Interviews

Rock Hushka is Director of Curatorial Administration and Curator of Contemporary and Northwest Art at Tacoma Art Museum, Tacoma, Washington, USA. His museum is the major collector of craft—including contemporary jewelry—in the Seattle region. Along with the Bellevue Arts Museum, which doesn’t have a collection, the Tacoma Art Museum is responsible for making Washington a dynamic place to see contemporary jewelry. In 2010, Hushka gave the AJF lecture at SOFA NY, which you can read on the AJF website.

I had the opportunity to speak with Hushka in 2011. We spent some time walking around the museum, looking at the different spaces and talking about the institution’s relationship with contemporary jewelry.

Damian Skinner: What’s the responsibility of the museum to different kinds of culture?

Rock Hushka: Well, our director is really keen on making sure that our collections and exhibitions relate to the entire community in various ways. It can be a community show, meaning something really popular like Norman Rockwell or St John’s Bible, or it can be an exhibition like HIDE/SEEK: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture that speaks to a specific community of people. I’ve found that thematic shows can help address community needs better than one person shows, although Norman Rockwell is wildly popular with elderly white people of a certain generation.

Do you collect all kinds of art?

Rock Hushka: All types of art, but mainly artists of the Pacific Northwest. We do have legacy collections. We have a major collection of Japanese woodblock prints, we have a small collection of European Impressionists, and we have some American works from the American-British colonial era to the early twentieth century. But, I would say two thirds of our collection are works by Northwest artists.

What do you mean by the Northwest?

Rock Hushka: It covers western Montana, Idaho, Oregon, Washington and British Columbia and with an eye towards Alaska. So here we encounter contemporary jewelry. This is a recent acquisition by Trudee Hill.

Tell me about the curatorial team. What’s your official title?

Rock Hushka: Director of Curatorial Administration and Curator of Contemporary and Northwest Art. My colleague Margaret Bullock is Curator of Collections and Special Projects, so she deals in more of the historic material from the 1950s and earlier.

What role does contemporary jewelry have within the program? For example, how often do you have exhibitions?

Rock Hushka: My vision is to have one or two projects a year, plus a permanent collection open storage in one of our galleries. We plan a major project about every three to five years. It is usually thematic in scope, but on occasion it’s a survey of a Northwest artist, such as Nancy Worden.

 

Have you begun to think about what your next big thematic survey is going to be?

Rock Hushka: No is the short answer. The more complicated answer is it will probably be based on the talk I gave at SOFA NY in 2010, which explored the notions of how jewelry is worn and what it means to the wearer and the viewer; a play on all of those emotions. One of the things that it might do is look at the collectors who are patrons of the museum—how they build their collections and what are their connections with the ideas and the artists. I think that’s a really interesting way to think about collecting and how its different than collecting paintings or photographs. These things are worn and adopted. They become like totems or amulets for the wearer.

This is this case always dedicated to jewelry?

Rock Hushka: It has been since I’ve been here, but I’ve got a plan.

Can you tell me what that plan is?

Rock Hushka: We do these small, what I call ‘vest pocket’ exhibitions of artists or works from the collection. We have works by Seattle ceramist Howard Kottler in these adjacent cases. It’s sort of a retrospective from purportedly his first pot made in the late 1950s to his later massive monumental work called Devil Dog Walk, which is essentially a self portrait. Kottler died of pneumonia in late 1994.

 

That’s a sad end.

Rock Hushka: He did not have an uneventful life, so we can celebrate all of the things he did. These works are all from our collection, with the exception of some of the earlier works, which are loans from a private collector. In anticipation of the 2012 NCECA ceramics conference, we’ll supplement the display with additional works from other collectors, and then we’ll publish a little brochure.

How did the museum come to represent so many kinds of art?

Rock Hushka: That’s one of the good things about being in the far west. The boundaries of the fine art world were slowly chipped away, largely from craft traditions in this part of the world and people such as Howard Kottler and Dale Chihuly. There is this fluidity between process and object and conceptual foundation. I think that’s a really fascinating thing about this region’s history.

