FMF - Friends of Minerals Forum, discussion and message board

[BlueCapProductions]

I remember a story my father told me when we were talking about non-aesthetic minerals. One year he put together a case in Tucson that was everything EXCEPT the beautiful showy minerals. However, all these "ugly" minerals were stunningly important whether it was for the size or for an association. He got a real kick out of just standing back and watching people coming up to the case. For the most part, people would take one look, scratch their heads and walk away. But occasionally there would be a person who would walk by, glance at it and do a complete double-take that would stop them in their tracks. Then they'd start looking at all the other specimens and were absolutely blown away. After putting together some pretty major collections in his time, this one was still one of his favorites.

But these would not be the minerals I'd show someone if I were trying to get them interested in the hobby. When my non-mineral collecting friends ask me what's the deal with mineral collecting, I show them something like the IKONS book and they are blown away. Then they "get" it and want to know more.

However, it's not just all eye-candy. So much of mineral collecting is about the people. The people and their stories. Sit in a room with a bunch of collectors and the one thing that always surfaces is the passion that everyone shares for these things.

I love featuring Brian Kosnar in my Tucson recap films because this guy is great. Not only is he very knowledgeable about his minerals but he talks about them with a true, almost crazy passion. And the thing that really sets him apart is that all his stuff are the, using his words, "the black uglies."

So perhaps it's all part of a continuum. People become attracted to the hobby with the pretty ones, then they get bitten by the stories and passions that surround the hobby and then they really begin to appreciate the complexity, unpredictability and rarity of nature and that's where the black uglies come into play.

Even someone like Dave Wilber - the only person for whom a mineral term has been named after - put together a collection of agate <gasp> that he's still proud of to this day.

In the end, everyone has different reasons for loving minerals and I think that's one of the great things about the people and the hobby in general.

[keldjarn]

Brian,

you are so right , and I think it is the same thing with other areas that fascinate and attracts people. The more you know about something - the more you can appreciate also the subtleties, the rarities and the truely unique qualities and objects. But in the modern world - very few people get that far with anything ( even with relationships to other people...).
When inviting someone new to get interested in minerals, you will have to expose them to something they can easily appreciate because of general aesthetics appeal or value. If you are a lover of the outdoors, you will also enjoy the rainy days, the storms and blizzards, the cold and the heat - but if you want to make somebody not used to that kind of life interested, you choose a sunny day and an impressive scenery to make them interested....
The more sincere question raised in your post is why even at the more advanced levels of the mineral hobby, we tend to worship only the flashy, costly specimens. This is not universal but much more evident in the USA than in other countries I have visited. In Europe and also Japan there is a greater interest in systematic and rare minerals, locality collections and self-collected specimens. I have visited numerous mineral shows and museums around the world during more than 40 years and find that the trend you refer to impoverish mineral collecting, mineral shows and museum displays. In the end when competing only on attractiing people with beauty with no intellectual challenge, minerals will loose in the competition with most man-made objects and stimuli. (That could be the end of using space for mineral museum displays which could i.e. be replaced with interactive Jurassic Park entertainment.) When you have seen enough showy specimens of the 50 or so mostly displayed minerals, you really want something else. You want to learn about the science, the history of how the minerals were formed , the stories of wher and how the specimens were found, or you want to see some really uniqe minerals.That is why i.e. the case of exceptional specimens from the Tiger, Arizona locality was much more interesting to me than all the other displays of American Treasures combined at the last years Tucson shows.
I believe you really also ask a fundamental question I ask myself every time I sap through TV channels in the US. Are you really doing people a favour if you only give them access to entertainment in the simplest ways ? The total lack of in-depth programs demanding intellectual attention is frightening to a European. When people are trained to have an attention span of less than 2 minutes (also before th next commercial), how can you expect them to find pleasure in taking the time necessary to make in-depth studies of anything ? That is why there is also an increased focus of beauty over mineralogy.

