MODERN DESIGN IN
JEWELLERY AND FANS
EDITED BY CHARLES HOLME
OFFICES OF 'THE STUDIO,' LONDON,
PARIS, NEW YORK MCMII
PRELIMINARY NOTE
JOHN RUSKIN has laid down some broad and simple rules which are
especially applicable to DESIGN IN JEWELLERY AND FANS. He says, "Never
encourage the manufacture of any article not absolutely necessary, in
the production of which invention has no share." And, again, "Never
encourage imitation, or copying of any kind, except for the sake of
preserving records of great works."
It is in the thorough belief of the soundness or these principles that
the Editor has selected a number of representative modern examples of
design by British and Continental workers, which, from their beauty and
freshness of treatment, bear testimony to the great advance that has
recently been made in the right understanding and rendering of the
jeweller's and fan-maker's arts. If articles of good taste are to be
produced, there must be a demand for them. So long as a public is to be
found that will purchase trinketry in imitation of wheel-barrows, cocks
and hens, flower-pots, and moons and stars, so long will the advance in
art be retarded.
The Editor has pleasure in acknowledging the courtesy of the owners of
copyrights for their kindness in sanctioning the reproduction
of important work; and his best thanks are due to all the
artist-contributors, and especially to those who have made designs
expressly for this publication.
Table of Literary Contents
MODERN FRENCH JEWELLERY
AND FANS By Gabriel Mourey
MODERN BRITISH JEWELLERY
AND FANS By Aymer Vallance
MODERN AUSTRIAN JEWELLERY By W. Fred
MODERN GERMAN JEWELLERY
By Chr. Ferdinand Morawe
MODERN BELGIAN JEWELLERY
AND FANS By F. Khnopff
MODERN DANISH JEWELLERY By Georg Brochner
LIST OF CRAFTSMEN AND DESIGNERS
FRENCH SECTION
Aubert, Félix plate 35
Bécker, E. plate 15
Bing, Marcel plates 25, 26
Boucheron plates 12, 13, 14
Cauvin plate 12
Colonna plates 25, 26
Desbois, Jules " 16, 17, 18
Dufrène " 28, 33
Feure, Georges de " 1, 35
Follot, Paul " 19, 28
Fouquet, G. plates 7, 8, 9, 11
Grasset, E. plate 10
Hirtz, L. plates 12, 13, 14
"L'Art Nouveau" plates 25, 26
Lalique, René plates 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Lambert, Th. " 32, 33, 34
"La Maison Moderne" plates 19, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 35
Mangeant, E. plates 23, 24
Monvel, de, Ch. Boutet " 21, 22
Mucha plate 7
Orazzi plates 27, 28, 29, 30
Richard, Paul plates 14, 15
Rivaud, Charles plate 31
Templier, P. plates 32, 33, 34
Verger, Ferdinand (_Editeur_) plates 14, 15
Vever plates 13, 19, 20
BRITISH SECTION
Alabaster, Annie plate 48
Alabaster, M. " 34
Allen, Kate plates 19, 29, 31, 33, 38
Angus, Christine plate 12
Arscott, A. E. " 29
Ashbee, C. R. plates 17, 18, 20, 21
Baker, Oliver " 35, 36
Barrie, B. J. " 19, 31, 34
Brangwyn, Frank plate 8
Brown, E. May " 29
Cook, Thomas A. plates 15, 24
Conder, Frank plates 2, 5, 6, 7
Dawson, Nelson plate 14
Dawson, Edith " 14
Dick, Reginald T. plate 1
Evers-Swindell, Nora plates 34, 50, 52
Fell, H. Granville plate 11
Fisher, Kate plates 25, 37
Gaskin, Arthur J. " 44, 45
Guild of Handicraft plates 17, 18, 20, 21
Hammett, Lydia C. plate 9
Hart, Dorothy " 34
Hodgkinson, Ethel M. plates 39, 50, 52
Hodgkinson, Winifred plates 29, 30, 39, 52
King, Jessie M. plate 16
Larcombe, Ethel plates 10, 34
McBean, Isabel " 29, 47
Mackintosh, C. R. plate 43
Mackintosh, Margaret Macdonald plate 43
McLeish, Annie plates 28, 29, 32, 34, 39, 50
McLeish, Minnie plates 34, 47
