"Better designs come from the Mint when they work with only one artist"-- do you agree?

Longacre

I was reading Burdette's Renaissance book, and there was some interesting information about Fraser's Buffalo nickel. The book stated,

"Fraser's initiative, charm, and knowledge appealed to [Mint Director] Andrew's artistic taste and personality as the sculptor pointed out the advantages of working with one, highly skilled artist, rather than being forced to take whatever a committee decided was best from hundreds of entries [in a design competition]. According to Fraser, "Working with a competent man, there would be no doubt that a great many designs would be made; in fact, you would go on working until something of real merit was produced.""

***********

Given the rather uninspired designs for the Statehood Quarters series, do you think the quote above has any merit? Do you think we would get better coin designs if we moved away from the politically-correct, consensus way of choosing coin designs, and instead just had the mint work with one skilled artist to produce a great design? Or is the current process sufficient?

Mercury10c

The current process sucks. You have the mint, the artists(s), and CCAC, or CACC, or CRACC, or whatever it's called, Congress, etc. and before a design can be minted, literally hundreds of people have to approve it. The new Sacagaweas with the Native American reverse coming out next year is a perfect example of the politically correct crap coming out of the mint now. The state quarters, while hugely successful, suck. How exciting is an outline of the state?
Look at all the great, classic designs: Mercs, Walkers, Buffs, St. Gaudens $10 and $20, etc. All designed by one person. I could see two, one for the obverse, and one for the reverse, but that's it. Still, one skillfull and inspired artist is better than a bunch of politicians and political appointees.
So, ya, I agree with the quote.

MidLifeCrisis

Committee = Compromise = Loss (loss of artistry, loss of definition, loss of statement, loss of expression, etc.)

Yes I think the quote has merit. And yes I think "we would get better coin designs if we moved away from the politically-correct, consensus way of choosing coin designs, and instead just had the mint work with one skilled artist to produce a great design".

dcarr

Exactly.
Another major problem with the current system is that designs originate from graphic artists in the "Artistic Infusion Program" (AIP).
But then a sculptor at the US Mint has to turn it into 3D. So you have one artist design a coin and a different artist sculpt it. That approach was rarely (if ever) used when creating any of the "great" American (or foreign) coin designs.

LanLord

Yes

and - do you have a big ole book of questions that you consult every few hours for a CU forum post?

Longacre

<< <i>Yes

and - do you have a big ole book of questions that you consult every few hours for a CU forum post? >>




I actually take notes when I read a numismatic book and use the notes to generate questions.

MidLifeCrisis

<< <i>I actually take notes when I read a numismatic book and use the notes to generate questions. >>


Uber Geek

Actually, I really enjoy your thought provoking posts...I even search for them occasionally.

RWB

The US Mint should not be designing coins. That should be left to the country’s best artists. The mint should figure out how to convert the artist’s designs into beautiful, meaningful coinage.

Artist

<< <i>Exactly.
Another major problem with the current system is that designs originate from graphic artists in the "Artistic Infusion Program" (AIP).
But then a sculptor at the US Mint has to turn it into 3D. So you have one artist design a coin and a different artist sculpt it. That approach was rarely (if ever) used when creating any of the "great" American (or foreign) coin designs. >>



What he said.

ScarsdaleCoin

all I can agree is that the current system is broken...... our designs are medioca at best

what a shame as you look at what other countries are producing in the way of coinage..... forget the artist even the technology of other countries is outstanding.... look at Canada and what they are coming out with

291fifth

The best designs result from hiring a single, top-notch artist (NOT a graphic designer.)

The real difficulty is finding the top-notch artist who is able to produce outstanding designs within the framework and limitations of mass produced coins.

cladking

The intelligence of a committee is the reciprocal of the number of people on the committee.

Zoins

In addition to the SHQs, the Sacagawea dollar, Washington quarter and Jefferson nickel were products of design competitions.