Knut

[James Catmur]

Let's take this one step further that what we publish - what do you put in your display cases at home? Where do you keep those wonderful but less beautiful pieces. I have a feeling that all of us (including you Jordi! Don't deny it) tend to put out the more colorful material and keep the ones we love and adore for their mineralogical beauty in draws. I know I do to a strong degree, but I do try to put a few interesting 'lumps' (as my wife calls them) in the cases

Why do I do it that way? Well the display cases are often for the non-collector that asks to "see the rocks". Also I get a good color mix by doing that. Should I put more of those wonderful less colorful minerals in the display case? Maybe, especially if more collectors came to see the collection, I would. But I don't! I display the more colorful ones that I own - so why shouldn't the MAD collectors if that is what they think other people would like to see?

James

[Jordi Fabre]

James,

I don't deny it, but if you remember this, I have several not so nice rocks together with the nicer ones, My personal opinion is that the nicer ones helps to promote the less nice ones as well as the rare ones helps to promote the nicer ones.

Everybody, including me, like showy minerals by its beauty, but I think that it is something far away of the beauty that make still more interesting our hobby. I think that Brian and Knut reflected perfectly this feeling, I agree what they say absolutely.

It is true that MAD collectors do well displaying what they think other people would like to see. I can't complain about it. Just a little bit more room for not so showy, but rarer specimens, and then maybe everybody, themselves, beginners, mature collectors, and top collectors, will enjoy it still more. They already have this rare beauties on their collections, not problem with, it is just (again) the actual "flashy tyranny" of the medias (including Internet)

Jordi

[Jim]

Jordi,

You're undoubtedly correct. But my point was that a person doesn't necessarily sacrifice an emphasis or appreciation for "mineralogy" by collecting minerals that are visually "beautiful." Your original challenge to us all seemed to suggest those two "qualities" were perhaps mutually exclusive or a paradox.

Cheers!

[Jordi Fabre]

I'm sorry if my first post suggested that the two "qualities" were mutually exclusive or a paradox. I probably lost the clue to indicate the opposite: the two "qualities" are necessary, not exclusive between them at all.

The balance between both is my concern. If the balance moves to rare-systematic-ugly specimens would be for me equally bad than if the balance moves to only flashy specimens.
In fact my regular display and my own collection try to use this concept...

Jordi

[keldjarn]

I believe the last post of Jordi puts the focus right. What is the consequence of a shift in balance between the aesthetic and systematic approach to minerals. mineralogy and mineral collecting ? I think Jim takes to easy on this dilemma. I truely believe it is part of a greater shift in attitude towards life itself. There is a tendency today for people to expect to be entertained with little intellectual investment and sacrifice. There is an industry out there making people addicted to the consumption of simple stimuli to satisfy the inborn curiosity we all harbour with computer games and soap operas. This is hitting natural science especially hard because the wonders of nature have great problems competing with all the man-made trash people are being exposed to. It is very hard to learn young people to observe the subtle and partly hiidden marvels of nature because the modern media-industry are over-stimulating their senses. From an early age people are seduced into believing that they can actually understand the world and experience a good life with very little investment in acquiring knowledge. At least this is the situation in the rich western countries and one of the reasons that we will see great historic shifts emerge from the financial crisis that has just started. In developing nations people still believe in the need of studies and hard work to succeed in any area of life. This will shift the balance of power and the economic and cultural growth to these nations in the future. When their economies improve, this is also were we will see the future generations of mineral collectors.
It is nothing wrong when also aesthetic minerals become investment objects and the focus of collectors who subscribe to the Forbes magazine. It will ensure that many marvelous "natural works of art" will be saved for posterity and the sheer beauty and perceived monetary value of such specimens can also atract new people to become interested in minerals and mineralogy. The real problem is the same as with the the media. There is nothing wrong with entertainment and entertaining books may even teach people to read. Only when all the books, magazines and TV-programs compete in being the most entertaining and there is nothing left challenging people to in-depth studies of anything, our whole culture will suffer. If in the same way we are now shifting the balance in museums, mineral shows, in the internet etc. to worshipping only the most aesthetic and costly specimens of a small handful of the known mineral species, it will have an effect on the way collections are being built and on the general perception of what it takes to be a "successfull " mineral collector. There are actually hundred times more devoted collectors of minerals focusing on locality collections, self-collected or traded minerals or systematic collections than collectors of the most showy specimens. The way the hobby is being presented today does not reflect this because these activities requires more studying and field-work than the spending of money and thus will not attract the attention of show organizers, dealers, magazines and even museum boards in the same way as the competition for the most "valuable" specimens. It is not to discredit the many excellent displays of "fine minerals" at the Tucson shows, but in my view there could have been less tourmalines and other common species and more unique US localities and specimens presented as " American mineral treasures" last year - i.e. minerals first described from US localities and US minerals the study of which had resulted in important contributions to science. It is easy to see that "mineral treasures" as defined by such an exhibit was narrowed down to mostly aesthetic and costly trophy-collector specimens with little or no focus on the scientific, historic, cultural or economic impact of the minerals found, extracted and studied in the USA.
I think Jordi has put an important question to us. We have all a responsibility to prevent a further shift away from the study and appreciation of mineralogy and minerals in general towards a focus only on the beauty and aesthetics of specimens regardless of species, locality or rarity.

