside Tube’, ring, 2013; wood, silver, paint. 20 x 22 x 42mm 56 | 57

‘Tube’ ring, 2012; steel, paint. 20 x 25 x 45mm

Janna Syvänoja Born: Helsinki, Finland, 1960 Studio: Helsinki Training: Taideteollinen Korkeakoulu (Aalto University), Helskinki Awards: Finland Prize for Young Art, Helsinki, 1993; Bayerischer Staatspreis, Munich, Germany, 1997; Torsten and Wanja Söderbergs Prize, Göteborg, Sweden, 2004; Ornamo Artist of the Year, Helsinki, 2011; Prins Eugen Medal, Stockholm, Sweden, 2012 Work in numerous collections including: Art Gallery of Western Australia, Perth; The City of Helsinki Art Museum, Finland; The CODA Museum, Apeldoorn, Netherlands; Design Museum, Helsinki; Deutsches Technikmuseum, Berlin, Germany; The International Museum of Applied Arts, Turin, Italy; Kunstgewerbenmuseum, Berlin, Germany; Malmö Art Museum, Sweden; Mint Museum of Craft + Design, North Carolina, USA; Montreal Museum of Decorative Arts, Canada; Museum of Arts and Design, New York, USA; Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe, Hamburg, Germany; The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston (Helen Drutt Collection), USA; National Museum, Oslo, Norway; National Museums of Scotland, Edinburgh, UK; Röhsska Museum, Göteborg, Sweden, and many others

Pieces, Spaces, Precious Places I can make the rules, but the piece finds its shape on its own. When certain formed components start to follow each other and find their rhythm in my hands, the miracle happens. It is a slow, meditative and very natural process. I use printed paper, maps, catalogues, dictionaries. Their past makes them rich, carrying with them certain places and accidental meanings. This material also gives the pieces their individual outer and inner decoration – their ornaments. I see wood, stone, bone, feathers, fur, fields, velvet. The previous content of the paper material related to communication between people – message and expression. A piece of jewellery is worn for the same purpose.

Brooch, 2013; recycled paper (maps), steel wire. 160 x 90 x 60mm Necklace, 2014; recycled paper, steel wire. 150 x 100 x 35mm 58 | 59

Brooch, 2013; recycled paper (maps), steel wire. 160 x 140 x 45mm

Mirei Takeuchi Born: Porz-Wahn, Cologne, Germany, 1969 Studio: Munich, Germany Training: Kyoritsu Joshi University, Tokyo, Japan (product design); Fachhochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften, Hildesheim, Germany; Akademie der Bildenden Künste, Munich Awards: Grand Prix, Galeria Sztuki w Legnicy, Poland, 2005; Gold Award, International Craft Exhibition, Museum of Arts and Crafts, Itami, Japan; Bayerischer Staatspreis and Herbert Hofmann Prize, Schmuck, Munich, 2011 Work in the collections of: Die Neue Sammlung, Staatliches Museum für Angewandte Kunst, Munich; V&A Museum, London, UK

A butterfly with torn wings Flies on and on Gradually losing its balance A dragonfly’s wing found on the road Where is its owner? Those transient souls Have the eternal power of beauty Enchanting the mind Toughness is a characteristic of iron – but you feel its fragility when it rusts away. This contrast seems to reflect the life of insects.

Brooch, 2012; iron, gold, steel.120mm long, moveable 60 | 61

Neckpiece, 2012; iron, steel. 420mm long, moveable

Timothy Information Limited Born: Chipping Norton, UK, 1967 Studio: Penge, London, UK Training: Hereford College of Art and Design, UK; Epsom School of Art, Surrey, UK; Spink and Sons, Medal Makers, London Awards: Sack Race (First, Colwall Primary School, 1977); 100m (Third, Colwall PS, 1977); Egg and Spoon Race (Third, Colwall PS, 1977) Work in the collections of: Galeria Sztuki w Legnicy, Poland

I don’t luxuriate in materials. In fact I use all the skills I have mustered to render them as invisible as I can. Because. It’s not all about them. It’s all about me… So Mr Platinumydiamondygoldysilverynickelybrassycopperyaluminiumyglassyclayywoodyplasticythermoplasticytextileypaperyfoundobjecty, does that explain why you weren’t given the part when you rolled up with your self-absorbed, narcissistic and egomaniacal swagger? Yeah, yeah, yeah, I get it. It’s not your fault, it’s down to cultural bleedin’ history and all them ages and fads and things. But hey! This is about my story not yours.