Artist

<< <i>Goodacre's Sacagawea is considered to be a beautiful design by many and it was chosen by a committee. >>



While I personally love the Sacagawea, a real problem I have with it is that the reverse, while aesthetically & technically competent, bears no real harmony with the obverse - if you do not know what I mean by this, look at Frasier's Buffalo nickel, or either of St. Gaudens' designs, or at Weinman's Mercury dime & Walking Liberty half and you will notice that there is a consistency of touch and spirit and even type fonts to both sides of those coins that is utterly lacking on the Sacagawea. This is because when committees choose designs they consider each obverse and each reverse submission on the basis of its own merits - they do not have any mechanism in their selection process that takes the relationship between obverse and reverse into consideration. Any first year art student could tell you that a sculpture being three dimensional must be considered as a cohesive whole, yet the committee process that selects the coinage for our nation has no means of incorporating this most basic of ideas.



<< <i>Many people also like the Washington quarter and Jefferson nickel which were the products of design competitions. >>



There is nothing wrong with design competitions, so long as they are fair in their selection process and their terms are clearly communicated at the onset to the artist participants. In the case of the Washington Quarter, the first winning entry was a design many consider superior to the John Flannegan's familiar coin that got submitted by Laura Garden Frasier, but which ultimately got scuttled by an allegedly sexist Mint Director. In the case of the Jefferson Nickel, the award winning 3/4 Monticello view reverse bore no resemblance to the head-on Monticello garden view that came to be coined through a process that greatly disenfranchised artist Felix Schlag - I actually remember reading an accountancy from Felix Schalg's wife where she claimed that had it not been for the great depression and cash award, that Felix would have otherwise walked away from the project midway through.

*

Since the Sacagawea, as Daniel Carr has pointed out, the process has become further convoluted in that the committees review drawings of design proposals submitted by members of the Artistic Infusion Program whose members do not necessarily have backgrounds in sculpture, that are ultimately interpreted three dimensionally by other artists.

As I said before, I love Goodacre's design, but for me a big part of its success I think stems from the fact that she got to sculpt her own relief - so the inspiration she felt going into the project was able to carry over from concept to the actual sculpture that got reduced and transferred into the working dies.

Another problem with selecting coin designs on the basis of drawings, is that the drawings themselves further cloud the process. For example, lets say the Mint is making a Harpo Marks commem - drawing A exhibits a rather staid and predictable composition but features a rendering so life that it appears Harpo might jump of the page and honk at you, while drawing B next to it is an incredible composition that really depicts the nature of Harpo's humor and humanity perfectly but it is rendered as a simple line drawing - even though the shadows & perfectly captured sparkle of Harpo's eye in drawing A are completely moot points when it comes to relief sculpture, which drawing do you think will make the bigger impression in the eyes of a committee comprised in large part of non-trained artists?

The Presidential Dollar coins for me reflect an absolute low-water mark in U.S. coin design. Forgiving the fact that no artist if asked to devise an inspirational coin program would ever chose a ten year celebration of Presidents, here we have a large canvas of a planchet, made even larger by the fact that so much of the requisite legends were relocated to the edge of the coin, and yet the design motifs chosen are just giant detached heads that might have worked better on a coin the size of a dime. If the Mint had sort of picked up where the '82 Washington commemorative half left off, and actually bothered to create portraits that told a little story about each President with each distinct design the series might have served some purpose, but 'as is' it is it offers little more than an opportunity for contrived errors and the equally abysmal sister First Spouse program with its artificial mintage restrictions imposed for the sake of creating speculator-driven markets that ensure each subsequent release sells out.

shoebox911

<< <i>Exactly.
Another major problem with the current system is that designs originate from graphic artists in the "Artistic Infusion Program" (AIP).
But then a sculptor at the US Mint has to turn it into 3D. So you have one artist design a coin and a different artist sculpt it. That approach was rarely (if ever) used when creating any of the "great" American (or foreign) coin designs. >>



Strange... weren't you the artist who wanted to be a member of the Artistic Infusion Program? You are Daniel Carr, aren't you? Your website once boasted of you applying for the program two different times when they held their "Call for Artists" nationwide only to be rejected. So, perhaps your position toward the Mint's system would be different had you been selected for the program?

MsMorrisine

well, it would seem preferable to have someone knowledgable in sculpture doing the whole design.

and I wouldn't mind choosing a single design from a selection of artists.


but, it seems to me that another issue people are having trouble with is no so much the artists, but the committee and how they satisfy themselves.

It seems that some would say even a great design from a single artist/sculptor would potentially be denied based upon group think political correctness.


The Viet Nam and Korean War memorials were both chosen from a selection of artists' ideas. They are great.


Is it necessarily the multiple artists, or could it be more of the politics involved?