Continuity of Concept / by Linda MacNeil

Q: Looking at your work as a whole there are two disciplines through which you express your ideas, jewelry and objet d’art (modest-sized sculptures). Do you explore the same concepts across both? And does this happen simultaneously or sequentially?

MACNEIL: I work in series and find that my concepts develop across both disciplines in the same way, sequentially. Here are some examples of this occurring in my work.

Figure 1.  LEFT: Bell With Stand, 1974, acquired by the Metal Museum of Memphis, TN in 2021.  RIGHT: Elements Series No.1, 1979

Figure 1. LEFT: Bell With Stand, 1974, acquired by the Metal Museum of Memphis, TN in 2021. RIGHT: Elements Series No.1, 1979

Figure 1. Both of these works incorporate a mechanical method of assembling my parts, screws and hinges. They are early works, however they already reveal the importance of the combination of metals and color was to my work and the integration of geometric ideas. Both pieces are functional objects in their own way, the bell works as a bell and the necklace is wearable. The concept was linear line and although you can see the continuity you can also see how the concept grew and evolved from 1974 to 1979.

I have always believed that it is important to stay somewhat consistent in a look, but still grow and evolve.

Figure 2. LEFT: Plate Glass Vase No.2 1983, RIGHT: Lucent Lines No.1, 1983

Figure 2. LEFT: Plate Glass Vase No.2 1983, RIGHT: Lucent Lines No.1, 1983

Figure 2. The Plate Glass Vessel is one of the first series I developed. I started 8 of these pieces knowing I was going to make 8 similar vases. More or less at the same time, I was working on this Lucent Lines necklace. I used orange Vitrolite in both pieces and explored the concept of seeing the method of attachment through transparent glass.

It may not be obvious that the vase is not functional. This was at a the time when many of us artists working in areas labelled “Crafts” started abstracting the functional and making larger pieces as “Art” instead of “Crafts”. My distinctive use of strong color combinations and manipulating light through translucency is another departure.

Figure 3.  LEFT: Pate de Verre Vessel No.1, 1983. RIGHT: Mesh Series No.53 1997

Figure 3. LEFT: Pate de Verre Vessel No.1, 1983. RIGHT: Mesh Series No.53 1997

Figure 3. Here is a perfect comparison of using the same design concept and materials across a number of years. I made these pieces while working at Daum in France. I had to use the kiln casting technique, “pate de verre” that the factory offered.

I feel that my thought process, designing approach in my sketch books didn’t change. I just assigned myself with what type of object I was going to design. I had the “style” and “method” already in place.

Figure 4a. Suspended Parallels No.3, 1986

Figure 4a. Suspended Parallels No.3, 1986

Figure 4b. LEFT: Elements No.31, 1985,  RIGHT: Neck Collar No. 9, 1991

Figure 4b. LEFT: Elements No.31, 1985, RIGHT: Neck Collar No. 9, 1991

Figures 4a & 4b. At this time, I explored using granite in my work for the gray color texture and because granite is a material used in “Sculpture”. I also crossed over another discipline with the use of painting the metal both in the sculpture and Neck Collar No.9. The method of attachment of the components in the sculpture and NC 9-91 are screwed together. Consistent forms appear through the use of the lathe-turned decorative threaded half rounds in the sculpture and the balls used in the Neck Collar. The strong experimentation with the use of contrasting colors and textures; Vitrolite black/white, granite and transparent glass in the jewelry and the sculpture. I think of these works as the same thought process but a different purpose and scale.


Q: You stopped making larger pieces in the late 90s, what prompted this?

LINDA: I stopped making the larger sculptures because the labor was taxing my little body. I suffered from frozen shoulders and carpal tunnel in both wrists for years. The costs of producing larger scale works was also very expensive. Some of my collectors thought I wimped out by stopping creating larger objects. For me, there was no alternative. My work is very personal, I didn’t want to hire help and I didn’t have the physical capacity to continue with larger works. I decided I wanted to enjoy what I was doing so I stayed with the jewelry. It is lighter physical work with the same brain work. I think of my jewelry as sculpture that is wearable and the continuity of a strong concept easily adapts and grows into it.

If you look back at the Bell with Stand, I really was who I am now back then.