Do Materials Matter In Achieving Contemporary Jewellery’s Value

Introduction

This critical reflection will seek to establish how important materials are to the value of contemporary jewellery and art. It will be a reflection that will attempt to confirm that regardless of how the modern world has limited jewellery to its immateriality, the materiality of jewellery is quintessential in many ways. It will be a reflection that will be based on the tactile communication of jewellery and art in general and how the peculiar sense of touch can be used to determine the value of a jewel or the value of any concerned piece of art.

In the main body, a string of critical and theoretical perspectives regarding the materiality of jewellery will be laid out. This part will involve observations of various pieces of literature, testimonials and personal views concerning art and how tactile communication directs the molding of art. I strategically chose to showcase the need for tactile communication in art and in jewellery by considering the blind or visually impaired people. The reason as to why I chose the group is because the only sense they can use in the determination of how precious jewellery or a piece of art is can only be by touch. By considering the need for tactile communication for visually impaired people, this reflection will have successfully proved that material matter in the molding of jewellery. 

For the final part of part reflection which is the conclusion, I will showcase how the immateriality of jewellery which has been brought about through the promotion of ocularcentrism hinder tactile communication and consequently enhances against people who are visually impaired from enjoying the value of jewellery.  I will finish off by stating that materials that make jewels and art in general need to use not only the sense of sight but also the sense of touch to enhance an all-around appreciation of art and jewellery.

Main Body

The essence of this studio practice is to consider the use of wearable and interactive pieces of artwork and show how the materials they are made of and the manner in which they are made affects their tactile communication. I refer myself as an artist that establish awareness of own practice, who intend to make playful form of jewellery expressed as the social languages of geometrical, architectural and constructivism, but which maintain quite personal characteristics. For the ‘Tactical Communication’ project, I aim to provide the concept that bypass the habit of visual priority, enhance the imagination through ‘tough,’ which imprint tactical communicate system with jewellery as conversation piece, apply and make communication accessible at the fringe area. The jewellery will be one that can serve the normal people (those who have a sense of sight) and also the blind or visually impaired people whose only sense that they can use to value jewellery is through the use of the sense of touch. The aim of the reflection will be to prove that materialism is still an integral part of contemporary culture and regardless of how the immateriality of jewellery is held with high regard, those who appreciate tactile communication will always consider the material used in determining the value of the jewellery. `

Shailendra Singh, a philosopher who dwells in expounding on materialism and immaterialism, considers that materialism and immaterialism are just concepts regarding the existence of something. According to him, the materiality or immateriality of something will immensely depend on its existence. If the object exists in space, then it is material. To approve so, she explains, “In my definition, an object is a set of rules, which exist in our mind in response to the raw input of our sense” (Singh and Parmar, n.d., p1) A material substance is, therefore, something that directly makes a raw input our senses. The sense could consequently be the sense of sight or could be the sense of touch. As for the immaterial things, their existence in space is assumptive. It is not one that appeals to the physical senses at all. Therefore, the materiality of a jewel in the very first essence is about its ability to contact raw input into the human sense.

Since jewellery exists and can be witnessed, through various senses, we would try to understand why the sense of touch is not very considered in jewellery. Questions like, what are the existing dimensions that make the sense of touch not to be as easily applied as the sense of sight while viewing the value of contemporary jewellery ought to be understood. The basic reason as to why the sense of touch is not made of in an exemplary way is because of ocular-centrism. Ocular-centrism is a western culture that seems to appraise the sense of sight as more dependable and fundamental than the sense of touch and other senses. Arezou Monzishade writes about ocular-centrism and states that it is, “the invention of perspectival representation made the eyes the center point of the perceptual world as well as the concept of the self” (Monshizade, 2016, p356) 

From Monzishade’s statement, we can learn that in arts, other senses which are inclusive of the sense of touch are resonating in understanding art. Their recognition, understanding and their ability to process information regarding events around them is therefore not inferior to the sense of sight. All of them have the same ability and therefore, it is not just to say that the sense of touch cannot be used in the evaluation of the value of jewellery.

Tactile communication only happens when the sense of touch can be discrete. In art, it is a special way of communication where sharing a message with the audience articulately involves a sense of touch.  It, therefore, means that the art must show specific characteristics that involve the sense of touch. For instance, while understanding a piece of jewellery using the sense of touch one will have to understand the peculiar tangible characteristics of the jewellery. Figure 1 below shows an example of a piece of art that addresses the aspect of tactile communication. The illustration shows some kind of communication where one can be noting the shape and the nature of the piece of art. Just by touching and counting, everyone, inclusive of a blind man can, under that the piece of art if one that has a triangle shape but one that has five steps. They will also understand that from one step to the next, the triangle steps are reducing in size. They will also understand that the piece of art has a handle at the bottom. The material by which the piece of art is made is, therefore, one that makes such an effective tactile communication just by its layout.

