ARTICLE:

This is not a "Tell you how to do it," article.


Once you have the inspiration of a theme, and a harmonious color scheme worked out, now comes the design process. You ask yourself, "How am I going to put this together?" and, "What materials to use?" It seems that when it comes to jewelry, anything goes. Well, almost.


There are two basic jewelry designs. One is Wearable, the other is Unwearable.


Now, I am probably get myself into hot water, but I happen to be of the opinion that the design of any article of jewelry should be one which is WEARABLE. That is, wearable in that it won't snag or tear clothing, or cut, poke, pierce or otherwise cause bodily harm to the wearer or to someone else. I am not referring to the initial piercing of ears or other parts of the body in order to attach an item of jewelry. I don't hold with teaching that encourages students to deliberately design pieces that could hurt. Why? To free up the mind? I say bah!


By the way. Helen Driggs, managing editor of "Lapidary Journal, Jewelry Artist" magazine has been running a series entitled "Design Challenge" which is quite interesting. Check it out.


Some jewelry is designed as strictly show pieces, demonstrating the maker's skill and creativity. Admittedly, the pieces can be worn, but who, besides someone modeling them, would normally do so? While I can admire some of these pieces for their beauty, at the same time I think they are a waste of resource and could easily have been adjusted to make them wearable. I am reminded of an individual who constructed a beautiful desk made of rare woods and deliberately drove a large spike into the top of the desk so as to render it unusable and by doing so, created a work of art. Such foolishness! Such a waste! The drawers still opened and the spike was not driven into the center of the desk top, so, in a fashion, the desk was still usable, and therefore the maker failed to achieve his goal. I'm not one to hold with doing something solely for art's sake alone. In other words, I don't hold with the idea that an item can't be a work of art if it serves a utilitarian purpose. I don't see the difference in hanging a painting on the wall and draping a necklace around a person's neck. But, that's my opinion, and you may not agree. In that case, we will just have to agree to disgree.


Otherwise there aren't any really hard and fast rules for designing jewelry with the exception of rules which might apply to specific types of jewelry such as those associated with: Religion, Ethnic, Tribal, Aboriginal, Native American, and so on, or any mechanical ones which might apply in the construction process. The witch doctor might put a hex on you for placing a bone in the wrong position.


We could get bogged down in a discussion on all the elements of design, but why bother? When you dig into this, you find general agreement by pundits on some elements, while others add in additional ones to the mix and end up confusing the issue.


A design can be either Symmetrical or Asymmetrical. There is nothing wrong with either one. It's simply a matter of personal preference. I happen to like asymmetrical better than symmetrical, and yet I find that I often end up with one that is symmetrical! Call it tunnel vision. We can go one step further and add to either of the above: Simple and Complex. As an example of a Symmetrical design: A string of graduated pearls, thus, Order. As an example of Asymmetrical, go to your bead boxes and willy-nilly select an odd number of beads of various sizes, shapes and colors, then string them in a random order. Thus, Disorder.


There are some things you could consider when preparing a design. One is the use of odd numbers. I really don't know why it is that designs seem generate more interest when you use groups of threes or fives. You can throw in a single element here and there into the mix. A second consideration is variations in size of the beads, (or other elements), interspersed with other items like spacers and bead caps. Another, if you are doing a necklace, is a kind of odd-ball "Rule of Thirds." Here is a greatly simplified example. Let's say you have decided on the length you want for a necklace. Now, roughly divide that into thirds. Note that approximation. We don't need exactness. With a focal bead at the bottom, place a bead (about two thirds the size of the focal), one third the way up on one side and another, smaller bead, about one third the size of the focal, two thirds the way up on the other side. You may find this isn't going to work, so simply adjust the positions up or down until it looks good. We have followed another sort of one third rule. Following the same scheme, place a ring at one third on one side, on the other side place a ring at one third and at two thirds. Run a string from the two thirds ring to the one third ring on the other side. On this string place a ring at two thirds and run a string up to the one third ring. Confused? Me, too. :-) Draw it out and you'll get a clearer picture. Or, run three strings thru a focal bead and randomly place beads on the strings. What I am trying to get across here, is that you are free to do what you want.


You can create additional interest in a piece, by inserting an odd element into the design. For example: Your theme is a Western one. For the focal bead, you have selected a pretty cabochon of: Landscape, Picture, Owyhee, or Artistic Jasper, take your pick, there's not much difference between them. :-) And, you select a few more jaspers and agates that fit your color scheme and into this mix you toss in a bead of lava. In a way, that really isn't out of place, but it does come as a little surprise in amongst all the other nicely polished beads. You can do the same thing with a design that might be based on a seashore, after all, all sorts of things wash up on the beach.


So, there you have it. No rules. No worries. Have fun!