Jewellery Unleashed!
Crossing Borders
By Lisa Goudsmit
Fig. 1. Elbow Ball Lense by Naomi Filmer
Image by Chris Springhall & Gavin Alexander.
Setup:
Thank you
Abstract
Introduction and Research Question
Various Borders
Defining the Indefinable
Human Skin as a Border
An Interdisciplinary Approach
Culture and Tradition
Techniques and Materials
Conclusion
Bibliography
!
Page:
2
2
2
3
3
6
8
10
12
15
16
"!
Thank You
I would like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation for the help offered by all the people
who were in some way part of this research. Without them and the time they took to answer all my
questions, I would have never been able to write this essay. They are in alphabetical order:
Atelier Ted Noten
Alba Cappellieri
Benjamin Lignel
Chloe Powell
Els van der Plas
Eveline Holsappel
Gijs Bakker
Job Meihuizen
Kerianne Quick
Liesbet Bussche
Liesbeth den Besten
Marjan Unger
Monica Gaspar
Naomi Filmer
Noon Passama
Nora Morton
Paul Derrez
Roseanne Bartley
Samantha Castano
Abstract
The jewellery field is based on a traditional discipline that has been trying to set itself free from
various boundaries since the 1960s. This article will focus on the different borders that are being
crossed in the contemporary jewellery world and analyse these matters by consulting the opinion of
different designers and theorists from the field. In this way, developments are put in a historical and
cultural context and new perspectives on contemporary jewellery will be offered.
Introduction and Research Question
Jewellery Unleashed! – as the name of this symposium implies, the jewellery world has in some ways
been “leashed”, at least until recently. Jewellery Unleashed! The Symposium intends to provide
inspiring perspectives on the jewellery world by discussing the borders that have created these
restrictions and spotlighting the people who cross them. Together with the speakers and guests,
Premsela, MMKA (Museum voor Moderne Kunst Arnhem) and ArtEZ (Institute of the Arts) will try to
answer the question: How are boundaries being crossed in the contemporary jewellery world? In the
process, jewellery will be analysed from some new perspectives.
!
#!
Various Borders
The jewellery-making world has traditionally been a field of craftsmen, artists and designers. It is here
that the deviation in the industry starts: the segmentation that began with the several practical
approaches of the discipline has led to a parting within the theoretical approach of the field. Beyond
this parting and the different groups who see jewellery as a form of craft, design or art, there is also
the group who sees possibilities in combinations of these various approaches.
Another border exists in the area that can be jewelled. Conventionally, it is the human body
that is decorated by jewellery, but this is another border that is being crossed. Further deviation can
be found in the way the function of jewellery is perceived. This is closely connected to the definition
one has of jewellery. Innovative designers in the contemporary jewellery world are challenging the
restrictions that traditionally define jewellery. Some of these designers will be discussed here.
Other borders are being crossed in the work field of jewellery: collaborations and
explorations between the fields of, for instance, fashion, digital art, interior design and jewellery are
happening right now. The development of innovative new techniques is also a way to challenge
conventional borders of jewellery. Examples of all of the abovementioned ‘crossing borders’ that
make the jewellery world such an interesting field to analyse, will be discussed here.
Defining the Indefinable
One clear view on the jewellery world and its developments comes from Liesbeth den Besten, curator
of the exhibition, Jewellery Unleashed!, at MMKA, who recently published the book On Jewellery
investigating ‘art jewellery’. This term, which is, according to Den Besten, interchangeable with terms
like author jewellery, contemporary jewellery, research jewellery and studio jewellery, is a follow-up of
The New Jewelry: “the international and vital tendency that breathed new life into jewelry” starting
from the 1960s.1 Remarks can be made to all these terms, yet this essay will focus on and make us of
the term ‘art jewellery’.
Before analysing this specific term, it is important to first consider the term ‘jewellery’ in a
broader sense. According to art historian and jewellery expert Marjan Unger, jewellery pieces are
‘small objects that are able to contain an incredible amount of meanings’.2 In a recent interview,
Unger stated that jewellery is a “cultural phenomenon that should not be restricted by shortsighted
distinctions between different groups in the field”.3 Yet in her dissertation Jewellery in Context, Unger
sums up different definitions of jewellery, derived from Dutch dictionaries. All definitions seem to have
common grounds, stating that jewellery is an object made from all kinds of precious materials with
certain aesthetics that intend to beautify the human body.4 She finally states her own definition: “A
piece of jewellery is an object worn on the human body as a decorative and symbolic addition to
the appearance”.5 However, this very plausible definition contains some aspects, which are being
disputed and challenged by other theorists and designers. These aspects include the terms ‘object’,
‘addition’ and ‘human body’, and will be examined later in this essay.
Paul Derrez, owner of the renowned jewellery gallery Galerie Ra in Amsterdam and jewellery
maker himself, has a very clear description of what characterises jewellery, stating that “a piece of
jewellery is a piece of jewellery when it can be worn by a human being and is a thing”. 6 Derrez
emphasises the fact that jewellery can only be seen as jewellery when it can be worn by a person,
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1
Den Besten, 2011, p. 7-9.