McNair, Frances " 21, 22, 42
McNair, J. H. " 22, 23
Morris, Talwin " 40, 41, 42
Naylor, Myra " 3, 4
Pickett, Edith " 25, 49
Rankin, Arabella " 51
Robinson, F. S. " 46
Simpson, Edgar " 26, 27, 36
Syrett, Nellie " 13, 15
Talbot, J. M. plate 51
Veazey, David plates 19, 34, 39, 48, 50
AUSTRIAN SECTION
Fischmeister, Herr plates 2, 3
Gringold, Emil plate 7
Hauptmann, Franz " 4
Hofstetter, Josef plates 1, 5
Holzinger, E. plate 8
Mesmer, F. plates 1, 8
Prutscher, Otto plates 1, 5, 6
Roset, Herr " 2, 3
Schönthoner, V. plate 1
Schwartz, Prof. " 5
Unger, Elsa plates 7, 8
Wagner, Anna plate 8
GERMAN SECTION
Fahrner, Theodor plates 3, 8
Gosen, Theodor von plate 5
Hirzel, H. R. C. " 4
Koch, Robert " 1
Loewenthal, D. and M. plates 2, 3, 8
Möhring, Bruno plate 6
Morawe, C. Ferdinand plate 7
Olbrich, Joseph M. plates 2, 3, 8
"Vereingte Werkstaetten, Munich," plate 5
Werner, F. H. " 6
Werner, Louis " 4
BELGIAN SECTION
Cassiers, H. plate 1
Dubois, Paul " 9
Van Strydonck, L. plate 2
Wolfers, Ph. plates 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
DANISH SECTION
Bindesböll, Th. plate 8
Bollin, Moyens plates 6, 7, 8
Magnussen, Erick plates 2, 5, 6
Slott-Möller, H. plates 1, 2, 3, 4
MODERN FRENCH JEWELLERY & FANS. BY GABRIEL MOUREY.
[Illustration]
French superiority in the art of jewellery seems to be incontestable
to-day. No unbiased observer will deny the fact that with us there is
more richness, more variety, more originality than can be found
elsewhere; and the jewellery section in the Esplanade des Invalides at
the Exhibition of 1900 showed to the whole world the progress made in
this special branch of applied art by our craftsmen and our artists;
showed, too, the verve, the imagination, the fancifulness, which are the
special property of the French race in all that relates to articles of
luxury, to those things which are essentially "useless," if so we may
term a woman's adornments; if so we may regard the beauty of precious
stones, of enamels skilfully and subtly formed--of all that, in a word,
which, taken from Nature's infinite treasure-house, serves to constitute
that adorably vain, that exquisitely superfluous thing--the jewel.
Ruskin once remarked, in his strange, penetrating way, that the
loveliest things are those which are the least useful--lilies and
peacocks' feathers, for instance. Furthermore, to depreciate the part
played by jewellery in relation to decorative art would be equivalent to
minimising the rôle of womankind in civilisation. Then, again, as
regards decoration or adornment, has not the highest mission devolved on
woman? Has she not had to assume the most active part in it all? The
modern jewellery vogue has, I am convinced, done more in France to
propagate new ideas in the way of decorative art than all the æsthetic
theories ever evolved, however sound.
One might say much, might make many reflections on this renascence of
the jeweller's art, as manifested at the present moment in Paris. This
revival reveals itself rich and abundant--perhaps too rich and abundant;
but what of the future? What fruit will it bear when the glamour of that
which it has already borne has passed away? Is there no danger of seeing
good intentions miscarry--high gifts falling into excesses injurious to
the prosperity of the movement? Is not the new fashion--if it be merely
a fashion--being adopted with too much enthusiasm, followed with too
much ardour, to last? Is there no fear of a reaction? Here are several
questions to which we cannot reply with any certainty.