Knut

[mraffordable]

I know that the majority of forum posters are geologists and scientists and as such are not interested in the metphysics of crystals and minerals but I had to weigh in on this topic with my observations. I happen to believe in the "mystical" properties of stones and cystals and from a shop owners point of view, I see many people who are being drawn to specimens for their metaphysical properties and not the asthetic beauty of the piece. These people will usually do some further research into the specimen that they need and become better informed as to the geologic/chemical properties. I guess in a nutshell, us mystics are creating another group of rockhounds who don't neccessarily look to the outer beauty of a piece but see the inner beaty that nature intended. The trend in my shop is for people to prefer "rough" samples of stones as opposed to cut and polished or even tumbled stones. I, for one, am happy to see that.

[TheBrickPrinter]

keldjarn wrote in a previous post on this topic:
"The total lack of in-depth programs demanding intellectual attention is frightening to a European. When people are trained to have an attention span of less than 2 minutes (also before th next commercial), how can you expect them to find pleasure in taking the time necessary to make in-depth studies of anything ? That is why there is also an increased focus of beauty over mineralogy. "

I agree almost totally with this statement. But in a really off the wall observation that will probably bring raised eyebrows I think this problem partially emanates from the type of toys that children are raised on. After a 6 year personal study of "LEGO People", I have honestly come to the conclusion that those that are raised with them have a much better grasp of what it takes to make "in-depth studies" -for to achieve anything in LEGO by requiires considerable time and three dimensional thought. The Scandinavians, Germans, Belgiums (?), and Dutch all were raised in that tradition. At least a much larger percentage than in the USA. Although not done in a scientific method, I have found that of the hundreds of scientists, engineers, chemists, software designers I have met and posed the question "Did you play with LEGO when you were a child" at least 80% said they did-many still do. Never asked many mineralogists as simply not that many and have not come into contact with that many. I would bet if they are less than 40 years old, that they did also.

Kids today simply do not build complex models like many used to do --whether plastic or wooden or erector sets. Today they have toys already made for them, There is no process of construction and therefore little care about the process. They do not want to create the computer games that they play--they simply want to play with them.

But I must admit that I am guilty also as I float from one interest to another. Never quite have achieved any really in-depth study of anything--but at least have dug below the surface of a lot things.

[Gail]

Jordi wrote: It is true that MAD collectors do well displaying what they think other people would like to see.

I don't even think that is necessarily true, I think a lot of MAD and HAMS people posted what THEY like to see.

I like looking at the minerals we chose, otherwise..why own them?

[Greg Toomey]

This is my first post in this forum (after reading posts for over 1 year and joining 5 months ago). First of all - I am not a mineralogist and probably never will be one (although I am always trying to improve my mineral knowledge), as I have a more creative and artistic background. That being said, l have always tried to immerse myself in the sciences, going back to my college days taking calculus and astrophysics courses while majoring in art.