Unger, 2010: “Sieraden zijn in principe kleine objecten die ongelooflijk veel betekenissen in zich mee kunnen
dragen”, p.7.
3
Marjan Unger in email, interview by author, 2011.
4
Unger, 2010, p.11-13 .
5
Unger, 2010: ‘Een sieraad is een voorwerp dat aan het menselijk lichaam gedragen wordt, als decoratieve en
symbolische toevoeging aan het lichaam.’, p. 14.
6
Interview with Paul Derrez by author, 2012: “Een sieraad is dus een sieraad als het door een mens gedragen kan
worden en een ding is.”!
2
!
$!
though he also states that this aspect of ‘wearing’ can either be done easily or with difficulty. He also
explains the word jewellery, by deconstructing the Dutch word sieraad (jewellery). According to
Derrez, ‘raad’, which means ‘thing’ and ‘sier’, meaning ‘decorate’, confirm his interpretation that
jewellery includes items that decorate the human body, either in a decorative or symbolic way.7
Partly in line with the definition of Derrez, is that of Den Besten who states:
“Jewellery is categorised within the realm of objects that beautify, decorate, signify and have a
practical function. But jewellery has no utility; it is practically useless (…) The function of jewellery is
manifold and rather complex compared to that of other examples of applied arts, crafts or design
(…) Decorating, embellishing and signalising can, in essence, be seen as the main functions of
jewellery.(...) The function of jewellery can be defined as the meaning it adds to the person wearing
it and therefore to people in general who recognise its meaning and who can use this for their own
benefit or purpose.”8
Den Besten emphasises the relation jewellery has to people and the many functions jewellery has in
this light: social, religious, economical, ornamental, sentimental, memorial, magical and symbolical
are the categories she defines.9
The term ‘art jewellery’ should be analysed more critically; this terminology refers back to the
ancient discussion of the definition of art, and more recently the definition of design. But what is this
difference between an object of art and a design object? What causes a creation to be labelled one
or the other? Since this question is very difficult to answer, this essay will not go in to detail about the
complicated various definitions of art and design. As David Raizman already points out in his
elaborate book History of Modern Design “it is not always easy to distinguish between design, art and
craft; the three terms have changed in meaning (and value) many times over the last few
centuries”.10 As John Walker states, in Design History and the History of Design:
“Like all words and concepts, ‘design’ gains its specific meaning and value not only because of
what it refers to but also differentially, that is, via contrast with other, neighbouring terms as ‘art’,
‘craft’, ‘engineering’ and ‘mass media’.”11
When trying to distinguish between art, craft and design, Raizman emphasises the separation of
designing and making which forms an important characteristic of modern design. He also points out
that:
“Despite similarities between art, craft and design, most observers remind us that designers are
concerned with meeting clients’ needs rather than their own, as well as with producing instructions
for serial rather than unique artefacts.”12
Simply put, the term ‘design’ implies that a functional object is shaped according to certain
aesthetic values. However, these aesthetics do not undermine the functional aspect of the object.
Thus, to put it boldly, jewellery design traditionally stands for wearable objects. As cited previously,
Den Besten states that even though it is wearable, jewellery is ‘practically useless’. According to her,
one can wear a piece of jewellery, but one cannot use jewellery as a tool or as something to sit on,
for example. Therefore, she questions whether wearing something means it has a practical function.
This can be interpreted as seeing jewellery as a piece of art, since a simplistic, perhaps even banal
definition of art can be stated as an aesthetic creation that provokes certain emotions, but which
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
7
Interview with Paul Derrez by author, 2012.
Den Besten, 2011, p. 11.
9
Den Besten, 2011, p. 12.
10
Raizman, 2003, p. 12.
11
Walker, 1989, p.23.
12
Raizman, 2003, p. 13.!
8
!
%!
has no aim to be a used as a functional object. Art in this sense is something that can be observed,
listened to or even touched, but not something that can be worn. Between these two, admittedly
very black and white and simplified approaches, the question is: can a piece of jewellery be
considered both design and art?
As Den Besten states, it is “disputable whether functionality or non-functionality is the issue”,
when it comes to the question of whether jewellery can be seen as a form of art.13 According to Den
Besten, jewellery in general is at best accepted as an artistic discipline. Moreover, she explicitly
considers ‘art jewellery not more about art than about jewellery’. Jewellery expert Marjan Unger,
however, sees jewellery as “a cultural phenomenon that should not be restricted by making a
distinction between different groups within the field”.14 Perhaps the entire jewellery discipline can be
considered to be on the periphery of art, design and craft, which has the difficulty that, on top of this,
it knows various approaches within this overlapping discipline itself. As Monica Gaspar, art historian
and curator of contemporary jewellery, states when asked whether jewellery can be considered art
or design:
“Why would choosing one of these options help us to understand and progress the discussion
around jewellery better? The convincement that this labelling exercise will bring jewellery to a higher
recognition has failed repeatedly in the past.”15
Perhaps the entire discipline of jewellery making can be considered to lie at the intersection of art,
design and craft, but even in this overlapping area, different approaches exist.