Has contemporary jewelry always been collected by the museum?

Rock Hushka: We started collecting in the early 1990s, right after we did a Ken Cory project. The jewelry collection is the fastest growing component of our permanent collection. I’ve tried to be really thoughtful about how we grow it. I’ve been a little bit conservative in a certain way, in that I’ve always focused more on narrative jewelry rather than wearable, purely decorative, more production-line stuff. I’ve shied away from that because it’s easier to tell the story to a visitor. Artists like Nancy Worden or Ken Cory or Laurie Hall or Kiff Slemmons have really infused their works with certain kinds of meaning, so to preserve that history has been first and foremost on my docket. But now that I’m feeling a little bit more comfortable with the history and the tradition and the makers, I’ve slowly been bringing in other kinds of work. Although, in a museum context, its way easier if there’s narrative content.

How long have you been working at the museum?

Rock Hushka: Eleven years. 

So the collecting of contemporary jewelry started before you?

Rock Hushka: Right. It began largely with the advocacy of Nancy Worden and her help with the Ken Cory estate and the work of former curator Barbara Johns. A lot of interesting forces came to bear on the moment that led to collecting contemporary jewelry. We are supported by an active group of collectors in this region.

How big is the jewelry collection?

Rock Hushka: About 290 objects.

 And how big is the museum’s collection overall?

Rock Hushka: About 4200 objects. Here’s the gallery that relates to the grand plan I mentioned earlier. The plan started with the Nancy Worden and Helen Drutt show in 2009. To re-engage with the permanent collection, we built these four cases. The next phase is to reconfigure them in this gallery space. We’ll use the top of these plus wall-mounted cases for the Flora Book exhibition. There are about 30 works in the show with a small publication. We’ll have the cases positioned in such a way that we’ll be able to rotate other jewelry shows in this gallery.

So this will become a dedicated contemporary jewelry gallery?

Rock Hushka: Yes, for the foreseeable future.

In terms of contemporary jewelry, is there a Northwest aesthetic or movement?

Rock Hushka: I think there are a number of them that sort of entwine. There’s the narrative jewelry, the Ken Cory-Ramona Solberg group, that comes from Pop in 1960s, the hippie movement, and using found objects. There’s this other, more refined kind of conceptual practice that’s being beautifully developed and articulated by people like Anya Kivarkis at the University of Oregon.

In Washington State, we’re at a very peculiar moment because the University of Washington has ended its program. Ellensburg is experiencing an interesting moment as Keith Lewis focuses more on administrative work within the university rather than training students. So, how is jewelry going to develop here? I think most people would describe it as a crisis moment, although everyone’s very reluctant to give it that name because of its dire consequences. What Pratt, a fine arts sort of workshop institution, does in Seattle, and what Cornish College does, could be interesting. What the University of Washington does will matter. It’s hard to say what’s going to happen without a way to generate subsequent artists and train them and teach them the history and give them the parameters from which to create. It’s hugely problematic.

 

There has to be a focus. Formerly, The University of Washington was that center. There was this ability to bring people from around the country to the university as visiting artists and as lecturers because there were students. Now what’s going to happen when there’s not that center? That intellectual energy has most definitely shifted to the Oregon School of Arts and Crafts and the University of Oregon. All of that creative energy is there. I don’t believe it’s the role of the museum to be that. My job as an archivist is to give meaning to it and to correct or revise the artists on the record. And if there’s nothing to revise, then we have a problem. So, I think the next five to ten years will be crucial. There are support mechanisms—there’s a very active Seattle Metals Guild, there’s the Fine Arts Center, there’s Artists Trusts—but will it be enough? Will it do more than draw people here? Will it be a way to let people churn and define who they are and present that to the rest of the world? Or will it be just this accumulation of really interesting people who are focusing their energy outward?

Do you also take any responsibility or have any interest in collecting items of contemporary jewelry that are not from here but are somehow critical to the story?

