{"id":39654,"date":"2018-04-03T23:12:33","date_gmt":"2018-04-04T03:12:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.wendybrandes.com\/blog\/?p=39654"},"modified":"2018-04-04T22:01:37","modified_gmt":"2018-04-05T02:01:37","slug":"do-not-be-so-presumptuous-a-note-from-richard-kimball","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.wendybrandes.com\/blog\/2018\/04\/do-not-be-so-presumptuous-a-note-from-richard-kimball\/","title":{"rendered":"“Do Not Be So Presumptuous”: A Note From Richard Kimball"},"content":{"rendered":"

In my last post, I redacted the name of a jeweler who publicly criticized my ANZA PURE x Wendy Brandes collaboration<\/a> because I didn’t want to create undue trouble for him even though I was like …<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

I figured it was one thing for me to write about his mean-boy comment, but another thing for him to suffer any consequences that were more severe than warranted.<\/p>\n

However, what I thought of as a kind attempt to protect him from himself was perceived by jewelry designer Richard Kimball as a lack of “courtesy and … courage.” (Wow! Men really are from Mars, women from Venus!) I don’t want to make that mistake again, so rather than simply approving the comment he left me on yesterday’s musings, I have elevated it to its own blog post.<\/p>\n

Please note that typos are his. These earrings are also his<\/a>. You can judge for yourselves whether the elements of good design — definable, available for study, and beyond the scope of taste<\/em> — are present in those.<\/p>\n

Wendy,<\/em>
\n Notions of beauty come and go, fads and trends are ephemeral. Granted, there are always people who enjoy and buy an idea of the moment. If, however, you were not so busy with your life of “jewelry design… bookeeping, blogging, vlogging,tweeting…”etc. you might have found the time to discover that the elements of good design are definable, available for study and go beyond the scope of taste. To equate a financially prudent and technically simplistic solution to using attractive but challenging material, dreamed up over lunch, with good design is either highly self- delusional or the hight of arrogant advertising and promotion. I have no quarrel with simple solutions, and celebrate any and all income passed back to the miners who struggle to make a living. What I find difficult to accept is calling a product something that it isn’t. Sadly, our current jewelry world is far too full of these breathless claims of beauty and cutting-edge design, and the products emanating from it are, as I claimed, often the result of lazy conception and are technically undemanding in this age where every technological advantage imaginable is available. Putting points on18k round wire and bending it around an uncut stone is not ” thoughtful ” and there is nothing “exquisite” about it. Please feel free to conceptualize it, manufacture it, sell it with great success. Please do not call it something that it isn’t<\/em>
\n On another note, to imply that my criticism is gender biased is nothing but a smokescreen on your part to obscure the gist of my commentary. I did not speak ” badly” about any woman. Issues of design and promotion are universal, belonging to neither women nor men, and my discussion of them has no basis other than the material facts. Do not be so presumptuous as to tell me what I feel. And if you are going to quote me or reprint something I wrote, have the courtesy and the courage to use my name.<\/em><\/p>\n

Best Regards,<\/em>
\n Richard Kimball<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Interestingly, the Spacenook<\/a> post that first raised Richard’s ire didn’t contain overt praise for the designs, metalwork, or concept of the ANZA PURE pieces. Only the original poster could say for sure, but I understood this as an enthusiastic response to the gem colors, which are, indisputably, freaking beautiful.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Other people chimed in with “Nice to see the natural beauty of the crystals” and “Fantastic. Colors,” so I do believe most of us were focused on how vivid these pink and green stones were. I went back to check, because Richard Kimball’s initial comment was …<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

… which reads like a non sequitur to me. I wouldn’t have used “homage” in that context. <\/p>\n