Yet, what matter? Among the works produced during the past five years or
so--that is, since the full expansion of the movement--there are many
which, by their originality, their technical perfection, deserve to
remain. And remain they certainly will, to bear witness to the audacious
fancy, the creative faculty of our artists, and as a sort of passionate
homage laid by the men of to-day at the feet of the Eternal Feminine.
* * * * *
The name of M. René Lalique arises instinctively as soon as one begins
to discuss the modern jewel. He is the renovator, or, preferably, the
creator, of the art as we know it nowadays, and one can easily
understand the enthusiasm and the admiration aroused by his work. M.
Lalique is almost as celebrated as M. Edmond Rostand; and he at least
deserves his celebrity, for he is a real, a very great, artist. And such
he must indeed be to be able to make one forget his imitators, many of
whose productions are as detestable as copies can be. At times
even--most unjustly, I admit--one almost comes to hate the art of M.
Lalique himself, so persistently is it badly imitated. One has been
constrained before now to hate Raphael, on seeing a Cabanel or a
Bouguereau! But enough of that!
The jewels by M. Lalique now reproduced are rather different, both in
conception and in treatment, from his usual manner. Here he appears as a
more direct observer of Nature, more devoted to simplicity and breadth.
His new combs, with pansy and sycamore-leaf _motifs_, in horn and
silver--especially the exquisite one with sycamore seeds in horn, silex,
black enamel, and obsidian, with golden insects here and there--show him
still anxious to extend the field of his experiments, never tired of
seeking fresh subjects and testing new materials. Instead of remaining
stationary and falling asleep at his post, he is spurred by a desire for
conquest, and shows himself ever fertile in imagination, of infinite
fancy, constantly advancing, with undiminished freedom and originality.
At the Universal Exhibition the works executed by M. Vever, in
collaboration with M. Eugène Grasset, obtained the success that was
their due. But the most important piece of work achieved by these two
artists was not finished at that time. I refer to the sumptuous and
heroic pendant of Hercules, which we are fortunate enough to be able to
reproduce here from the original water-colour by M. Grasset. It is truly
an admirable work, one in which all the imaginative and technical
qualities possessed by the illustrator of the "Quatre Fils Aymon" are to
be seen in profusion. What richness, what distinction in the details;
what perfection of balance, both in design and in colouring! As for the
execution by the firm of Vever, they deserve as much credit for it as if
they had produced an original work. This is a jewel worthy to find a
permanent place in one of the great European galleries, to rank side by
side with the wonderful productions of the past.
M. Georges Fouquet is a most daring _fantaisiste_, and his creations
impress one by qualities altogether different from those of the MM.
Vever. He might perhaps be said to belong to the Lalique school, not
that he imitates him, but by reason of his imaginative gifts. He is
generally complicated, somewhat Byzantine, and thoroughly modern in any
case. Some of his jewels would, I think, gain by being less rich;
nevertheless, they are very interesting, and they deserve all the
success they have won. The chief objection that can be urged against
them is their lack of spontaneity. M. Georges Fouquet certainly holds a
foremost place in the new movement. Already his production is
considerable. Altogether an artist of rare gifts and splendid audacity.
I have always had a liking for the jewellery of M. Colonna--for some of
it, at any rate, that which is most simple, most original, and most
wearable. His works have this great charm in my eyes, that they are
neither show-case jewels nor mere _bijoux de parade_, things intended
solely for display. As a rule, they are quiet and practical. In most
cases they have no "subject," being simply happy combinations of lines
and curves and reliefs, the _imprévu_ of which has a particular charm.
M. Marcel Bing, all of whose productions, like those of M. Colonna, are
the monopoly of the "Art Nouveau Bing," has done some delightful things.
One can see that he is still somewhat timid and hesitating, but his
taste is sure, and he has an imagination which, if not specially
abundant, is at least delicate and fine. He has a sense of colour too,
and his pretty fancies are carried out with evident delight.