Rock Hushka: Absolutely. We have a very small number of those kinds of works, ranging from Swiss artist Verena Sieber-Fuchs to people like Robin Kranitzky and Kim Overstreet. We’ve also just collected a work by Ford & Forlano because of Cynthia Toops relationship with them and polymer jewelry. So yes, when really good works come to us as gifts, then we very carefully consider them. When there’s not a connection, then it becomes really tricky. Our collection committee and Director are very focused on our goal of becoming the premier collection of Northwest art. What that means is somewhat fungible. It’s amorphous, and it means different things on different days, but we do have a collection plan. We have goals. The Flora Book exhibition is one example. In 1986 and 1987, we did a project with Flora. The recent project was sort of a survey, a documentation of her career from the early 1980s to the present. It was fun.

Are you interested in forming relationships with collectors to develop the museum collection?

Rock Hushka: Yes. There are a couple of things that come to mind when you ask that. One is the responsibility of a collector. It’s not just to amass things. The tricky questions are: what does it mean to move from a private collection, a useful collection, into an archive; and is there the understanding that there is usually some refinement? We can’t take everything. We can’t keep everything. The longterm care and cost associated with an object, the intellectual enterprises surrounding the object, and the securing the patronage aspect…that’s just one component. Then there are other, really fascinating things that the collector won’t see, can’t see, and shouldn’t see. Things they should let the curators figure out.

Given your focus on Northwest art, would you also be interested in good examples of jewelry from other places that cast light onto Northwest cultural production?

Rock Hushka: If a collection was offered or if there was an opportunity to acquire such jewelry, we would very seriously consider it because of the role that jewelry has played in this region and its connections with the rest of the art.

Do you have an acquisitions budget?

Rock Hushka: A very, very modest one. We have the Ramona Solberg endowment, which we doubled recently. Our last purchase with those funds was Nancy Worden’s Frozen Dreams from her Loud Bones exhibition here. We’ll have to let those funds accrue for a while now. We’ve just acquired a Trudee Hill work, and we’ve just been gifted a Ford & Forlano necklace and nice Laurie Hall example. Part of our endowment campaign includes a $1.5 million dollar fund for endowment and acquisitions.

 

Tell me about your audience. What’s the Tacoma community like?

Rock Hushka: It’s fairly diverse in terms of ethnicity. Income and education are at slightly lower levels than Seattle. We have everything from Port Tacoma longshoremen to blue collar transportation to light manufacturing, and then there’s the university and a downtown core of financial services and internet startups, so pretty diverse. The survey we’ve done shows our primary visitor is female, 55 and over, usually with grandchildren. A lot of families and a lot of school tours visit, largely white. Our visitorship reflects, per capita, the demographics of the county. We keep track by zip code analysis. We’d like to increase our number of African American and Latino visitors. We found that our biggest barrier is affordability, because Tacoma is largely a blue collar area.

 

Ursula Ilse-Neuman is Curator of Jewelry at the Museum of Arts and Design (MAD) in New York. Recognized internationally as a writer, lecturer and curator, she has worked at the museum for over two decades and in that time, has organized a great number of exhibitions on contemporary jewelry and the wider field of craft. Her most recent exhibition, Space-Light-Structure: The Jewelry of Margaret De Patta, co-curated with Julie M Muñiz from the Oakland Museum of California, continues to receive acclaim on both sides of the continent. Ilse-Neuman’s April 2012 presentation on De Patta at SOFA NY can be found on AJF’s website. Damian Skinner joined Ms Ilse-Neuman recently for orange juice and gravlax and had the chance to ask her some questions about herself, the Museum of Arts and Design and collecting art jewelry.

Damian Skinner: Tell me about your background. How did you come to be working at the Museum of Arts and Design?