‘Badge and Useful Jar’ badge (detail), 2011 62 | 63

‘Badge and Useful Jar’, 2011; brass, stainless steel, powdercoat, magnets, glass. 70 x 70 x 30mm

Terhi Tolvanen Born: Helsinki, Finland, 1968 Studio: Journet, France Training: Lahden Muotoiluinstituutti, Lahti, Finland; Gerrit Rietveld Academie, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Sandberg Instituut, Amsterdam Awards: Highly commended, Dutch Design Awards, 2007 Work in the collections of: Alice and Louis Koch Collection of Rings, Basle, Switzerland; CODA Museum, Apeldoorn, Netherlands; EKWC (European Ceramic Work Centre, ’s-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands; Gintaro muziejus-galerija, Vilnius, Lithuania; National Museums of Scotland, Edinburgh, UK; The Rotasa Foundation, Mill Valley, California, USA; Schmuckmuseum, Pforzheim, Germany; Stichting Françoise van den Bosch, Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam; V&A Museum, London, UK and others

I like trees. Trees are beautiful – small and big, thin and thick. Trees are living, they breathe; they are full of the power of life. My passion is to work with branches: their texture, colours, forms and curves are very inspiring. And it is challenging: it is impossible to copy one exactly. Other branches make other curves, and it becomes a new piece. Each piece becomes unique. Some time ago, for the first time ever, I got some really big lavender wood from my landlord. This lavender must have been growing for at least 20 years. Cutting the wood into smaller pieces to fit it into its storage space made me think of gold: gold makes my heart beat in the same way. It is so expensive that I’m always afraid of making a mistake. My task as an artist is to show how the materials in my jewellery can make the heart beat in this way.

‘Amethyst Plant’ brooch, 2014; cactus amethyst, cement, wood. h: 90mm 64 | 65

‘Black Coral’ necklace, 2012; apple wood, silver. dia: 210mm

Catherine Truman Born: Glenelg, South Australia, 1957 Studio: Adelaide, Australia (Gray Street Workshop) Training: University of South Australia (Education; Jewellery / Metalsmithing) Awards: Australia Council of the Arts Fellow, 2007–8; Master of Australian Craft (2008–10); Ruby Award, South Australian Government, for Arts Enterprise (Gray Street Workshop), 2011 Work in the collections of: Art Gallery of South Australia, Adelaide; Art Gallery of Western Australia, Perth; Artbank, Australian Government; Auckland War Memorial Museum, Auckland, New Zealand; CODA Museum, Apeldoorn, Netherlands; Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory, Darwin, Australia; Museum of Central Academy of Fine Arts, Beijing, China; National Gallery of Australia, Canberra; National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; Pinakothek der Moderne, Munich, Germany; Powerhouse Museum, Sydney, Australia; Queensland Art Gallery, Brisbane, Australia

I often work across the disciplines of art and science. For many years I have worked amongst scientists including anatomists, histologists, neuroscientists and natural scientists, interpreting their work and drawing parallels between our practices. Lately I have begun to think of my studio as a laboratory of sorts, and my practice as an evolving process of enquiry and experimentation. I am currently working with natural and synthetic materials – exploring the various interrelationships between them. By bringing together these sometimes disparate and sometimes analogous materials my aim is to create new forms that bring into question mankind’s role in their existence, to question their origin, function and physiology – to create a conundrum of meaning and values, and provoke a sense of uncertainty from the audience. I have learnt that making things with my hands leaves me with much less of a sense of dislocation from the world I live in.