I have been a serious mineral collector for almost 20 years and have been studying the history of mineral collecting and mineral clubs in the United States for the past 4 years (I have perused and made thousands of copies of pages of countless years of Lapidary Journal, The American Mineralogist, Desert Magazine, et al). What is being addressed on this forum topic is nothing new - it goes back probably to the earliest days of humans using and admiring minerals and gems. Unfortunately, there have always been schisms in our hobby (one example being the topic at hand), another example being whether to leave a crystal as is for its natural beauty, facet and "improve" it into jewelry, or use it for scientific experiments and/or study. There are many more as I'm sure most of you already know.

Systematic collections where once very popular, as were "strategic collections" during World War II and the countless polished agate and geode collections during the "rockhound heyday" of the fifties and sixties. The term "pretty rocks" was often derisively aimed at the collections of women mineral collectors. However, beautiful and "trophy" specimens have always been popular and always will be - look at most old photographs or artist depictions of museum mineral displays through the centuries.

I think what is different today is that people are sharing their collections on the internet and in books and magazines, and they want to share what appeals to them and, I believe, what they perceive will appeal to others. Not that many years ago, Mineral books were geared strictly to the scientific community or to the field collector, and people's collections were either absorbed by institutions, sometimes purchased by dealers, or usually discarded to who knows where when the collector died. I wish that there had been more attention placed on the collectors when they were alive and their collections when they were intact.

Beauty is, most importantly, in the eye of the beholder, and that eye changes over time. Beauty is a visual and emotional response, often coming from one's own knowledge and experiences. Is it strictly the appearance of a mineral, or is it in knowing the mineralogical process that a mineral went through to be what it is today? What Jordi likes and what I like and what others like don't mean a thing unless we as individuals are comfortable with what we like and that we accept others for what they like. I think we are experiencing a renaissance in mineral collecting, and as such, there are many new people who have fallen in love with the beauty of minerals, and are just beginning to, or will learn in the future, about mineralogy. Give them time. Beginning or advanced collectors, aesthetic or species collectors - we are all part of this wonderful and ongoing learning experience known as mineral collecting!

Greg

[Jordi Fabre]

Absolutely Greg!
BTW welcome here, I think you did a fantastic resume of the different clouds/ visions of this topic.

Gail: of course you should chose the minerals you like looking it. The choiced of MAD and HAMS minerals offered via Mineralogical Record is the topic.
If the majority of members of MAD and HAMS have rare, unusual or not so showy minerals on their collections, why don't select more of them often to be displayed?. MAD and HAMS are extremely popular actually due the media's impulse, so is a kind of responsibility too, to instruct mineralogy to young people or beginners. That's why I'm so persistent (outside my own character ;-) trying that the vision of the mineralogy will be more extended.

Of course, that's a general view, in fact is not too much related with you and Jim. As I know so well, you like, and you display, not only showy specimens but also the RUNS (Rare, Unusual, Not so Showy ones).

Jordi

[TheBrickPrinter]

And in my case you are affiliated with a certain industry--in was the paint and coatings industry-- and you want all those that are or have been used in paint throughout history. (or the natural equivalents of synthetic ones). Quite a list and quite a story. Some of the most interesting articles I have read are by art historians who analyzed the mineral content of the artifacts or paintings they are studying. Now that would be a good theme also for a MinRec compedium. Years ago I remember seeing an awesome calendar of some of the finest specimens available put out by the Glidden Paint Company. Often wondered what happened to that collection. MInerals and art intersect directly as most art is essentially formed from a mineral derived medium.

As Cornelius Hurlburt wrote in his terrific book Minerals and Man:
"Minerals have furnished man not only with the essential materials of civilization but also with his most beautiful and precious ornaments."

available from Amazon today for a mere .89 to $14.95

[Gail]

About the rare and less "attractive" minerals... Perhaps they are not photographed like they often do the more difficult gem quality photos...when you put mineral photos in MinRec you have to have top notch photographs in high resolution. The expense is great and since the majority of photos are of minerals that people struggle to photo themselves, it makes sense that when a publication is asking for high resolution, you tend to send those photos, right?