The term ‘auteurssieraad’ (the Dutch translation of ‘art jewellery’), as introduced by Den
Besten, indicates “this kind of jewellery is made by an individual maker and bears the stamp of his or
her artistry and vision”. 16 She analyses this explanation herself in On Jewellery as she comments on
the isolated character of the individual maker as well as the restricted character of the tangible
object it refers to, since contemporary jewellery is also known for its conceptual work.17 The issues
she addresses here are exactly those where borders are being crossed today.
Den Besten places explicit emphasis on the term ‘jewellery makers’ as opposed to ‘jewellery
designers’. According to her, designers work in a different way: they draw a design and then make it.
Jewellery makers on the other hand are ‘material boys and girls’: their work is created in a more
intuitive way, in which the process of designing and making is one and the same.18 This idea of a
unity between design and manufacturing process almost refers to the ideology of the Arts and Crafts
movement, as it existed in the second half of the 19th century, mostly in England with leaders like
William Morris and John Ruskin. They stood for an ‘honest’ product, with a focus on a natural way of
material use and handicraft, striving against the then upcoming machinery. Even jewellery designers
who favoured an ‘industrial look’ were still occupied with handicraft manufacturing, as can be seen
in this quote from Gijs Bakker, in reference to the work of GIJS+EMMY (Gijs Bakker and Emmy van
Leersum) in the 1960s: “Emmy and I were going for an industrial look at the time, but that was still
only accomplished with handicraft.”19 From this perspective, the jewellery field can be seen as a truly
authentic creative industry that is still based on traditional methods rather than ‘modern’ techniques.
Though as Den Besten explains, the jewellery field did change in significant ways in the
1960s. The discipline, which at that time already had a century-long history, went through major
transformations when the whole of society changed, especially in the Netherlands and England, but
also in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. In the Netherlands this was mostly due to the progressive
climate, the government’s investment in art, the prosperity of the state and the rise of leisure time. All
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
!
Den Besten, 2011, p. 9-10.
Marjan Unger in email, interview by author, 2011.
Monica Gaspar in email, interview by author, 2011.
Den Besten, 2011, p. 11.
Ibid.
Interview with Liesbeth den Besten by author, 2011.
Reinewald, 2011 p. 95.
&!
of these positive elements combined created a wealthy environment in which two individuals in
particular were responsible for the changing attitude towards jewellery and its function: Emmy van
Leersum and Gijs Bakker. 20 Their work and influence will be discussed later on. In the contemporary
jewellery world, Gijs Bakker is an exception to den Besten’s definition of ‘jewellery makers’. He can be
considered a ‘jewellery designer’ since he draws a design which is executed by a jewellery maker.
The design and manufacturing process is split in his case, opposing the working method of most
jewellery makers.
Museums are among the actors that influence the way people perceive jewellery. It is
arguable whether showing jewellery in art museums automatically labels it as art. James Beighton,
curator at mima (Middlesbrough Institute of Modern Art England), states: “We are not, institutionally,
particularly interested in setting down dogmatic distinctions between art, craft and design and do
not segregate our programme in that way.”
The institute in Middlesbrough seems to be looking for ways to make various art forms,
including jewellery, more approachable. In 2011, mima invited Atelier Ted Noten to carry out a
project involving local residents. Noten came up with Art Rehab, which involved Middlesbrough’s
taxi drivers: he created a pin for them to wear on their jackets and an art object with the same
shape they could attach to their cars. The project made the taxi driver a personification of the
connection between art, jewellery and people. Crossovers like this one have made jewellery into a
connective discipline, linking art and design to the public as well as establishing it as a form of art
that is breaking out of the white cube.
Galleries also play an important part in bringing jewellery to people. Paul Derrez of Galerie
Ra, which celebrated its 35th anniversary in 2011 and has been playing a large role in the
development of (art) jewellery in the Netherlands since it opened, states the role of the gallery as
being intermediary. He explains that galleries have a function that lies between that of a store and a
museum, meaning that stores sells goods without focussing on their makers. Galleries also have the
aim to sell, but do focus on makers and artists, placing them in context of time and other works. A
museum is similar to a gallery in the way that is places works of art or design in a certain context, but
does however not sell work.21 It does seem, however, that with time the borders between the
conventional functions of galleries, museums and stores, will shift. With institutes like mima – who
commission artists and involve the public by having them wear the outcome of the projects– and
stores who do focus on the context of work and specific makers, the traditional borders are bending.
This opens up new perspectives on the mediation of jewellery in the art and commercial world.