‘Fluro-plants’ brooches, 2013; thermoplastic, silicone tubing, stainless steel. Dimensions variable, largest 120 mm 66 | 67

‘Egg Shells’, four brooches and an object (oyster), 2013; South Australian beach shells, glass, paint, sterling silver. Dimensions variable, largest 120 mm

Flóra Vági Born: Budapest, Hungary, 1978 Studio: Budapest Training: Budapesti Szolgáltató- és Kézmu’’vesipari Szakképzo’’ Iskola, Budapest, Hungary; Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Taxco, Mexico; Alchimia, Scuola di gioielleria contemporanea, Florence, Italy; Royal College of Art, London, UK Awards: First Prize, Talente, Internationale Handwerksmesse, Munich, Germany, 2004; Marzee Prize, Galerie Marzee Graduation Show, Nijmegen, Netherlands, 2004; Bakri Yehia Memorial Award, Royal College of Art, London, UK, 2008; European Prize for Applied Arts – Young Talent, World Crafts Council, Mons, Belgium, 2012; Special Mention, Cominelli Award, La Fondazione Cominelli and the Associazione Gioiello Contemporaneo, Italy, 2014 Work in the collections of: CODA Museum, Apeldoorn, Netherlands; Grassi Museum für Angewandte Kunst, Leipzig, Germany

When I first started making jewellery and objects I didn’t know what an important role the materials would play. I choose materials that have certain qualities, and some of those change with time or due to a particular influence, like everything does. Choosing the right material is like finding the right language with which to express your thoughts. Having lived abroad, speaking different languages, I became particularly aware of the importance of finding the right word to describe a certain emotion or thought… … and then there are those things that you just can’t put your finger on and name. That is the territory where I try to observe and create things. It is important for me to stretch the idea of beauty, to set the viewer’s eyes a more complex task where it is essential to look, feel – and wear! – all at the same time.

‘Woodwaves’ brooch, 2013; oak wood, pigment, acrylic paint, 18ct gold. 70 x 50 x 50mm ‘Pillowaves II’ brooch, 2014; pear wood, cold enamel, silver, steel. 100 x 100 x 20mm 68 | 69

‘Brittle Growing’ brooch, 2015; red heart wood, silver, steel. 80 x 70 x 20mm

Heather Woof Born: Edinburgh, UK, 1985 Studio: Edinburgh Training: Edinburgh College of Art (BA (Hons), MA) Awards: Winner, Rising Stars, 2013; Hothouse 4, Crafts Council UK, 2014

I am a maker who is fascinated by metal as a material. Material experimentation forms the starting point to my design process, and I make works in response to the material’s inherent qualities. Working with titanium means working within strict limitations. It is a difficult metal that does not conform to the usual metalworking rules. This results in challenges and creative tension, and ultimately opens new opportunities. I seek to exploit titanium’s unique properties of strength, light weight and colouring possibilities to create objects with a surprising sense of fluidity and movement.

‘Implode’ brooch, 2013; titanium, sterling silver with gold plate. 40 x 40 x 25mm 70 | 71

‘Slinky’ necklace, 2014; titanium, 9ct gold. length: 600mm

Not Too Precious: casting light

Gregory Parsons and Philip Hughes devised the idea for Not Too Precious – and its title – more than five years ago. During one of the many wonderfully convivial evenings I have spent in their company in Ruthin it was suggested I might co-curate the exhibition with Greg. This was an irresistible invitation. Greg has a wonderful eye, and I have admired his curatorial skills for many years. Furthermore, as a talented artist and designer himself, with considerable experience in textiles and product development, he comes from a very different background to my own. I was a museum curator for 26 years, and now work as an independent curator and writer concentrating mainly on jewellery and silver. Co-curation has many advantages. This became very clear when I co-curated the National Museums of Scotland’s 1998 exhibition Jewellery Moves with Amanda Game. The experience gave both of us the opportunity to immerse ourselves in intensive thinking around a shared passion, and to develop a common vision. We brought our individual, and often complementary, knowledge to a project that proved far more comprehensive than either of us could have achieved alone. But perhaps one of the most important aspects of co-curating is that it forces you to justify your instincts, clarify your thinking and defend your choices. Every detail of Jewellery Moves was exhaustively discussed, negotiated and refined until we were both satisfied. This particularly applied to our selection process, which eventually brought superb work by more than 130 jewellers, practising in 24 different countries, to Edinburgh. Curation is an arcane art, mysterious to many, and co-curation is perhaps even more so. Science examination papers in the UK often ask students not only to supply answers but also to ‘show their working’. A recent discussion with an enthusiastic young would-be curator suggested it might be

