Finally, something to look at…

What’s Melissa up to? Giving us some images, finally!

Transformation 8, the exhibition of Raphael Prize opens in Pittsburgh on Friday. Meghan Patrice Riley is this year’s very deserving winner with her work Interstitial. Also opening at the Society for Contemporary Craft is the exhibition Charmed III: Third Times a Charm in the store. Jill and I sent some of our recent charm series over for that one, but more on them soon.

My entry into the competition, and appearing in Transformation 8, is Internalised, pictured below.

Melissa Cameron, Internalised, 2011. 800 silver platter, stainless steel cable.

Over the weekend I was busily updating my website, adding an Exemplar listing, which features many works from the last 12 months, some of which have not yet been on display.

Finally there’s been lots of shenanigans over at Heat Exchange, including more images of my work, and many by other artists who are also involved in the project.


Man + Jewellery = ManJewellery

The online version of our Part B ManJewellery exhibition has been live on Crafthaus since Monday. The discussion that has ensued in the comments section is worth a look, the politics of jewellery for men being one interesting thread.

In another thread, one local agitator* has also suggested that the show was ‘Very Melbourne’. I thought, as I read the comment, “That’s gonna be a hard one for the (predominantly) international audience to follow.” To my surprise, many people chimed in with their local reference cities, of places that in their opinion would and would not play host to a similar exhibition/project.

Moderator Brigitte Martin did ask about the archetypes of Melbourne and/versus Sydney style. I could list off some in reference to women’s jewellery that have been told me, and some that I have experience of, but in terms of (artist-created) jewellery for men, I think we’re in un-or-under-explored territory. Doncha think?

And as for the ‘so metro’ comment, I’m not sure if that means metropolitan, or metrosexual… It’s been a while since I heard the latter, which makes me wonder if the meaning has morphed recently? If it’s the former… hmm. Does it refer to the work, or the models?


*and I mean that in the best sense, Kevin.

Previous posts: my ManJewellery + ManJewellery invitation

laser vs 3d printing

Quick, get the laser! (Beatles movie reference… I’m sorry, I’m actually talking about laser-cutting, not frying John-Paul-George-Ringo)

I’m a devotee of the laser, you might have noticed. I think it has something to do with the fact that I think in plan. Always have. Then elevation. A vertical plan, really. But if you’re more of a sculpture-head, you probably think in 3d from the get-go. So then you’re more likely to be into 3d printing.

As for 3d printing, Shapeways is probably your go-to, if you’re not rich lucky enough to have your own printer, or affiliated with a university/rich lucky benefactor. Well, if you are into the Shapeways, you probably want to check out the Engineer Vs Designer necklace competition. Who will get the upper hand? There’s $200 on the line…

Me, I’ll stick to the flat stuff. But if I was going to go into printing, I’d be looking hard at the connections and clever design of Alissia Melka-Teichroew. She’s done some flat stuff too.

But haven’t we all?


What has postmodernism done for you lately? I heard it doesn’t give a flying duck…

I finally got around to reading ‘Interview with Postmodernism Curator at the V&A, Glenn Adamson’ by Katherine Elliott last week.

This was the bit I was particularly interested in;

Q: In your opinion, what is the difference between critiquing work created as art and work created for use, like product design?

A: I think it’s a continuum or maybe even just a shift in emphasis. You can treat a design object like an art work (Duchamp started doing so a century ago after all) and you can also treat an art work like a design object, by considering its production and distribution narrative. So to me, the difference is in the manner of questioning, not the supposed inherent nature of the object, or even the maker’s intention.

The question and answer that directly followed this was particularly thought-provoking, to me, given that they explore further that last part – intention – and what importance is has to historians/theorists, when forming a historical narrative. Not as much as I might have thought.

In the field of research jewellery, you’d have to argue that it is a particularly intriguing arena to investigate.

A deadline or two

The regular Deadlines list. Get amongst it!

More to add to the last list, with a bonus extended deadline.

Creative Australia Fellowshipsemerging and established artists – closes Jan 31

Hot Under the Collar: A Survey of Contemporary Necklaces – closes Jan 15 Feb 1

ArtStart Grant – closes March 2

Medal of Honour Design Competition – closes March 15

and keep in mind;

NTJ 2012 – closes June 1

\\ edit

Here’s two more opportunities that I have come across in the last day.