Ursula Ilse-Neuman: I would have to say hard work coupled with serendipity brought me to MAD. When I was pursuing a graduate degree in the decorative arts in the Cooper Hewitt/Parsons Masters program, one of my professors asked me and several other students to work on an upcoming exhibition at the American Craft Museum, the forerunner of the Museum of Arts and Design. Around that time, the museum had been planning an exhibition on the Weimar and Dessau workshops of the German Bauhaus, but it was proving difficult to get the objects together. Janet Kardon, who was director at the time, sensed that my German background made this project a natural fit for me and charged me with rescuing the exhibition from a long history of missteps. It was a baptism by fire. Dessau and Weimar are important repositories of the early craft-oriented Bauhaus work but getting national treasures out of what was still East Germany and into the United States turned out to be impossible. In the end I found examples of the objects we wanted for the exhibition from private and museum collections in the United States. My most memorable experience was in Dessau where Konrad Püschel, a former Bauhaus student, invited me to his home and over coffee and cake, regaled me with stories of his student days and gave me important insights into how the Bauhaus actually functioned.

After the Bauhaus exhibition, I went on to curate exhibitions in all the traditional media, traveling the country to meet such icons as Wendell Castle, Garry Knox-Bennett, Sam Maloof and Beatrice Wood. Being born and raised in Germany, the history of American craft was a revelation and very different from the German experience during the twentieth century. Almost immediately I fell in love with this unique and exciting field.

And when you say all the traditional media, do you mean craft?

Yes, the traditional craft media: wood, metal, glass, ceramics, fiber, mixed media – I did them all. I organized a retrospective of Garry Knox Bennett’s furniture, a major exhibition of international art quilts that traveled to the Tokyo Dome and Taiwan, ceramics by Gertrud and Otto Natzler, glass from the Czech Republic featuring Libenský and Brychtová, as well as many other well-received projects. I take great pride in these exhibitions and the publications produced to accompany many of them. Publications are an enduring legacy after the close of an exhibition.

So why did you decide to focus on jewelry?

Because it is a passion, pure and simple. With each jewelry exhibition, I became more immersed in art jewelry. As a European – especially one whose hometown is Munich, where jewelry is celebrated – I began to dream of being the contemporary art jewelry emissary for the museum and even for the country. Finally, four years ago, after the museum had changed its name and moved into its new building at 2 Columbus Circle, the museum director offered me the newly created post of Curator of Contemporary Jewelry, the first such position in this country. I was very happy to accept.

And when you say you love art jewelry, what does that mean?

I love the fact that contemporary jewelry has meaningful content – it is about social and political, philosophical and existential issues of great importance today. I love the experimentation and innovation, too. Craftsmanship and mastery of materials and techniques are critical and artists frequently introduce cutting-edge materials and techniques to create new and highly expressive forms. I love seeing traditions transformed or subverted. And I love the idea that contemporary jewelry is not pure ornament but introduces concepts related to the human body and psyche and frequently addresses ideas prevalent in the visual arts today. One of the most rewarding and enjoyable aspects of my role is getting to know jewelry artists. They are very special people and I admire their dedication and how they are able work in a small, intimate format to express big ideas. 

Do you wear a lot of jewelry yourself?

Not a lot, but I do collect a bit and I always wear the jewelry I collect. My pearls and my grandmother’s jewelry rarely see the light of day now.

Who made the jewelry you are wearing today?

I practically live in Eva Eisler’s eminently wearable necklaces and brooches. She’s a Czech jeweler who lived in New York for many years but has now moved back to Prague, where she chairs the Metals Department at the Prague Academy of Arts, Architecture and Design. My enameled silver earrings are by Todd Pardon, the son of Earl Pardon. I recently acquired some pieces by Mieke Groot, a Dutch glass artist and jeweler and I am fortunate to own several works by Thomas Gentille, a New York artist who has contributed a great deal to my passion for jewelry. Our discussions and visits to galleries and studios to look at jewelry together have been invaluable to my appreciation of the field.

So what is the place of jewelry within the museum?