72 | 73

interesting to describe briefly how Greg and I selected the brilliant cast of jewellers in Not Too Precious 1.This is how we did it, in the course of countless face-to-face discussions, emails, texts and skype calls. The first step was thorough research over several years. Greg in particular visited many exhibitions and fairs, including Collect, New Designers, the Great Northern Contemporary Craft Fair, art college degree shows and open studio events, talking directly to makers about their work whenever possible. We combed magazines and other publications, private gallery flyers, the internet and social networks; we talked to lots of people and searched the crevices of our visual memories. Separately at first, we listed names and assembled them into a (very long) longlist. By early April 2013, we had gathered nearly 100 names of jewellers using non-precious materials, whose work had attracted the attention of one or other of us or, often, both. At this point we allocated a significant period of time to discussing exactly what we wanted this exhibition to be. Our discussion formed the basis of a brief we could refer back to as we continued to develop our thinking. We quickly dismissed a simplistic materials-based structure; we were far more interested in why and how makers were using their chosen materials. We wanted Not Too Precious to focus attention principally on talented jewellers using materials for their expressive potential. We agreed we were seeking to show outstanding work that was meaningful, insightful, culturally resonant, exceptionally skilful, both technically and aesthetically, and was also wearable. High quality was much more important to us than whether the maker was internationally recognised or an emerging jeweller. Next came a healthy dose of realism as we debated the practical aspects. How many jewellers could

we actually feature in the exhibition space? How much work could we show from each? How reent should the work be? Should we consider only the UK, or look to Europe or further afield as well? Having agreed that exceptional quality should not be limited by geographical boundaries, what would the practical issues be? And we talked about schedules, timelines, division of workload and budgets. After rather reluctantly agreeing that the total number of makers could not exceed 25, we then embarked on a lengthy multi-phase selection process. We worked through the whole longlist on our own, making notes beside each name. Then we discussed our thoughts together over the course of several days. This eventually reduced the list to an only slightly more manageable 56 – and every now and then it grew again, as one of us spotted someone new. We asked everyone on the list to send us information about their current work, together with images. Most of the very substantial administration this involved was done by Greg. The next phase required us to devise criteria against which we could assess each jeweller’s work in relation to our specific aims and brief. These were unashamedly subjective. Realistically, it is hard to conceive of, or indeed wish for, objective curatorial criteria: the essential element is consistency of application. We used four criteria which carried varying degrees of weighting. In simple terms, three of them were: brilliant use of material; brilliant use of technique; and clear evidence of innovation and/or lateral thinking. The greatest weighting was given to the criterion that was the hardest to define: the ‘wow’ factor, regardless of material or technique. This one is both subjective and elusive – but we both agreed we knew it when we found it. The latter stages of the selection process were iterative: we looked at everything several times

and from several curatorial angles. As part of this, we considered whether we were offering a reasonable balance in terms of the kind of work we had chosen. Although we had rejected a representational ‘stamp-collecting’ approach, we felt it desirable to double-check the impact of the outcome; a ‘pre-view re-view’, so to speak. We also thought about juxtaposition, resonance and visual impact: we both curate visually, in our heads, and we were beginning to develop our feel for the show’s internal coherence. And at last, we had our final list. During our research stage, we had seen much excellent jewellery that greatly interested us but didn’t quite fit the brief for one reason or another 2. We decided to complement the central exhibition with a special showcase highlighting work by more recent graduates and makers who had come to jewellery from other fields. Here the aim was to highlight fresh perspectives, perhaps through the ingenious use of ‘non-precious’ materials, innovative ways of working, or imaginative approaches to interaction and wearing. The curatorial journey has been totally absorbing and inspiring. There is truly wonderful work out there…

Elizabeth Goring Edinburgh, February 2015

1. Sarah Osborn attempted something similar more than 30 years ago in her essay ‘The Front Line’, which prefaced the catalogue to the exhibition Jewellery Redefined in 1982 (pages 9–10) 2. The selectors of Jewellery Redefined, finding themselves in a similar position, resolved it by adding an ‘Extra Selection’ of choices which would otherwise not have been included in their exhibition (Jewellery Redefined catalogue, pages 59–62)