Human Skin as a Border
As explained earlier, both Unger and Den Besten make a strong connection between jewellery and
the human body. Artists like Liesbeth Bussche (BE) challenge this border: her Urban Jewellery
decorates the surroundings of people instead of the human body. (fig. 2) The ‘body of the street’ so
to say, is the one being not only decorated but also transformed in her case. Bussches work plays
with already existing elements in the urban landscape, transforming them into shapes that clearly
refer to traditional forms of jewellery, yet executed in surprising materials and places and pulled out
of proportion. Examples include the shape of a gigantic necklace stamped into sand at a
construction site and the broken-heart chain that places charms on chains between
Amsterdammertjes (small poles in Amsterdam), simulating the effect of a large charm bracelet in the
street site. For the Jewellery Unleashed! exhibition, Bussche visually transformed a streetlight into a
large brooch, simply by attaching a pin to the pole. Bussche’s work challenges the traditional view of
jewellery as objects that are functional and decorate the human body. According to Paul Derrez,
these giant necklaces are however objects or sculptures whose shape refers to jewellery, like a giant
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
20
21
!
Interview with Liesbeth den Besten by author, 2011.!
Interview with Paul Derrez by author, 2012.
'!
chair can be considered an object or sculpture that refers to a chair, but is not actually one.22 Derrez
focuses on the functional aspect and wearability of jewellery and has a slightly different opinion than
Den Besten in this case, who focuses on the story behind objects.
Where Bussche uses the urban landscape as her territory, other designers challenge bodies of
objects. As Kerianne Quick, who works with Gijs Bakker on his Chi ha Paura…? project, states:
“Jewelry can be anything that relates to or is in
confluence with the body. (..) The definition of the
body can be questioned. Is the human body the
only body, or can jewelry be made for other bodies?
And further, can the body itself be jewelry?”23
By proposing these kind of questions, Quick
challenges the conventional ideas of what jewellery
is, its function, what it should look like and what kind
of material it should be made of:
“Perhaps the body is contorted in order to interact
with the thing, giving a new physical or spatial
awareness to the wearer – or the material of the
thing can somehow be transformed by its
interaction with the body. In this way you can think
of almost anything as jewelry. Like if you slide your
hand through a hanging handle on a subway, the
handle becomes a bracelet, or the entire train
becomes an ornament. Or if you lift a chair and
slide your arms under the armrests it becomes a
body ornament, like in Erwin Wurms One Minute
Sculptures.”24
Fig. 2: Urban Jewellery (brooch) by Liesbet Bussche part of the
Jewellery Unleashed! Exhibition at MMKA, 2011. Picture by Liesbet Bussche.
In the past, others designers also crossed borders by using and manipulating the human body, but
not in the traditional way of decorating the outer shell. A radical approach to jewellery came from
the Yugoslavian-born, Austria-based jeweller Peter Skubic who created Body Art by the surgical
implementation of a small steel disc in his arm. This ‘jewellery under the skin’ stayed in his body for
almost eight years, between 1975 and 1982. In 1985, Skubic elaborated on this idea by creating
abstract photographs, which did not show actual rings but gave hints to experiencing jewellery.
According to Den Besten, “this project shows the final dematerialised stage of invisible jewellery:
jewellery that only exists in your imagination”. 25 Projects like these cross the border between the idea
of materialised jewellery objects and the conceptual idea of the function of jewellery.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
22
23
24
25
!
Interview with Paul Derrez by author, 2011.!
Kerianne Quick in email, interview by author, December 2011.
Ibid.!
Den Besten, 2011, p. 38.
(!
The idea of jewellery becomes conceptual and goes beyond decoration by transforming objects in
the work of Bussche and Quick, and in a more extreme way also in that of Skubic. However they can
perhaps still be considered jewellery since they do have a visually decorative function and they refer
to traditional shapes of jewellery. The importance of Chi ha Paura…? in the contemporary jewellery
world is, according to Den Besten, based on the fact that it deals with the here and now, meaning
that they tell a story about the world as it is today. They do this is a conceptual way, which is very
important according to Den Besten, and is reminiscent of the work of GIJS+EMMY in the 1960s.
An Interdisciplinary Approach
The projects of Bussche, Quick and Skubic can
perhaps be considered combinations of art
and design, since they do not include objects
with a functional purpose, but do refer to the
function and shape of jewellery design. In this
way they cross borders between the
approaches of the jewellery discipline. But in
the jewellery world today borders are not only
being crossed in the definition of jewellery,
bridges are also being made between jewellery
design and other design disciplines. As Den
Besten explains, even though the definition of
jewellery as a discipline is tied up to certain
restrictions, the phenomenon of jewellery as an
artistic medium knows various interpretations.
The connection between jewellery and
fashion is not something completely new. In the
1960s, GIJS + EMMY (Gijs Bakker and Emmy van
Leersum) already combined the two
disciplines. As design critic Gert Staal states:
“The coordination of jewellery and clothing met
the requirement that Emmy made of her work:
that the jewel be integrated, losing its
decorative, status-charged function, and
becoming an essential element of the
complete personality.”26
Fig. 3: Aluminium collar and dress
by Emmy van Leersum, 1968.