Jewelry occupies a very important place at MAD. We have the only permanent gallery expressly for contemporary art jewelry in the United States and we are very proud of it. We were fortunate to have the support of the Tiffany Foundation when we worked on the plans for the new jewelry gallery on Columbus Circle. The gallery incorporates all of the museum’s dreams. It allows us to install temporary exhibitions and at the same time keep a substantial part of our permanent collection on view in drawers that visitors can open. We change the selection of works in the drawers every few months and it surprises and delights people to get a sense of our holdings. We also offer computer access to our entire collection so visitors can do their own research right from the gallery. The studios on the sixth floor are a highlight, too. Accomplished jewelry artists are invited to work in these spaces and discuss the jewelry they are making with visitors. And, of course, we regularly offer workshops where people can learn a range of jewelry techniques and come away with their own creations.

How do you deal with the problem of jewelry oftentimes being for the body and a museum being a place without the body?

For me, the idea of jewelry as being originally designed with the body in mind is sufficient; it doesn’t necessarily have to be wearable or be seen on the body. I even like to see jewelry presented as a metaphor, as in Jeff Koons’s oversized jewelry-inspired sculptures that may represent luxury, or perhaps wretched excess. I think jewelry is far more interesting than it gets credit for. I also like to see jewelry in context. MAD doesn’t have extensive historical decorative and fine arts collections or photography collections that can be shown alongside jewelry, so this requires getting loans from other museums, as well as from galleries and private collectors. In the recent De Patta retrospective, for example, I borrowed several important works by De Patta’s mentor, László Moholy-Nagy, the founder of the Chicago Bauhaus, where De Patta studied for a period in the forties. And we also showed films made by Moholy-Nagy and we got these from his daughter, Hattula, who heads the Moholy-Nagy Foundation in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Without these contextual pieces, the extent to which Moholy’s Constructivist ideas permeated De Patta’s works throughout her career could not have been made clear.

Does MAD focus on jewelry that is handmade and on craft processes?

Not handmade per se. That would have been true earlier in the museum’s history. While we still concentrate on one-of-a-kind objects, today’s artists and craftsmen are constantly innovating with new technology and incredibly exciting work is being done with rapid prototyping, with photographic manipulations and with laser cutting. The materials and techniques employed today go far beyond those mastered by traditional craftspersons working in wood, metal, glass, ceramics, or fiber. Jewelry artists today are exploring uncharted waters.

Nevertheless, we continue to maintain a strong interest in process and craftsmanship. A very important part of our jewelry collection dates from our origins as the Museum of Contemporary Craft in 1956. Aileen Osborn Webb, the museum’s founder, became involved in helping American craftsmen in the 1940s, at the start of what is now recognized as the studio jewelry movement, so our collection was formed around pieces by such legendary American jewelers as Art Smith, Sam Kramer, Margaret De Patta, Claire Falkenstein and Ed Weiner. This was a uniquely American scene, totally different from what was going on in Europe in the forties and fifties, yet so important to all that followed in this country and internationally. It always surprises me when jewelry experts from Europe or Asia have little knowledge of mid-century American jewelers. 

   

How big is the museum’s collection of contemporary art jewelry?

We have about 700 art jewelry pieces in the collection now, with three times as many promised gifts coming into the collection in the future. Promised gifts are bequeathed to the museum during a collector’s lifetime and are then signed over to the museum at some future date or at the end of life. Generally, we have the right to borrow these promised gifts as they are needed for exhibitions.

Why would people not give the work straight away?

Because they want to continue to wear the jewelry and that’s quite understandable. We have researched these collections and know we want them, even if we have to wait. 

So you are interested in working with collectors to develop the collection?

Yes, of course. All of the museum’s curators work to enlarge the collections. We always aim to keep a balance in the different media. We all have special people, friends of the museum, who are stalwart supporters and have repeatedly come through with pieces for the collection.

What would you tell a collector who was interested in knowing what MAD is looking for in terms of contemporary jewelry? What would be of interest to you?