Glossary: an explanation of

some materials and techniques

Acrylic: Acrylic, or poly(methyl methacrylate), is a transparent thermoplastic: a plastic material that becomes pliable above a specific temperature and solidifies when it cools. Acrylic paint: Acrylic paint is made from pigment suspended in an acrylic polymer emulsion. It is waterbased, dries quickly and is water-resistant when dry. Anodised aluminium: Aluminium can be coloured by suspending the metal in a solution of sulphuric acid and water which then has an electric current passed through it. The surface of the aluminium combines with the oxygen in the solution forming a surface layer of aluminium oxide. The acid dissolves this surface layer, creating tiny pores which will absorb colouring dyes. CAD: CAD, or computer-aided design, uses computer technology rather than manual drafting in the creation of designs. Cactus amethyst: This comes from South Africa and consists of clusters of small crystals surrounding a main crystal. Cashew paint: An unconventional lacquer coating and friction material produced from plant phenol compound extracted from cashew nuts. Developed and produced in Japan by Cashew Company Ltd. Ceramic honeycomb: A ceramic block with a cellular structure, used by jewellers as a surface on which to solder metals. Cubic zirconia : A synthetic gemstone, the cubic crystalline form of zirconium dioxide, usually colourless. Electroforming: A process for forming unique objects by electrodepositing metal on a core model (like ‘dipping’ the object in metal). Flocking, or flocked fibre: ‘Flocking’ deposits numerous tiny fibres on to a surface covered with adhesive through the application of a high-voltage electric field. This process gives the surface both texture and colour. Hemalyke: A synthetic form of haematite.

74 | 75

Laser welding: A welding technique for joining metals using the highly focused and concentrated heat source provided by a laser beam. Lignum vitae: A hard, dense and durable wood. Its Latin name translates as ‘wood of life’ in reference to its traditional medicinal uses. Niobium: A ductile refractory metal similar to titanium, naturally grey, which can be brilliantly coloured by an anodisation process that creates an optical interference surface colour. This is achieved by either heat or anodic electrolytic oxidisation when an electric current is passed through the metal. Very different to the dyed surface of anodised aluminium. Powder coat: A type of coating mainly used to create a hard and durable finish on metals. It is usually applied electrostatically as a dry powder and cured under heat. Shibuichi: A Japanese alloy of copper and silver which can be patinated to produce a range of subtle blue and green colours. Silicone: A polymer that can be synthesised to produce a wide range of properties. Silicones can vary in consistency from liquid to rubbery (for example, silicone tubing) to hard plastic. It is sometimes mistakenly spelt ‘silicon’, which is a chemical element used in creating silicone. Sublimation printing: Inks are applied to a polyester, polymer or polymer-coated surface with a heat press to generate a permanent durable image. The solid ink is converted into a gas which can penetrate the surface. When the temperature cools the gas returns to a solid state, and the ink has effectively become part of the polymer. As the process depends on the pores of the polymer opening and closing, it cannot be applied to natural fibres. Sumi ink: A permanent black ink made from vegetable oil soot (usually from pine) combined with a binding agent. It is traditionally used in sumi-e, the Japanese word for black ink brush painting.

Clockwise from top left: Heather Woof in her studio in Edinburgh; Janna Syvänoja in her studio in Helsinki; Heather Woof – work in progress; Catherine Truman in her studio in Adelaide; Shinji Nakaba at work; Shinji Nakaba