GIJS + EMMY created a series of large collars in aluminium in 1968. (fig. 3) As Den Besten explains,
the innovative material use was however not the starting point of GIJS + EMMY ‘s collars: their aim
was to create these gigantic pieces and for the models to be able to wear them in the first catwalk
jewellery show ever, which was held at the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam. For this to work, they had
to be executed in light material.27 The collars can be seen as both pieces of jewellery, considering
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
26
27
!
Staal, 1993, p. 40.!
Interview with Liesbeth den Besten by author, 2011
)!
the materials used, yet on the other hand they are almost stand alone garment pieces, in their size
and reference to fashion.
The 1960s saw a breakthrough in the jewellery field, in which the discipline released itself
from the restrictions dictated by precious materials and traditional forms. The relationship between
jewellery and other disciplines, as well
as the belief in the innovative use of
materials, is being strengthened
today, for instance by Naomi Filmer,
LucyandBart and Noon Passama.
The work of Naomi Filmer
shows perhaps the most resemblance
to GIJS + EMMY. Filmer explains the
connection between jewellery and
fashion as jewellery going “beyond
being the decoration; accessories and
jewellery in fashion are the ultimate
definition, the underlying reference,
the key that explain inspiration”. Filmer
illustrates her vision with Breathing
Volume, her series of jewellery that
visualises the idea of breathing in and
breathing out, that “instead of using
the body as a location uses the body
as a catalyst for the shapes, the
objects and the series”. Filmer’s
images of Ball Lenses, featuring glass
spheres connected to the body,
distorts the anatomical appearance
and proportions, just like the
aluminum collars of Bakker and Van
Leersum. (fig. 4) In her work, Filmer
deals with questions like “what is more
important: the object you wear or the
flesh that carries the object? Do you
wear the object or does the object
wear you?”28
Fig. 4: Elbow Ball Lense by Naomi Filmer from exhibition Out of the Ordinairy,
The V&A, London 2007. Image by Chris Springhall & Gavin Alexander.
One of the possible answers to these questions can be seen visualised in the work of LucyandBart,
both together and in the individual work of Lucy McRae and Bart Hess. Their collaboration was stated
to be an “instinctual stalking of fashion, architecture, performance and the body, sharing a
fascination with genetic manipulation and beauty expression”.29 LucyandBart created future human
shapes including technical escapades of body morphing images. In their individual work, Lucy
McRae and Bart Hess seem to have almost the same aim. When explaining her work, McRae
describes it as “straddling the worlds of fashion, technology and the body, this body architect invents
and build structures around the body that re-shape the human silhouette”. 30 McRae declares herself
a ‘body architect’, explicitly challenging the conventional borders of creating jewellery. In a project
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
28
29
30
!
http://arttube.boijmans.nl/nl/video/AoF-NF-nl/
http://lucyandbart.blogspot.com/
http://www.lucymcrae.net/about/
*!
for Philips Design, she created ‘sensitive’ dresses and jewellery incorporating technologies that
respond to the wearer’s emotional state.31 Could her work however be considered jewellery, in line
with innovative initiatives like that of Chi ha Paura..?
According to Unger’s definition, which states that a piece of jewellery is an object worn on
the human body as a decorative and symbolic addition to the appearance, it is negotiable whether
the work of both Lucy McRae and Bart Hess can be labelled jewellery. Their work is worn on the body
as a decorative addition to the appearance, but it can be argued that their works are not truly
objects. Especially Hess’ work, which is not materially executed but remains in the virtual realm. It
can also be debated whether this kind of work is design or art. In On Jewellery, Den Besten
emphasises the useless character of the objects that decorate and show a strong connection to the
human body. According to these criteria, the work of artists like Lucy McRae and Bart Hess can thus
be considered jewellery. It also has an ornamental function, one of the categories that Den Besten
defines. In this light, the work of these two artists can perhaps be seen as the most innovative kind of
jewellery today, comparable to the “international and vital tendency that breathed new life into
jewelry” that was The New Jewelry.32 Den Besten explains that even though the definition of jewellery
as a discipline comes with certain restrictions, the phenomenon of jewellery as an artistic medium
knows various interpretations. Den Besten emphasises the core of the artistic medium that is
jewellery: according to her, jewellery makers should be creating their items from a jewellery
perspective if their work is to be considered jewellery. In this light, she does not consider Bart Hess to
be a jewellery maker: he does not create from a jewellery perspective, his work of virtual
manipulation of the body leans more towards fashion design. Beyond this, she emphasises the fact
that his work is not materially executed. She does, on the other hand, consider both Liesbeth Bussche
and Lucy McRae to be jewellery makers, since their creations are based on recognisable shapes
and references in jewellery thinking.33
Culture and Tradition
The jewellery field is also opening up the geographical and symbolical borders between cultures.
