We welcome your comments on our publishing, and will publish letters that engage with our articles in a thoughtful and polite manner. Please submit letters to the editor electronically; do so here. Photo credit: Ron Lach, via Pexels
In response to Jan Yager: October 9, 1951–August 14, 2024, written by Marian Pritchard
June 17, 2025
I am sorry to belatedly learn of Jan Yager’s death. I was her roommate for a year when she was studying at RISD. I approached the world through words, Jan was profoundly visual and sculptural. I remember her coming home from a self-critique session and complaining about the futility of asking artists to talk about their work: “If we could put it into words, we wouldn’t have to make art.”
—Mary Mazzocco, retired journalist and educator
In response to Manon van Kouswijk’s letter to the editor, which appears immediately below
June 15, 2025
I am grateful to Manon for her competent comment. I would like to emphasize that in my piece, I specifically spoke about education within the contemporary jewelry context, and while writing it, I interviewed several people from different countries and continents (to avoid being Eurocentric) about their experiences as students in jewelry education. Not all students had experience with such assignments and direct communication with important figures in the field as part of their master’s program. The aim of the article was also to highlight how rare it is for four prominent figures to find a common goal, time, and desire to create an engaging educational project together. Of course, I am aware of some educational approaches of the Bauhaus (also Vkhutemas, by the way), as well as the various methods and experiments in education throughout the 20th century, which naturally served as inspiration for MASieraad. Dear Manon, I would be happy to bring this discussion into the public sphere and to create an interview piece with you about your perspective on contemporary jewelry education today, for AJF or another platform.
—Elena Karpilova
In response to MASieraad: Digging Holes, Throwing Away Shoes, written by Elena Karpilova and published June 9, 2025
June 10, 2025
It was interesting to read about the MA Sieraad course, however I think the article lacks context and depth in that it doesn’t mention the ideas and methods that underpin this type of education. For anyone who is familiar with teaching in an art school the kind of assignments that are described are really not that unusual, they are probably more so for jewellery education, but certainly not for art education in general. There are entire books that have been written about these kind of exercises and projects within art education. Surrealist exercises from the 1910’s and 20’s and variations on them are still being used to enable spontaneous expression and to generate unexpected outcomes.
Of course it’s a great idea to bring these ideas and methods to jewellery education but also this is not new: in the 1980’s Onno Boekhoudt introduced fine art pedagogy to the teaching of jewellery at the Gerrit Rietveld Academy in Amsterdam. Artist jewellers like Lucy Sarneel and also Ted Noten studied with Onno Boekhoudt and Ruudt Peters took on the job of head of department there when Onno Boekhoudt left. Students at the Rietveld do a foundation year before studying in the jewellery department, this foundation year is full of exercises and projects like the ones described in this article. So whilst I think it’s great that MA Sieraad has designed this course and I recognise the necessity for jewellery education to be on par with education in fine art, in talking about its origins and about art education it would be good to not make it sound as if they have invented it all, as obviously they have drawn from a long lineage of radical models for art education. It sounds a bit naive to compare a course that has been running for 5 years to the Bauhaus, which existed for 14 years and was closed down by the Nazis in the lead-up to world war 2. Rigor is a word that is mentioned in the terms that describe the MA Sieraad course, I think it would be good if that rigor was also applied in the communication of its methods and intentions, including proper credits and acknowledgment of historical legacies that have clearly informed its inception.
Manon van Kouswijk
Artist/jeweller/former lecturer in jewellery and fine art at the Gerrit Rietveld Academy, in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, and Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
In response to The Laughing Demiurge, written by Ilaria Ruggiero and published April 29, 2024
April 29, 2024
Ich genieße den Spiegel, den Schobinger seinen Bewunderern entgegenstreckt und wünschte mir, dass sie in ihm Erkenntnis fänden. Gratulation zu dieser großartigen Objektauswahl! (I enjoy the mirror that Schobinger holds out to his admirers and wish that they could find insight in it. Congratulations on this great selection of objects!)
Dr. Tibor Szabó
Kunsthistoriker (art historian)
Last week AJF sent out a statement to announce a reaction to Esther Doornbusch’s review of Mit Eigensinn. “Great!,” I thought, not every article sparks a conversation. Therefore it is a pity that you did not only offer the arena, but felt it necessary to distance yourself from the review. And worse, from the writer.
My first impression is that AJF could have been more supportive of their author, who has contributed some pretty strong reviews in the past. For example by saying that AJF always highly appreciated her reviews but that in this one case here etc. etc. Perhaps this wording in the email was consulted with Esther? In that case, it could have been added that AJF and the author decided together that, “in hindsight,” it could have been done differently.