"La Maison Moderne," so actively directed by M. Meier-Graefe, has
produced a large number of jewels. Ordinarily the designs are supplied
by MM. Maurice Dufrène, Paul Follot, and Orazzi. Of course, they are not
of uniform merit, but this in no way diminishes the interest attaching
to their efforts. They are marred to some extent, it must be admitted,
by certain extravagances, but even that is better than a relapse into
the old _formulæ_, or the profitless reproduction of the bad models
which were the rage some thirty years since. Moreover, "La Maison
Moderne"--all praise to it!--has brought within the reach of the public
quantities of jewellery which, without being masterpieces of conception
or execution, are yet thoroughly good work based on excellent principles
of novelty and freshness. They are what may be termed "popular" jewels.
The works designed by M. Théodore Lambert, and executed by M. Paul
Templier, are of altogether different character. In these days, when
excessive complications in jewel-work are so general and so much
esteemed, these rings, necklaces and _plaques_, with their symmetrical
linear designs in monochrome or reddish or greenish metal, relieved at
times by pearls only, and with their formal _ajourements_, will
doubtless seem to many people too simple or too commonplace. It will be
justly urged against them that they are not sufficiently symbolic, that
they take no account of the human form. No nymph disports herself amid
the fall of the leaves in a lake of enamel bordered by water-lilies and
iris blooms; no serpent nor devil-fish winds about in spasmodic
contortions: yet these are charming works of art, beautifully and
harmoniously designed, and with lines balanced to perfection. They are,
in fact, jewels meant to be worn, _bijoux de ville_, which, while
attracting no special notice, form nevertheless most exquisite objects
of female adornment.
M. René Foy is a strange artist, rather restless, never altogether
satisfied with himself, and haunted by a perpetual desire for something
novel. Is he completely himself, that which he wishes or strives to be?
This is the question those who have closely watched his career are
asking themselves. For my part, I know some delightful things of his,
extraordinarily delicate and graceful; but I also remember some of his
work in which his exaggerations are such that one despairs of
understanding his meaning. Unless I greatly mistake him, he wants the
jewel to express more than it is possible for the jewel to express, and
therefore is continually restless in his attempts to achieve the
unachievable. He loses himself in a maze of "refinements" which, in my
opinion, are outside the limits of the art he practises. He has created
lovely things, things so novel as to be almost too novel, but I do not
think he has said his final word yet. He is a young man who may have
many surprises in store for us.
The jewels of M. Jules Desbois are works of pure sculpture. His vision,
at once broad and delicate, takes the form of beautiful female forms in
dreamy or voluptuous attitude, sleeping amid the masses of their
abundant hair, against a background of gold, or shell, or whatever the
material may be. Any womanly gesture suffices; and, in truth, what more
is needed to make a real work of art in the form of a brooch or a
button? No conventional flowers, no complicated interlacements, nothing
"decorative" in the bad sense of the word; yet his work is powerfully
and delicately modern. M. Desbois' jewels are perfect pieces of
sculpture.
Victor Prouvé, the painter, has been influenced in a similar way, but,
not being a regular sculptor, he is more complicated without being any
more original on that account. There is more "composition" in his jewels
than in those of M. Desbois, more real, more visible, intention. His
waistbelts, his brooches, &c., are admirably suited to the purpose for
which they are intended, their modelling being full, supple, and keen.
The jewels, executed with scrupulous care and irreproachable _technique_
by M. Rivaud, are real works of art.
M. Bécker and M. Paul Richard, who are both working almost exclusively
for M. Ferdinand Verger ("F. V." is the trademark of the firm), incline
to that type of jewellery which might be termed "sculptured." They are
very conscientious artists, but in my opinion, at any rate, the
originality there may be within them has not yet made itself fully
apparent.
M. Louis Bonny's jewels deserve special attention. Like M. Vever, M.
Bonny shows a predilection for precious stones, which he has the art of
using with rare originality. At the last _salon_ of the Société des
Artistes Français he exhibited a series of jewels which attracted much
attention, among them--in addition to a beautiful necklace of wild grape
in enamel, diamonds, and emerald, in addition to various floral pendants
and neck ornaments in enamel and diamonds--a curious diadem,
representing cocks in gold and enamel fighting for possession of a
superb topaz. This was a real _tour de force_ in the way of execution.