According to Alba Cappellieri, director of the post-graduate program in Jewellery Design at the
Politecnico di Milano, it is the Internet that caused the jewellery world to open up:
“A community without geographical borders has been formed and has brought to light a global
need of communication in a discipline which is unbearably isolated and isolationist, submitted to
stagnation which is at once formal, material, technological and relational.”34
Benjamin Lignel, both a theorist and maker himself, agrees with this, stating:
“I would argue that nationality - unless you make it part of your work - is just one of several
ingredients of who we are. The contemporary jewellery scene is extremely international, and we all
now have pretty much unlimited access to information about anything, anywhere.”35
Cappellieri describes why, according to her, the borders between cultures are slowly fading
away. den Besten explains why the different levels of development between cultures and regions
even exist. According to Den Besten, the change in the jewellery field that occurred in the 1960s in
Western Europe was possible because of the progressive climate and prosperity. It is fair to assume
that this is the main reason that major changes in the approach of jewellery have not yet occurred in
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
31
32
33
34
35
!
http://www.danielbertina.nl/2010/04/07/body-architect-lucy-mcrae/!
Den Besten, 2011, p. 7-9.
Interview with Liesbeth den Besten by author, December 2011
Alba Cappellieri in email, interview by author, December 2011.
Benjamin Lignel in email, interview by author, December 2011.!
"+!
less wealthy areas in the world. Since jewellery can be considered a luxury item, an innovative
attitude in the field will come with the financial development of states. Asia and Africa do not have a
history of art education in jewellery; therefore they are not as developed in the field as Europe, the
USA and Australia. Yet according to Den Besten it is only a matter of time before Asia and Africa will
also develop their own art jewellery culture: as a matter of fact there are already a lot of
developments taking place right now, for instance in South-Korea, China and Thailand.
The matter of national identity is an interesting but complex subject in the jewellery field,
according to Den Besten. She refers to New Zealand as an example, where the Maori, the original
inhabitants of New Zealand, are more visible than the Aboriginals in Australia. The symbols that the
Maori use in their jewellery are even adapted by the non-Maori in New Zealand. This evokes
discussions about the symbolic use of and symbols used in jewellery, as it is culturally defined. What
meaning is given to a symbol in jewellery when an intercultural crossover of symbols is taking
place?36
Borders are not only being crossed in the use of symbols in jewellery: cultural aesthetics are
also being adopted between cultures. These crossovers between the different worlds are for instance
happening because of students studying in countries other than their homeland. Noon Passama, a
Thai designer living in Holland, is one of the jewellery makers that are connecting different cultures,
disciplines, techniques and materials. Passama is
currently creating a line of jewellery for Belgian
fashion brand Capara, using wax
casting,electroforming and oxidizing, plating,
and spray-painting techniques. She explains the
different approaches of jewellery between
Thailand and the Netherlands as follows:
“In Thailand, for most people, the value of
jewellery is much more attached to the monetary
value of materials. (…) Traditional Thai jewellery
is more into decoration, craftsmanship and
material. It is much more difficult there for things
to happen because most people are busy
fulfilling basic necessities for life.”37
This underlines Den Besten’s statement that
jewellery pieces are luxury items. Passama made
a crossover between different cultures in the
series she made with the (originally Thai but
Belgian-based) fashion designer Ek Thongprasert:
a collaboration based on classical jewellery
silhouettes from both ethnic as well as Western
cultures, like Victorian crown jewellery. (fig. 5)
Fig. 5: Ek Thongprasert x Noon Passama, part 3, 2010.
Image courtesy of Ek Thongprasert.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
36
37
!
Interview with Liesbeth den Besten by author, 2011
Noon Passama in email, interview by author, December 2011.!
""!
Thus not only is Passama using different cultural backgrounds in her work, she also connects the
jewellery field to the fashion world. She states that even though the two fields have a very different
working method, they are in close relation to each other: “When I see a model wearing my jewellery
pieces and the (Capara) clothing I see a completed person.” When asked about her aim, Passama
states that “it would be nice to bring together fashion and jewellery that are made to be with each
other and form a total look, and that none of them are treated as less important.”38
Passama’s approach to the jewellery craft is interdisciplinary: after receiving a BA in industrial
design and graduating from the Rietveld Jewellery department in Amsterdam, she is now doing her
MA in Fashion Strategy. She states that the industrial design gave her knowledge on how to visualize
work both in 2D and 3D.39 By working together with different companies, she is combining industrial
techniques with handwork. Passama also considers her foundation in architectural design as an
important factor in her work, as it reflects in her way of constructing and working with forms.
Techniques and Materials
As seen in the definition of jewellery by Den Besten, the character of jewellery is closely related to the
working method. Den Besten outlines a unity in designing and manufacturing jewellery with most
makers, with the exception of some designers like Gijs Bakker, who commissions others to execute
his designs. 40 Yet with new techniques being developed, it seems that this division between
designing and manufacturing is occurring more and more.
One of these new techniques is 3D printing, a technique that according to Paul Derrez is a
valid new addition to the jewellery world that is here to stay.41 3D printing is, for instance, used by
Atelier Ted Noten, who are experimenting with printing in different materials, not only nylon but also
gold, silver and steel. It is in this material difference that Den Besten forecasts different ranges of
success: she is less optimistic about the future and lasting success of printing with cheaper materials.