Yes, Esther is my friend. But I am also her colleague once in a while, when I contribute to the jewellery debate with a review or an original thought. Will I be the next to be sacrificed when someone does not like my review?
The only good thing: commotion. People might be woken up to think for themselves if Esther was right to give this book a negative review. All AJF had to do was to hold a neutral position.
Well, probably best to talk about this with writers and book lovers. They happen to be assembled during Schmuck on Friday morning, when some new books are presented. I don’t mean to jeopardize the festive character of the morning. But it could be an excellent moment to also address the question if jewellery has a healthy review culture. Are there enough publishing houses, are there enough readers, and people involved with those books, are different opinions possible, is there a place to voice them, is there a freedom to write? – questions like these. We could hear what Dirk Allgaier has to say to this (from a commercial stance, I am guessing “Bad publicity is publicity too” instead of not being written about).
Reply to Esther Doornbusch’s book review, published in December 2023
January 15, 2024
We thank Esther Doornbusch for reviewing the publication Mit Eigensinn* (A Mind of Their Own. Jewellery from Austria. Focusing on Women Artists) for Art Jewelry Forum, which we—initiator Gabriele Kutschera, Ursula Guttmann, and Susanne Hammer—as its editors and as co-curators of the exhibition of the same title read with growing astonishment and mounting disbelief. It is not just the wording of the text, which in fact barely meets the requirements of a well-grounded review. The review contains numerous erroneous interpretations and inaccuracies; accordingly, we see ourselves forced to undertake a much-needed correction. Since we would actually have to go into each paragraph individually but doing so would be beyond the scope of this reply, we will focus on the important paragraph on the exhibition as our example.
Esther Doornbusch writes,“The exhibition and catalog aim to provide an overview of what has happened in Austria in the field of contemporary jewelry since the 1970s. The show took place at a private museum, the Museum Angerlehner, in Thalheim bei Wels, Austria, in two rooms devoted primarily to exhibiting graphics and photography. As stated in the book: the owner of the museum, Heinz J. Angerlehner, was closely involved. The title of the project refers to a 1985 exhibition at the Museum des 20. Jahrhunderts (renamed Belvedere 21), in Vienna:Kunst mit Eigen-Sinn, Aktuelle Kunst von Frauen (Art with a Mind of its Own. Art by Women Now). But the motivation to refer to this title is not explained. It would be interesting to learn more about the connection between the two exhibitions.”
Both in the introduction (“MIT EIGENSINN*”) and in Gabriele Kutschera’s foreword (“Why Minds of Our Own*?”) the underlying motives and the context are described from various angles:
The meaning of “Eigensinn” as one’s own meaning—that is, one’s own significance in the sociological sense and in relation to Eigen-Sinn, the title of the 1985 exhibition (in the sense of appropriation, autonomy, self-empowerment)—is interpreted by Gabriele Kutschera with reference to artistic activity and the self-determination inherent in it.
In their text, the curators (Ursula Guttmann/Susanne Hammer) examine in depth the quotation described in this introduction from the context of the 1985 exhibition—“Willful as a form of appropriating the right to represent and express oneself, the experiences in one’s own environment, one’s own history”—which not only was crucial with regard to the 1985 show but is also relevant to our focus. The motivations and approaches to work shown by early women artists in jewelry (which are often in stark contrast to masculine conceptions) are elucidated with reference to individual positions. In both instances the texts highlight power structures, the question of autonomy and authenticity, of the authority to define (art) history, and, ultimately, the self-empowerment of women artists.
The reason for establishing a link between the two exhibitions, has, therefore, been more than sufficiently explained.
What is also incomprehensible is the assertion that Herr Angerlehner was involved in the concept planning. In his brief preface, it unequivocally states that he supported this exhibition project in his capacity as owner of the museum, but not that his involvement went beyond that.
Finally, we would like to stress that it was never the plan to produce a complete historical reappraisal, nor was this expressed, but rather to focus sharply on the pioneering women in the context of the early years of avant-garde jewelry, to describe the contribution they have made to Austrian jewelry, and to show the diversity of their approaches. This is also intended to be deliberately underscored with visuals. That may not be to everyone’s taste but the accusation, which, after all, runs through Doornbusch’s entire review, that we have acted without any plan is disrespectful, beside the point, and simply incorrect.
We would like to take this opportunity to once again expressly thank Dirk Allgaier and his publishing house, Arnoldsche Art Publishers. We were encouraged through conversations underpinned by his knowledge to engage in this subject.
—Gabriele Kutschera, Ursula Guttmann, Susanne Hammer