Hi Jim,
Thank you for your kind words.
I think that the main issue here resides in what I would call contemporary swords as opposed to historical swords.
Allow me to explain better: In order to achieve a recognition of swords (let us start with contemporary since ancient swords have the
excuse to be historical) as art objects and have them recognized by the highly elitist museological group who in no way will easily accept swords as equal art objects as a painting or a sculpture, it is also important to analyze some interesting cultural appropriation phenomena. An immediate example that comes to mind is a non-Japanese smith making a japanese style sword (cannot be called a
nihon-tô). The question is: what are the forces that bring an (say) American bladesmith to make a Japanese style sword? In other words, how would you view a Chinese artist producing Pop Art, which is culturally allien to him?
The question and the discussion transcends the mere issue of swords to be focused in my opinion in the need for contemporary bladesmiths to stop their forges for a while and think about why are they embracing something that is alien to their own culture while they reject the bowie or the saber (as examples). In fact I've seen people define themselves as artists without ever having enquired about the significance of art, or even on the ancient definition of
techne.
Many smiths are not artistically educated -- yes I believe one should seek a broader perspective -- in order to evolve from a shape into others.
What I am witnessing is that the so called art world is slowly opening its doors to many other forms or art.
Our friend Mark Bowditch pointed out to me the Guggenheim Exhibition on
The Art of the Motorcycle which comes into the continuity of Pop Art way of viewing things, so some barriers of prejudice are falling.
I try to be equidistand and I believe that contemporary smiths should demand more of themselves in order to (in their turn) meet the conservative art circle. For that we all have to let down our prejudices and possibly evolve into a large and serious debate on art.
I see present day installations
as nothing more than the repossession of very ancient manifestations of the concept of space, the relationship between the void and the occupied space, a definition of an area that provokes with the same space definition of what once was sacred space
So if we agree that art is -- apart from being a human fabrication that too often did not had the intention of being
art but had a different function -- then maybe we can talk in equal terms.
But so long as we stand partial to one side, it will never be an agreement.
I speak of contemporary smiths because this is the most challenging issue.
Ethnographic weapons have less issues in their acceptance as art objects in these times of change where a video can be home edited and presented as a provocation or as a piece of "digital video art".
Main condition for this all to happen is that everyone is willing to let go of their own naturally build preconceptions or prejudices.
As in the installations case, the demarcation of space is even performed in other ways by animals (territorial demarcation).
Whether a space is provocatory or sacred, it is the demarcation for a purpose that pre-defines its intention.
One of my reasons for designing swords is to slowly break this barrier of shape and what is politically-technically correct. However I had to go by the pace of the smiths, though some interesting results were achieved.
Pardon my rant, but I felt this wonderful forum is the most mature one that I know of.
And as you know, Trafalgar was won because Nelson did not follow the traditional pattern of battle. He found a niche in the concept of sea warfare.
Very best regards