This has to do with one of the core values of jewellery, that “the material value of a piece of jewellery
has to be equal to the emotional value”, according to Den Besten.42 An obvious example is the
wedding ring that would just not be accepted when executed in plastic instead of gold. This
principal underlines the importance of material use in the jewellery world, and explains why Den
Besten refers to jewellery makers as ‘material boys and girls’.43 It seems as if the world is not ready, or
will perhaps never be ready, to pay large amounts of money for jewellery executed on a large scale
in less precious materials. Somehow, a steel or plastic piece of jewellery by a well-known designer
will not be as desirable and financially valued as a plastic chair-design. This difference is most
probably connected to the personal value of jewellery: as it is worn closely on the human body, it is
considered an extension of the personal identity of the wearer, and should therefore be special and
exclusive. This is an emotional concept based on personal experience and therefore hard to define.
A carefully made piece of jewellery, made out of wood or textile, can for example be highly valued,
while a 3D printed nylon ring looses its value because of the cheap image and touch of the
material.44 It is clear that the value of a piece of jewellery is very subjective and based on personal
connotations.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
!
Ibid.
Ibid.
Interview
Interview
Interview
Ibid.
Interview
with Liesbeth den Besten by author, 2011.
with Paul Derrez by author, 2012.
with Liesbeth den Besten by author, 2011.
with Liesbeth den Besten by author, 2011.!
"#!
Atelier Ted Noten is not only exploring
new manufacturing techniques, they are
also experimenting with new techniques
to connect to the audience through
jewellery. In their Smartphone Jewels
project, for Jewellery Unleashed!, Atelier
Ted Noten placed a virtual exhibition
throughout the city of Arnhem. (fig. 6)
When scanning QR code tags, the
visitors can acquire information on the
world behind the jewel, varying from
political comments to narrative
anecdotes.45 When a visitor scans all
tags with his or her smartphone, he or
she receives a 3D printed ring by Atelier
Ted Noten. This project is a new step in
connecting people to jewellery in an
interactive way.
Another designer exploring the
interactive potential of jewellery is
Roseanne Bartley, who initiated several
projects in which she established
connections with other people in order
to create jewellery in unconventional
ways, like making a ‘necklace’ out of
people holding each others hands while
standing in a circle, or asking exhibition
visitors to draw on a long strip of paper
to create a long necklace together.
(fig. 7)
Fig. 6: Smartphone Jewellery by Atelier Ted Noten,
part of the Jewellery Unleashed! exhibition at MMKA, 2011.
Bartley explains:
“I develop an idea, I work with it in the environment I live; I invite people into the process,
simultaneously we engage with each other and in turn with our location. This occurs through a
process defined by an area of knowledge called jewellery. The result or outcome hasn’t always
functioned as jewellery in its supplemental form, and therefore may not technically be judged or
viewed as jewellery.”46
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
45
46
!
http://smartphonejewels.com/
Roseanne Bartley in email, interview by author, December 2011.!
"$!
Fig. 7: Human Necklace – Pearl by Roseanne Bartley. Photo by Christian Schallert, 2006-7.
Yet the process does originate from an idea of jewellery, and in this sense, the work can be
considered jewellery, according to Den Besten’s definition.
Like Atelier Ted Noten, Bartley also experiments with techniques, interactivity and materials;
Bartley recycles materials she finds in a process she calls ‘surface archaeology’. She explains:
“I wouldn’t go out and collect bottle tops because I wanted to work with steel, I would collect them
because I noticed that bottle tops were being left behind in an interesting pattern or frequency, for
example; find one beer cap down a laneway, keep looking, you are likely to find another of the
same kind. These observations would inform the way I collected matter and in turn how I thought
about the material when I was composing a work.” 47
It is this approach of materials and techniques that make both Atelier Ted Noten and Roseanne
Bartley pioneers of crossing borders in the jewellery field.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
47
!
Ibid.
"%!