Call for papers for: Nation Building: Craft and Contemporary American Culture – closes April 2

Art Jewelry Magazine : Call for images of works of ‘Hardware Store Jewelry’ – closes Feb 8 (For those of you all in The Box Project a year ago – there’s no excuse for missing this one)


The never-ending saga that is owning a sandblaster…

The never-ending saga that is owning a sandblaster…

I had been playing with the air intake of the unit for the last week or so, as I’d noticed that the vacuum wasn’t ‘sucking’ right. I have tried to clear out the dust collectors before, but it had never actually released any material. Funny.

Turns out to release a torrent of dust, I had to unclog the vacuum evacuation downpipe.  Using the end of a mini wooden spoon, after judiciously deciding that putting my fingers up the spout could be a recipe for disaster, or at least spiders, I cleared a plug of fairly pristine looking sand/grit that was set into the tube.

A binful (you’ll find that a handy unit of measure, though I might have to give it up myself once I hit Seattle… trash-can-full is not quite the same) of greyish dust poured forth, once I had done a little percussive maintenance (shaking the whole machine and hitting the side of the vacuum disposal chute with a mallet). It was closely followed by plumes of the stuff wafting towards me. I remembered to put on the mask, just after after I started, but before the great grey floaty plumes. That’s the point where I reached for my protective glasses.

Barring replacing complex parts, I think my sandblaster has given over its final maintenance secret… Til I find a new problem, I guess

The countdown is on

What’s going on at the jewellists bench? A lot, and more besides…

Happy New Year everybody!

Right now, (in fact, I began last week) I’m making work for a bunch of shows that are set to open in the first four months of this year.

I’m in the Transformation 8 exhibition – which I’ve referred to as the Elizabeth R Raphael Founders Prize before (since last year’s competition resulted in what they’re exhibiting in the show) which opens shortly. That’s been on the cards for a while now so that work is completed and arrived in the US early last month, in preparation for imminent display.

Hosted by, and located at the Society for Contemporary Craft in Pittsburgh, it runs for ages, and for at least part of that time the SCC is simultaneously running a charm show called Charmed III – Third Times a Charm, in which I was also invited to exhibit. As myself and the illustrious Jill Hermans have designed and created a bunch of charms in the last six months, for the upcoming JoyaViva exhibition in Melbourne (and touring – possibly for-ev-er), we decided to exhibit some more of those little beauties, which, luckily for us, the SCC accepted. So, at the moment I’ve just finished a couple of those cards ready for enamelling, and Jill is preparing two more of the same. Yes, these ones are getting the royal treatment now that the kiln is up and running.

So of course, one of the shows soon-to-open is the actual Joyaviva show, beginning on the 10th of February at RMIT gallery in Melbourne, and touring. We’re in the final stages of our part for that exhibition – the work is ready and the catalogue is in produciton.

When you look at it in terms of what’s actually on my bench, the main pieces that I’m working on right now are for my upcoming solo show at Studio 20/17, opening at the very end of Feb. I’ve drawn, emailed, received and started working with a new laser cut plan that I created for these works, with an aim of the show also being to display this laser cut pattern. I’ve been wanting to do this for a while, but this is my first opportunity to exhibit both a full iteration of the pattern that I draw for each series, alongside all of the pieces that come from it.

This time in creating the pattern I’ve worked with the idea that various sections are to be enamelled, and come up with what might be seen as a tiled arrangement of parts. I have made a break from the radial arrangement of motifs, which dominated all my previous laser cut series (and many of my hand-cut works too, though this too has been changing over the last year…), and this development, along with all of the other considerations of the series, is proving stimulating for me to work with.

Now to the final exhibition, being mounted in late April. The Heat Exchange exhibition goes on display in Phoenix, Arizona, as a part of this year’s SNAG conference. The works that I am preparing for my solo show will provide some of the pieces for this exhibition – especially the object works that come out of the new pattern. I will also work on a few more pieces for this show, but only once the works from the first full pattern are in the bag.

So, with all this work to do, you might not see me haunting these parts quite as frequently as I have done. There will still be updates to the Heat Exchange blog as well as the C3 blog (for the Joyaviva exhibition) as well as an upcoming Online Exhibition that I’m curating at Crafthaus, so don’t fret, we won’t have to be strangers 😉