Figure 1PInterest (https://www.pinterest.com/gingerush08/tactile-art-for-the-blind/?lp=true)

Judy Artfield stated that the material culture of everything determines is value in that same culture. She observes what the real issue in modeling is and observes that a piece of art ought to bring a certain level of contentment to the owner. The owner, in that case, does not just need to have own the artifact but also needs to understand the dynamic nature of the material culture. In the most basic view of a piece of art of a jewel, the design is not just by sight but also in consideration of the nature of the material.

The greatest assumption of the nature of the material, in this case, is the sense of touch since Artfield rules out the sense of sight. She claims that when thinking about materiality, the concrete issues that can be felt using the sense of touch can be understood where she proposes that people look in, “nature of things as inevitable by means of the irrefutable characteristics which determine that, say ‘wood can’t melt’, to the materiality of things as the physical manifestation of making, it is then possible to envisage change ‘by design’ as agency – a self-aware process” (Artfield, 2000, p41) In the statement, Artfield acknowledges that the sense of touch still remains inevitable as unlike the sense of sight, it cannot be misguided by the outlook of jewellery but rather by the desired tangible characteristics of the jewellery. Figure 2 below is a representation of how the sense of touch is heavily influenced by materiality.

Figure 2 PInterest (https://www.pinterest.com/gingerush08/tactile-art-for-the-blind/?lp=true)

The above piece of art is an articulate piece of tactile art. Using the sense of sight, the art may not as symbolically beautiful. However, for a blind person, the piece of art would make instrumental meaning because by simply using the sense of touch, a blind person can identify the shape of the figure and easily (Risatti, 2009, p16). Therefore, materiality is a great determinant of tactile communication. The material of a piece of jewellery, therefore, is quintessential in the determination of the value of the jewel for visually impaired people.

As Arjun Appadurai states the politics determine the value of a commodity around it. We would translate the proposition by the author to the view that the material of a piece of a jewel determines its value. The view of the material of jewellery will however be determined by the politics of the people who view the item as. The view that people who are visually impaired do not need jewellery is thus unfounded and unjust because they are sometimes offered to them as gifts. Such commodities that are jewellery to the visually impaired people can only gain value when they have some element of sociability with the owner as Appadurai states that commodities should show. “in the flow of social relations, commodities are held to represent the drive” (Appadurai, 1988, p12) Drawing from his sentiments therefore, the flow of things cannot happen when there is not social relationship between the owner of the jewellery and the jewellery; something that can only happen through tactile communication. 

David Pye, a modern art analyst observed art and said that it just the encryption of a the mind on a physical material. Though he was one of the modern viewers of art who think that art has more immateriality than materiality, he somehow acknowledged that the final decryption of the human mind or the idea on the human mind rests on the material to which the mind of the artist is laid on. In the view of the materiality of art, David Pye proposed a hypothesis that design proposes and workmanship disposes of (Pye, 1968, p4). I am forced to understand the contextual view that was in the mind of the author to mean that whereas the immateriality of a proposed piece of work may be perfect, there is need to involve not just the best material but also the best material approach while utilizing literally making the piece of art (Greenman, 2008, p12). The figure below synthesizes an approach where the material used in making the piece of art determines whether the artist communicates their immaterial mind to their audience. 

Figure 3(Colorado Center for the Blind)

The figure is an artistic representation of a mountain where trees are growing. In the mind of the artist, there was a need to showcase a mountain and he could have done it in myriad ways. However, just like Pye puts it, there was need for the artist to question the use of materials in his representation which made him settle for the artistic impression. The piece of art is not just viewable by the sight-endowed people but also makes meaning to the blind due to its tactile communicability. Visually impaired people can confirm the peaks of the mountain as well as the trees around it. The material used by the artist was therefore essential to a visually impaired person which proves that the value of the piece of art vehemently depended on whether the materials used could make any tactile communication. 

Ann Cunningham, an art instructor at the Colorado center for the blind explains her position concerning arts and states that there is nothing as satisfying as a piece of art that one can see and touch. In her early years as an artist, Cunningham was heftily interested in visual arts. She could create her arts but she never felt the gratification that she felt when she made her first stone sculpture. In her address to the Federation of tactile art, Cunningham stated, “as I sculpted the stone I realized that the feel of it under my hands as I created the form kept suggesting this touch thing seems powerful” (Cunningham, 2017, n.p.)  She moves ahead and explains that the touch of a tactile art even to a person who is not blind sends a message, “If it feels right, it is right.”

The basic message that Cunningham as a specialist in the in tactile arts relays is that the very idea of the materials that make arts and jewellery determine their value across the spectrum. For the blind people, art is never a message to them if they cannot touch and feel what the rest of the population sees. Tactile art, however, requires the use of materials that can conform to the tactical approach.  

