Jacek Byczewski

As expected, the majority of works described the theme in a politically correct manner, i.e.  by referring directly to the word 'exclusive' as a symbol of consumerism. Their authors, mercilessly and in different ways, harass reality in which a name, a company or 'label' make objects undeservedly valuable, pushing them to the top where they are desired by many, but available to the elite only, and where they are exclsuive due to their high value. Since artists by definition should be unhumble and stubborn, the jury was attracted by a different way of thinking, according to which 'exclusive' is exceptional because it is personal and unique (e.g. a story of a certain football, which, after being worn out, was used for making a necklace) and that it can be an object not participating in the market, not to be bought, absolutely personal (as a bracelet made of own blood or impression of a necklace on the neckline). 

I get sligthly dewy-eyed thinking about the past  when a compulsory piece of silver (these were the requirements of the competition!)  such as a fig leaf was to excuse the use of techniques and materials not traditionally used in goldsmithing. Now it is not a problem any more. Awareness that the knowledge of technique, the mastery of performance, elegant materials do not define goldsmithing is getting more and more popular. What is still maintained as one of the constitutive features of this field of art is its scale: usually there are small forms. 

Since nowadays it is enough to know a computer programme to make even a more complicated object, there is no point in competing with machines.  Thus, other values are becoming more important.  We will always have an advantage over computers – we can make an object meaningful, fill it with the content, our own experience, ask about the limitations we are to move within. And I was really glad to see such works at the exhibition. 

                                                                                                 /Jacek Byczewski/