Acknowledgements Elizabeth Goring would like to thank Gordon Barclay, Marion Goring, Jenny Harper, Dorothy Hogg, David Poston and Ruth McCabe, Shannon Tofts. Ruthin Craft Centre would like to thank Dr Elizabeth Goring and Gregory Parsons, Shannon Tofts, Ellie Jones-Hughes, all the exhibitors, Fritz Maierhofer, Tony Gordon and Christine Bola, David Poston, Julia Stephenson, Rosemary Ransome Wallace, Sophia Tobin and Eleni Bide of The Goldsmiths’ Company. Lisa Rostron, Stephen Heaton and Rachel Shaw at Lawn. Pete Goodridge and ArtWorks. Arts Council of Wales: Louise Wright, Nathalie Camus, lolo Wyn Williams; and all the team at RCC. RCC exhibition and education staff: Philip Hughes, Jane Gerrard, Sioned Phillips, Joe Jubb and Einir Wyn Jones Design: Lawn Creative, Liverpool Print: Team Impression, Leeds Translation: Catherine Lowe Photography: page 1: Franz Karl page 2: Carina Chitsaz-Shoshtary. page 3: top: Emmeline Hastings. bottom: Flóra Vági page 4: Robert Frith page 7: Mirei Takeuchi pages 8, 10 & 11: Shannon Tofts pages 11–16: Book covers and prined material scanned from items in the author’s own collection, except for page 11 (left), courtesy of The Goldsmiths’ Company and page 12 (top), courtesy of Fritz Maierhofer page 17: David Poston page 20: Zoe Robertson pages 22–23: Attai Chen page 24: Mirei Takeuchi page 25: Laurens Burro page 26: Eunmi Chun page 27: Mirei Takeuchi pages 28–29: Roy Tremain pages 30–31: Emmeline Hastings pages 32–33: Robert Frith pages 34–35: Eddo Hartmann pages 36–37: Sari Liimatta pages 38–39: Märta Mattsson pages 40–41: Jasmin Matzakow pages 42–43: Ryota Sekiguchi pages 44–45: Shinji Nakaba pages 46–47: Lina Peterson


pages 48–49: Zoe Robertson pages 50–51: Sergei Didyk pages 52–53: James Champion pages 54–55: Masatoshi Sasahara pages 56–57: Franz Karl pages 58–59: Janna Syvänoja portrait by Mikko Ryhänen pages 60–61: Mirei Takeuchi pages 62–63: Simon Armitt pages 64–65: Eddo Hartmann pages 66–67: Catherine Truman pages 68–69: Flóra Vági pages 70–71: James Robertson Shannon Tofts has created a film to accompany the exhibition. Ruthin Craft Centre would like to thank him and all those who have contributed to its making: Carina Chitsaz-Shoshtary, Emmeline Hastings, Felieke van der Leest, Märta Mattsson, Jasmin Matzakow, Lina Peterson, Zoe Robertson, Mariko Sumioka, Heather Woof Film participants: Liz Ellis, Rob Ellis, Suzanne Hodgson, Anna Lilley, Russ Pinnegar, Shaun Synnuck, Dewi Tannatt Lloyd Hands (for part of the filming): Michael Behennah, Rhian Hâf, Margit Hart, Fritz Maierhofer, Eleri Mills, Gregory Parsons Alana Tyson Published by Ruthin Craft Centre Text © The Authors 2015 ISBN: 978-1-905865-12-3 Ruthin Craft Centre, The Centre for the Applied Arts Park Road, Ruthin, Denbighshire LL15 1BB Tel: +44 (0)1824 704774 Ruthin Craft Centre is revenue funded by the Arts Council of Wales and is part of Denbighshire County Council. Every effort has been made to seek permission to reproduce those images whose copyright does not reside with the Makers and RCC and we are grateful to the individuals and institutions who have assisted us in this task. Any omissions are entirely unintentional. This book may not be reproduced in whole or in part in any form without written permission from the publishers. This publication is also available in Welsh.

cover: ‘Sting’ necklace, Carina Chitsaz-Shoshtary, 2013; graffiti, silver. 195 x 88 x 24mm, chain: 710mm. model: Mari Halang. stylist: Katharina Gruszczyn’ski. make-up and hair: Nadja Kaiser. photography: Laurens Burro back cover: Attai Chen wearing his ‘The Yung Zabars’ brooch, 2011; paper, newspaper, colour, glue, brass, graphite, silver, stainless steel. 80 x 100 x 60mm. photography: Carina Chitsaz-Shoshtary page 1: ‘Box’ brooch, Tore Svensson, 2014; steel, paint. 62 x 22 x 14mm page 2: Attai Chen wearing his ‘The Yung Zabars’ brooch, 2011; paper, newspaper, colour, glue, brass, graphite, silver, stainless steel. 80 x 100 x 60mm page 3: Neckpiece, Emmeline Hastings, 2013; acrylic (Perspex), 18ct gold. 250 x 200 x 30mm ‘Things Happen in a Garden Series’ brooch, Flóra Vági, 2014; cedar, pigment, acrylic paint, silver, steel. 90 x 70 x 35mm