Figure 4 (Voyager Art and Tile, 2009)

In the figure, an image of a man who probably lost their limbs is depicted. The art is made from bricks it has tactile touch. Therefore, from a critical observation, one would understand that the artist could still have made the representation as visual arts and still have expressed his thought on people who lose their limbs for instance in war. However, the artist chose to use tactile art not just to showcase the image of a person who lost their limbs but also to ensure that people who are visually impaired understand his view. The difference between the visual art that would have been made and the tactical art is, therefore, nothing but a choice of the material.

Now that we have proved that tactile communication is quintessential for people who are visually impaired, it would be an incomplete process not to observe the materials that can be used in making the tactile arts. The very first thing that one needs to consider while thinking of a material that can be used to create a piece of tactile art or jewellery is whether the material they target is versatile. A material that can be used for tactile arts must be a readily available material. It must also possess the capacity to be made into different shapes without affecting it (Paterson, 2007, p13). The material is necessary to consider as it will not only determine the ability of the tactile art to be made but will also determine the effectiveness of the final art or jewel. 

Jesmonite is an applicable material in tactile arts and whose applicability cannot be underrated. It is not a costly material as it could be expected of materials that make jewellery in the modern times. It is, however, a material that is versatile and can be modelled in different versions. It can be made into a melted paste that can be used to make any jewel or art in the manner that the artist had speculated. In its solid form, it could also be reshaped into myriads of shapes (Barthes,1972, p304). Other materials alongside jesmonite can be used in the process. I, however, choose jesmonite over the other materials because it can be used in different ways and in different forms. It is, therefore, a valuable material that is heftily used in jewellery as shown in figures 5 and 6 below; 

Figure 5 (Jesmonite in molten form)

Figure 6 (Jesmonite use in sculpture making)

Conclusion

This critical reflection aimed to establish whether the material of jewellery determines the value of the jewellery. As per my studio practice, my approach to prove whether the material of jewellery determines the value of the jewellery was by the use of tactile communication. For the specific work, I was to lay instrumental efforts in proving that it is the material approach that can make tactile communication in jewellery true to the blind and visually impaired people. 

Before undertaking on the assignment, I was interested in understanding the claims of arts specialists regarding the materiality and immateriality of art and jewellery. I understood that art or jewellery is an object in space that can be observed by the use of the physical senses while immateriality means that the idea behind cannot be related with using the physical senses. From the approach, I learned that every piece of art has a material factor as it addresses a physical sense. However, I acknowledged that ocular-centrism has ruled out the sense of touch and tactile communication which is quite unfortunate.

I concluded the reflection by observing that tactile communication is of great beneficence if the blind and visually impaired people are to be considered as part of art and jewellery. They are a group of people that can only relate to jewellery and art. Using different literature studies, I proved that tactile communication in jewellery is dependent not just on the skill of the artist but also on the material they use. I proposed jesmonite as probable material from my observation of its nature. The experience was quite a motivating one that made me recognize that I can make a good artist, especially for tactile arts.

List of Illustrations

Figure 1 PInterest (2018) [Online Image]

Figure 2 Pinterest (2018) [Online Image]

Figure 3 Thompson, M. (2017). [Online Image] 

-Katy holds up her daughter Zoey who is wearing sleepshades so she can touch ta tactile art piece of the mountains=

Figure 4 Voyage  Art & Tile (2018) [Online Image]

https://voyagertile.com/sculpture/

Figure 5 Insitute of Making (2018) [Online Image]

Figure 6 Evensi (2017) [Online Image]

https://www.evensi.uk/sculpting-casting-jesmonite-august-2018-london-sculpture-workshop/259480634

Bibliography

Appadurai, A. ed., 1988. The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective. Cambridge University Press.

Attfield, J., 2000. Wild things the material culture of everyday life.

Barthes, R., 1972. Mythologies. 1957. Trans. Annette Lavers. New York: Hill and Wang, pp.302-06.

Cunningham, A. (2017). Touching Imagination: Unlocking the Creativity of Blind Artists. [online] Available at: https://nfb.org/images/nfb/publications/bm/bm17/bm1710/bm171013.htm [Accessed 18 Jan. 2019].

Greenman, A., 2008. The architecture of cultural enterprise: a study of design reflexivity in action (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nottingham).

Monshizade, A., 2016, September. Multisensory approach in architecture education: The basic courses of architecture in Iranian universities. In Ambiances, tomorrow. Proceedings of 3rd International Congress on Ambiances. Septembre 2016, Volos, Greece (Vol. 1, pp. p-355). International Network Ambiances; University of Thessaly.

Paterson, M., 2007. The senses of touch: Haptics, affects and technologies. Berg.

Pye, D. and Pye, D., 1968. The nature and art of workmanship(Vol. 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Risatti, H., 2009. A theory of craft: function and aesthetic expression. Univ of North Carolina Press.

Singh, S. and Parmar, V.P.S., Materialism, non-materialism and immaterialism.