Other beautiful things of his I know, particularly his _plaque de cou_
of geraniums, with the leaves in diamonds, the flowers in rubies, the
stems and buds in dark green enamel, the whole being at once rich and
sober in colouring and most harmoniously and flexibly composed.
M. Joé Descomps is a sound artist, whose efforts, laudable as they may
be, nevertheless lack boldness. He has imagination enough, but it looks
as though he feared to give it rein. With a little less timidity M.
Descomps would doubtless produce something more piquant and more fresh.
I greatly like the work of M. Charles Rivaud. It displays a love of
simplicity too often wanting in the productions of many of his fellow
artists. If his jewels recall--without imitating--the ornamental
jewellery of Egypt or Greece, those of primitive civilisations or those
sorts popular in Russia, I can see no harm in the fact. Better for him
and for us that he should turn to these inexhaustible springs than
become a mere imitator of other imitators of successful jewellers. His
rings and his necklaces, in which he is always careful to leave to the
materials employed all the natural charm they possess, are productions
which will please the artist rather than the _bourgeois_ and the "snob."
They are discreet and honest, never loud or eccentric.
No less interesting, in another way, are the jewels by M. Mangeant and
M. Jacquin. It is urged against them that they are crude, incomplete and
imperfect in execution. The truth is, these two artists--whom I bring
into conjunction, although their work is dissimilar, save from their
common regard for freedom in the use of materials--have, above all, a
love for natural forms. Out of a flower, a piece of seaweed, or any
humble _motif_, vegetable or animal, they construct jewels in gold or
oxidised silver, discreetly relieved by stones, which, if of no great
intrinsic value, are nevertheless highly decorative. M. Mangeant, with
mother-of-pearl and hammered _repoussé_ silver, has created charming
jewels, in which all the constructive parts have been intentionally left
visible. Professional jewellers shrug their shoulders at the sight of
these jewels, which bear so plainly the stamp of the hand that fashioned
them. Yet, in their _naïve_ rudeness, they appeal to me far more
forcibly than does the polychromatic tin-ware of so many highly-esteemed
producers.
M. Charles Boutet de Monvel, although gifted with a richer and subtler
imagination, may be included in this little group. In certain of his
jewels there is, as it were, a reminiscence of Byzantine art--in this
owl-comb, for instance, which I regard as one of his best works. His
swan hair-pin, his seaweed buttons in gold and silver on greenish enamel
with a pearl in the centre, his _plaque de cou_ in translucid enamel,
are also strong and captivating. His sunshade handles too, and his
scarf-pins, are full of delicate fancy.
It is impossible, within the space at my disposal, to describe in detail
the productions of many other workers well worthy of extended mention.
Let it suffice, therefore, to cite the names of M. Henri Nocq, that
fresh and bold artist; of M. and Mme. Pierre Selmersheim; M.
Feuillâtre; Mme. Annie Noufflard; MM. Haas, Cherrier, Chalon,
Falguières, Dabault, G. Laffitte, Houillon, Archambault, L. H. Ruffe,
Quénard, Blanchot, Muret, Desrosiers, Le Couteux, Marioton, Lucien
Hirtz, and Nau--artists who work, some on their own account, some for
the big jewellery firms.
Of the firms in question one must in justice name in the first place
those of Boucheron and Falize frères, not forgetting L. Aucoc, Vever,
Sandoz, Lucien Gaillard, Fouquet, Després, Teterger, Chaumet, Templier,
Ferdinand Verger, J. Duval, Coulon, and Piel frères.
Such, briefly, is the modern art-jewellery movement in France. Its
intensity, as one sees, is so great as to be almost alarming. Whither is
it tending? Some of its excesses are dangerous; what will be the result?
M. Emile Molinier, in a recent article on "Objects of Art in the Salons
of 1901," expresses certain fears which I share. He dreads a reaction
due to the eccentricities of certain artists, to their love of the
outrageous and the _bizarre_, to their lack of proportion, both in form
and in choice of material.
