Thank you :smile: I suppose the point I was making was that, even though I was being employed for my artistry, it was entirely for the purposes of selling this particular companies diamonds, my own work would have been secondary. The reason I didn't take the commission wasn't because it would have been more about the diamond dealer's wears but because they didn't want to give me enough creative input.
If I were ever asked to use my skills to sell someone else's product in the future I would have to assess the brief closely and have creative control, but I have no moral objection to whatever work I do being specifically created to sell someone else's product or concept.
Being a Goldsmith, I often work with materials whose origins are controversial, gems from corrupt or dodgy countries, precious metals mined at the expense of the environment e.t.c. and because these materials are rare and costly I can't always be too picky about where they come from and who I have to deal with in order to obtain them. Of course I try as hard as possible to be as ethical as possible but this isn't always practical.
Lets say I got a deal at some point in the future to do some publicity pieces with De Beers, they're a dubious bunch at best, but I couldn't afford to turn that kind of commission down, and I don't think I would. If that makes me a sell out then I'm comfortable ( not happy ) with that.
i appreciate your honesty, i think you don't have anything to worry about on an "ethically selling out" level.
as you said, it was less about the product (their diamonds) that they wanted you to sell as opposed to them wanting a particular style, this not giving you license to use your artistic abilities to the fullest.
i think, an i used to know a jeweler who was friends with my parents, is that when a goldsmith works to make a piece of jewelry, and diamonds are to be involved, it should become a design that the designer uses creativity to express, either through the basic instruction or needs of an individual client who requests a wedding ring with a rough design "guide", but offers lattitude to the maker, or a company that asks for a specific line of jewelry, who also gives lattitude for the design.
i think what you seemed to encounter, was a discomfort with the company wanting you to sort of be nothing more than a producer, as opposed to an even partial "creator" or design, as such, only using part of what makes you the artist you are.
i think you would have been on "safe" ground in my point of view whichever you chose to do with that company. ultimately, it came down to you being less comfortable with them not allowing you some creative lattitude, but either way, i think you were in no way "selling out", had you either accepted or rejected their offer. you were still producing art that people would have purchased based on its quality and appeal.
as you said, a company like DeBeers, or other companies who might be involved in conflict diamonds and such presents more of an ethical question, not necessarily an artistic one...
for example, if you received one diamond that you knew was from a legal, and vetted source, and you received one diamond from let us say a "questionable" source, that was known to use conflict diamonds, you could still create, i am sure, two utterly beautiful diamond rings, and the art of using both diamonds would be equivalent...of course, as you mentioned, the problem would lie not in the artistic appeal of using the diamond, but the ethical quandary of it.
we all face those questions in some way on a daily basis, and it is not easy.
but i do not think you are in danger of being considered a "sellout" :wink::smile: