Jewellery Unleashed! Crossing Borders By Lisa Goudsmit

Fig. 1. Elbow Ball Lense by Naomi Filmer Image by Chris Springhall & Gavin Alexander.

Setup: Page: Thank you 2 Abstract 2 Introduction and Research Question 2 Various Borders 3 Defining the Indefinable 3 Human Skin as a Border 6 An Interdisciplinary Approach 8 Culture and Tradition 10 Techniques and Materials 12 Conclusion 15 Bibliography 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 ) 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 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. 2 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.”!

! $!

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. 8 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.!

! %!

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 and England, but also in , Austria and . 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 Den Besten, 2011, p. 9-10. 14 Marjan Unger in email, interview by author, 2011. 15 Monica Gaspar in email, interview by author, 2011. 16 Den Besten, 2011, p. 11. 17 Ibid. 18 Interview with Liesbeth den Besten by author, 2011. 19 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 Interview with Liesbeth den Besten by author, 2011.! 21 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 Interview with Paul Derrez by author, 2011.! 23 Kerianne Quick in email, interview by author, December 2011. 24 Ibid.! 25 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 Staal, 1993, p. 40.! 27 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, 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 http://arttube.boijmans.nl/nl/video/AoF-NF-nl/ 29 http://lucyandbart.blogspot.com/ 30 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 http://www.danielbertina.nl/2010/04/07/body-architect-lucy-mcrae/! 32 Den Besten, 2011, p. 7-9. 33 Interview with Liesbeth den Besten by author, December 2011 34 Alba Cappellieri in email, interview by author, December 2011. 35 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 Interview with Liesbeth den Besten by author, 2011 37 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 Ibid. 39 Ibid. 40 Interview with Liesbeth den Besten by author, 2011. 41 Interview with Paul Derrez by author, 2012. 42 Interview with Liesbeth den Besten by author, 2011. 43 Ibid. 44 Interview 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 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 http://smartphonejewels.com/ 46 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 Kerianne Quick in email, interview by author, December 2011. 49 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.

! "(!