"It would really be a pity," he says, "if so promising a revival of the
true artistic jewellery should come to a bad end. Happily we have not
reached that point yet, but it is a result which may soon be reached if
artists continue to foist these weird things on the public. A fashion in
jewellery should last longer than a fashion in dresses or in hats; but
it should not be forgotten that it must rely in the long run on its
appropriateness and adaptability." My sincere hope is that these fears
may prove to be groundless.
GABRIEL MOUREY.
[Illustration]
(_French_)
DESIGN FOR A FAN
BY
GEORGES DE FEURE.
[Illustration]
[Illustration:
PLATE 1 ]
[Illustration:
_Comb in Horn, Silex, Black Enamel and Obsidian. Insects in Gold_
RENÉ LALIQUE
PLATE 2]
[Illustration: FIG. A
FIG. B
_A. Pendant in Gold, Ivory, Enamel and Pearl_
_B. Pendant in Gold, Enamel and Pearl_
RENÉ LALIQUE
PLATE 3 ]
[Illustration:
_Watch in Ivory, Gold and Enamel_
_Clasp, Leaves of Plane Tree, in Silver_
RENÉ LALIQUE
PLATE 4 ]
[Illustration:
_Comb, Leaves of Sycamore Horn and Silver_
RENÉ LALIQUE
PLATE 5 ]
[Illustration:
_Combs in Horn and Silver_
RENÉ LALIQUE
PLATE 6 ]
[Illustration:
_Parure de Corsage, in Gold and Enamels_
MUCHA and G. FOUQUET
PLATE 7 ]
[Illustration:
_Girdle with Pendants in Gold, Pearls and Brilliants_
G. FOUQUET
PLATE 8 ]
[Illustration:
_Necklet with Pendant, Gold and Enamel_
G. FOUQUET
PLATE 9 ]
PENDANT AND NECKLET
BY
E. GRASSET.
[Illustration]
[Illustration:
PLATE 10 ]
[Illustration: FIG. A
FIG. B
_A. Pendant in Gold, Enamel and Stones_
_B. Pendant in Gold, Enamel and Pearls_
G. FOUQUET
PLATE 11 ]
[Illustration: FIG. A
FIG. B
_A. Lorgnon in Chased Gold and Chrysoprase_ }
Designed by CAUVIN }
} Executed by BOUCHERON
_B. Lorgnon in Chased Gold_ }
Designed by L. HIRTZ }
PLATE 12 ]
[Illustration: FIG. A
FIG. B
FIG. C
{ _A. Devant de Corsage, Brilliants upon green
{ with Emeralds "en cabochon"_
Executed by BOUCHERON {
{ _B. Necklet in Chased Gold, with a large Topaz_
Both designed by L. HIRTZ
_C. Pendant in Gold, Diamonds, Pearl, Opal and Enamel_
VEVER
PLATE 13 ]
[Illustration: FIG. A
FIG. B
_A. Waist-band Buckle in Silver_
Designed by PAUL RICHARD. Executed by F. V. ÉDITEUR
_B. Brooches in Chased Gold_
Designed by L. HIRTZ. Executed by BOUCHERON
PLATE 14 ]
[Illustration: FIG. A
FIG. B
FIG. C
FIG. D
_Chatelaines and Watches_
F. V. ÉDITEUR and PAUL RICHARD
_B_ and _C_ designed by E. BÉCKER
PLATE 15 ]
[Illustration:
_Brooches in Chased Gold_
JULES DESBOIS
PLATE 16 ]
[Illustration:
_Buttons and Brooches in Chased Gold_
JULES DESBOIS
PLATE 17 ]
[Illustration:
_Brooch in Chased Gold and two Waist-band Buckles in Silver_
JULES DESBOIS
PLATE 18 ]
(=French=)
_Design for a Comb in Enamel Shell, and incrusted Gold_
From an original drawing by
HENRI VEVER
_Comb in Enamel, Shell, and Precious Stones_