Basically, we are interested in collecting work from the end of World War II to the present. We acquire some contextual pieces from the arts and crafts movement or other historical periods, but our main focus is contemporary jewelry from all over the world. I am always looking for innovative ideas, where the concept is carried out through masterful craftsmanship, whether the materials are precious or nonprecious. Before a new piece enters the collection it will be carefully scrutinized, not only by me, but an entire committee whose members have to approve of the new acquisition. I have a huge wish list that I regularly update to keep it current. Several years ago, I initiated a strategy to collect the models, sketches and working drawings artists used to create the pieces we collect. I am particularly proud of the many contributions artists have made and the insight these materials provide to the creative process when shown together with the jewelry.

What is the museum’s collecting philosophy? How do you wish to represent people within the collection? One good piece? A number of pieces to characterize their careers?

It varies. Sometimes we select an example from a particular period of an artist’s work. For some well-known artists, we may acquire several pieces from various stages in their careers. This is particularly relevant of artists who have made substantial contributions to the field over extended periods of time, including Arline Fisch, Robert Ebendorf, David Watkins and Wendy Ramshaw, Gijs Bakker and Otto Künzli. And there would be many more. 

So there are no formal restrictions governing when someone’s jewelry can be considered for the collection?

No. Of course, an artist’s reputation plays a part. I think immediately of Hermann Jünger, Francesco Pavan, Giampaolo Babetto and Annmaria Zanella from Europe, or prominent American artists such as Jamie Bennett, Bruce Metcalf and Thomas Gentille, to mention only three, or historical figures including Margaret De Patta, Art Smith and Sam Kramer. Of course, we seek out their finest examples for the collection. But we also want interesting and surprising pieces of high quality from Asia, Latin America and Africa, as well as from lesser-known and emerging artists. In this regard, I really do want to be more adventurous.

That’s an interesting issue. At what point does it seem appropriate to collect the work of a younger maker?

I work hard to keep abreast of the field and to follow the careers of younger artists to see whether they continue to progress. Each March, I religiously make a pilgrimage to Schmuck in Munich to become acquainted with international trends and emerging talents and, closer to home, I regularly attend gallery openings all over the tri-state area. I also crisscross the country to participate in jewelry symposia and art fairs, including SOFA. Recently, I participated in JOYA, the Contemporary Jewellery Week in Barcelona, where younger international artists presented and discussed their work and where several jewelry schools, including from Brazil and China, participated. Since this is a dynamic field, energized by jewelry programs around the world, I also try to keep up on the latest developments through the internet – Klimt is a great site. It’s non-stop learning.

I think I have acquired an understanding of what has good potential and enduring value, what doesn’t; what is maybe just a one-night stand, so to speak. I consider concept, craftsmanship, whether similar work has been done by the artist’s peers or predecessors. If geographic distinctions are apparent, I consider them, too, although nowadays artists are connected globally and making a national or geographic distinction is often not possible. All these factors play a part in the selection process –as does the allocation of funds for a purchase.

What are your upcoming contemporary jewelry projects?

Currently, I’m organizing a large exhibition of jewelry that includes or relates to photography. This is going to be a remarkable exhibition. The artists come from all over the world and their work is exciting and up-to-the-minute. Basically, they turn nineteenth-century photo jewelry on its head. We will include some of this early photo jewelry for context – daguerreotypes, tintypes, miniature portraits, mourning jewelry – but the main thrust of the show is contemporary: artists who take photo jewelry where it has never been before. 

 Do you think the infrastructure of contemporary jewelry is healthy? What is it like being a curator at the moment?

Contemporary jewelry has gained great international momentum and is gaining greater recognition in the United States, thanks to museums like MAD through its continuing leadership in collecting contemporary jewelry and championing the creative process. Thanks also to people like Susan Cummins and Helen Drutt and others who have been instrumental in supporting the field. It’s still very much a field that deserves a wider audience and we all have to work together to make this wonderful form of artistic expression more visible and better understood. I look forward to even better times ahead.