Conclusion
This essay attempts to map the ways in which borders are being crossed in the contemporary
jewellery world today. This is done by analysing the existing borders between art and design, the
restrictions created by the human body and the borders between different disciplines, cultures,
material use and technique. When analysing these borders, the main conclusion could be that most
of them are flexible: the borders are being bent in a natural way, like material is shaped in jewellery
making. By crossing the borders, the discipline is being reshaped and not broken. Like the line
between art and design in jewellery making, which is multi-interpretable and in some cases even
non-existent. It is a very intuitive fine line that is hard to grasp and define because of its personal
character. The natural border in the jewellery world that is created by the human skin, the limitation
of the human body, is also stretching. Jewellery makers are challenging the conventional restrictions,
which connect the discipline closely to the human body. Slowly the street and objects are also
becoming locations to be jewelled, and not only the human body. This is connected to the idea of
crossing borders between the jewellery field and other disciplines. The location of jewellery as a
place to be seen and admired has spread from the street to galleries, museums and the runway. The
contemporary jewellery field is closely linked to the fashion world, but also to industrial design and
architecture, when the background of some jewellery makers is taken into account. When it comes
to the borders between cultures: they do exist, but are perhaps fading away in the world today as
crossovers between different cultures in the jewellery world are slowly taking place and different
cultures are adopting each others symbols. The borders of material use and technique are also
being challenged by several jewellery makers who are separating the unity of the design and
manufacturing process as it traditionally exists in the jewellery world. Innovative technical inventions
and new ways of looking at old materials are definitely crossing borders in the contemporary
jewellery field. As Kerianne Quick states:
“Jewelry can cross borders because jewelry is so close to our humanity. Jewelry is worn intimately
close to the body; adornment is inherent in our nature and intertwined in our history, and much of
what is important to us has historically been expressed in jewelry. Jewelry is tied to our humanness,
the sparks inside us that make us more than animals: our emotions, loyalties, beliefs, dreams, desires,
and our ability to express all of these things through figurative and abstract making. There are no
limits.”48
In general it can be stated that the breakthrough in the jewellery world as it started in Western
Europe in the 1960s is continuing today. As James Beighton, curator at mima states: “I don’t detect a
seismic change in jewellery design at the moment, rather a continuation of a project and attitude
towards jewellery that has been developing over the course of the post war era.”49 Jewellery has
outgrown the human body since the 1960s and has developed into a conceptual artistic medium.
The conventional definition of a piece of jewellery being a small decorative object that can be worn
has become too restrictive. Jewellery today decorates people, streets and objects. Jewellery is larger
than life; it can have various functions, can be made of numerous materials and created by a whole
range of techniques. Jewellery cannot be defined anymore. Jewellery has been unleashed.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
48
49
!
Kerianne Quick in email, interview by author, December 2011.
James Beighton in email, interview by author, December 2011.!
"&!
Bibliography
Literature
Den Besten, Liesbeth, On Jewellery: A compendium of international contemporary art jewellery,
Arnoldsche Art Publishers, Stuttgart, 2011.
Unger, Marjan, Sieraad in context: Een multidisciplinair kader voor de beschouwing van het sieraad,
Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van Doctor aan de Universiteit Leiden, (Jewellery in context:
A multidisciplinary framework for the consideration of jewellery, dissertation to obtain a PhD at the
University of Leiden), Offsetdrukkerij Jan de Jong, Amsterdam, 2010.
Staal, Gert, Gebroken lijnen, de contouren van een leven (Broken lines, the contours of a life) in
Broken Lines: Emmy van Leersum 1930-1984, Het Kruithuis, Stedelijk Museum voor Hedendaagse
Kunst, ’s-Hertogenbosch, 1993.
Raizman, David, History of Modern Design, Laurence King Publishing Ltd., London, 2010.
Walker, John A, Design History and the History of Design, Pluto Press, London 1989.
Magazines
Chris Reinewald, Drijfveren achter het auteurssieraad (Motivations of art jewellery) in Items,
Amsterdam, nr. 6 2011, p. 94-95.
Interviews
Roseanne Bartley in email, interview by author, December 2011.
James Beighton in email, interview by author, December 2011.
Interview with Liesbeth den Besten by author, Amstelveen, December 23th 2011.
Alba Cappellieri in email, interview by author, December 2011.
Interview with Paul Derrez by author, Galerie Ra, Amsterdam, January 4th 2012.
Naomi Filmer in email, interview by author, December 2011.
Mònica Gaspar in email, interview by author, December 2011.
Benjamin Lignel in email, interview by author, December 2011.
Noon Passama in email, interview by author, December 2011.
Kerianne Quicke in email, interview by author, December 2011.
Marjan Unger in email, interview by author, December 2011.
!
"'!
Internet
http://arttube.boijmans.nl/nl/video/AoF-NF-nl/
http://lucyandbart.blogspot.com/
http://www.lucymcrae.net/about/
http://www.danielbertina.nl/2010/04/07/body-architect-lucy-mcrae/
http://smartphonejewels.com/
Images
Fig. 1.''Elbow Ball Lense'' by Naomi Filmer from exhibition''Out of the Ordinairy'' The V&A, London
2007. Image by Chris Springhall & Gavin Alexander.
Fig. 2: Urban Jewellery (brooch) by Liesbet Bussche part of the Jewellery Unleashed! Exhibition
at MMKA, 2011. Picture by Liesbet Bussche.
Fig. 3: Aluminium collar and dress by Emmy van Leersum, 1968.
Fig. 4. See figure 1.
Fig. 5: Ek Thongprasert x Noon Passama, part 3, 2010. Image courtesy of Ek Thongprasert.
Fig. 6: Smartphone Jewellery by Atelier Ted Noten, part of the Jewellery Unleashed! exhibition at
MMKA, 2011.
Fig. 7: Human Necklace – Pearl by Roseanne Bartley, Digital Print, H 54cm x W 38cm.
Photo by Christian Schallert, 2006-7.
!
"(!