Designed by PAUL FOLLOT
Executed by LA MAISON MODERNE
_Comb in Enamel, Gold, Shell, and Precious Stones_
Designed by PAUL FOLLOT
Executed by LA MAISON MODERNE
[Illustration]
[Illustration:
PLATE 19 ]
[Illustration: FIG. A
FIG. B
_A. Comb in Gold and Horn. Leaves in
green translucent Enamel, set with
Siberian Amethysts_
_B. Horn Fan Handle, incrusted with
Gold, Brilliants, and Enamel_
VEVER
PLATE 20 ]
[Illustration: FIG. A
FIG. B
_A. Hat Pins in Gold, Enamel, and Pearl_
_B. Umbrella Handle, Silver Gilt and Stones_
CH. BOUTET DE MONVEL
PLATE 21 ]
[Illustration: FIG. A FIG. B
_A. Comb in Horn and Gold with Turquoises_
_B. Comb in Ivory, Silver and Mother-o'-pearl_
CH. BOUTET DE MONVEL
PLATE 22 ]
[Illustration: FIG. A FIG. B
_A. Hammered and Chased Silver Brooches_
_B. Comb in Silver and Mother-o'-pearl_
E. MANGEANT
PLATE 23 ]
[Illustration:
_Clasps in Hammered and
Chased Silver_
E. MANGEANT
PLATE 24
]
[Illustration: FIG. A FIG. C FIG. B
{ _A. Pendant in Gold and Enamel_
{ _B. Hanging Mirror in Gold and Enamel_
Executed by L'ART NOUVEAU { Designed by MARCEL BING
{ _C. Pendant in Gold and Pearls_
Designed by COLONNA
PLATE 25
]
[Illustration: FIG. A FIG. B
FIG. C
{ _A. Brooch in Gold, Enamel and Ivory_
Executed by { _B. Pendant in Gold and Enamel_
L'ART NOUVEAU { MARCEL BING
{ _C. Belt Clasp in Gold_
{ COLONNA
PLATE 26
]
[Illustration:
_Combs in various materials_
Designed by ORAZZI
Executed by LA MAISON MODERNE
PLATE 27 ]
[Illustration: FIG. A FIG. C
FIG. D FIG. B
{ _A. & B. Brooches in Gold with_
{ _Precious Stones_
{ Designed by M. DUFRÊNE
Executed by { _C. Comb_
LA MAISON MODERNE { Designed by ORAZZI
{ D. _Gold Pendant with Enamels
{ and Precious Stones_
{ Designed by P. FOLLOT
PLATE 28 ]
[Illustration:
_Combs_
Designed by ORAZZI
Executed by LA MAISON MODERNE
PLATE 29 ]
[Illustration:
_Hat and Hair Pins_
Designed by ORAZZI
Executed by LA MAISON MODERNE
PLATE 30 ]
[Illustration: FIG. A
FIG. B
_A. Plaque de Corsage in Gold,
Enamel and Precious Stones_
_B. Rings_
CHARLES RIVAUD
PLATE 31 ]
[Illustration:
_Silver Waist-band Buckles_
Designed by TH. LAMBERT
Executed by P. TEMPLIER
PLATE 32 ]
[Illustration: FIG. A FIG. B
FIG. C
FIG. E
FIG. C FIG. D
_A, B, C & D. Silver Brooches_
Designed by TH. LAMBERT
Executed by P. TEMPLIER
_E. Chatelaine and Watch_
Designed by M. DUFRÈNE
Executed by LA MAISON MODERNE
PLATE 33 ]
[Illustration: FIG. A FIG. B
FIG. C
_A & B. Silver Brooches_
_C. Silver Necklet with Pendant_
Designed by TH. LAMBERT
Executed by P. TEMPLIER
PLATE 34 ]
[Illustration: FIG. A
FIG. B
_A. Painted Fan_
GEORGES DE FEURE
_B. Lace Fan_
Designed by FÉLIX AUBERT
Executed by LA MAISON MODERNE
PLATE 35 ]
(_British_)
DESIGN FOR A STENCILLED FAN
BY
REGINALD T. DICK.
[Illustration]
[Illustration:
PLATE 1 ]
MODERN BRITISH JEWELLERY & FANS. BY AYMER VALLANCE.
[Illustration]
None but the most superficial observers can have failed to note the
immense advance that has been attained in British jewellery; though how
or at what precise point of time the improvement originated may not be
determined with too rash precision. It began not more than fifteen or
twenty, nor perhaps later than ten years ago. Somewhere between these
two limits is about the approximate date. At any rate, it is certain
that, thirty years since, it was quite impossible to procure jewellery
in the design and composition of which there entered any artistic taste
whatever. Such simply did not exist. Whereas now there is a widespread,
though unhappily not a universal, movement amongst us for the design and
production of jewellery on true æsthetic principles. The movement may
even be described as in a measure concerted, that is, in so far as it
presents certain main characteristics common to the work of the various
individual artists or schools of artists who are concerned with this
branch of decoration.
And, firstly, must be noted the development of the goldsmith's and
silversmith's craft as an important artistic factor entirely distinct
and apart from the subsidiary task of stone-setting. The recognition of
the art of the metal-worker, as worthy and capable in itself of
providing beautiful ornaments, without their serving any such ulterior
purpose as sporting trophies or eccentric badges of buffoonery; and also
without the adventitious attraction of costly gems, is a decided point
gained.
And, secondly, where stones do happen to be employed, there is an
increasing practice of introducing them for the sake of their decorative
properties, not, as formerly, for the commercial value they represent
in pounds sterling. Mere glitter and the vulgar display of affluence are
gradually yielding before the higher considerations of beauty of form
and colour. Nor is it any longer deemed improper, should the æsthetic
effect of the juxtaposition demand, to set diamonds or other valuable
gems side by side with common and inexpensive stones. In these colour
combinations, since flash and transparence are become of minor esteem,
jewels, instead of being cut in facets, are not infrequently polished in
their natural shape, _en cabochon_, or "tallow-cut," as it is called,
their irregularities of formation imparting not a little to the barbaric
richness of the ornaments in which they occur.
Moreover, out of the taste for colour effects in jewellery has arisen an
enthusiastic study of the special peculiarities of many gems not
hitherto much sought after; a study resulting in the adoption of certain
gems not very precious, yet sufficiently rare, and such that, like
Mexican or fire opals, for example, possess peculiar qualities of
chameleon-like iridescence or depth or lustre that render them admirably
appropriate for quaint and picturesque settings. Among other stones thus
employed may be mentioned lapis lazuli; malachite and its corresponding
blue mineral, azurite; Connemara marble, or serpentine; amazonite, a
light green spar; chrysoprase; and lumachella, Hungarian both in name
and origin. The last named consists of fossilised shells imbedded in a
black matrix, the shells of wonderful iridescence, or flecked with
streaks of vivid colour, and possessing, in short, such ornamental
qualities as amply compensate the difficulty of obtaining it and of
working when obtained. Another material included in the same category is
river pearl, or mother-of-pearl, in the form technically known as pearl
"blisters," that is, pearls undeveloped in the shell and misshapen,
which nevertheless are peculiarly useful for decorative jewellery. One
advantage of these substances is that, on account of their comparative
cheapness, one does not scruple to diminish and divide and fashion them
as may best serve the purpose in hand; whereas in the case of the more
precious stones, like diamonds, whose cost, _ceteris paribus_, increases
proportionately with their size and weight, one shrinks from impairing
their commercial value, and consequently is apt to preserve them whole,
very often at the sacrifice of decorative effect. The craftsman is
unhampered in the use of those jewels only which he knows he is at
liberty to treat as adjuncts subordinated to his art.
There has, moreover, taken place an extended revival of enamelling, an
art which offers abundant opportunities for the exercise of the
decorator's skill and fancy. It is worthy of remark that our artists'
imagination in jewellery seldom degenerates into any great extravagance.
For the most part the designs, even among beginners and students in art
schools, a number of whom have taken up this branch of ornament, are
strictly restrained within bounds, in accord, may be, with our national
character of reserve. Few drawings comparatively have been executed, but
there is no reason why a large proportion should not be translated from
paper into actual existence; for they are in general fairly simple,
straightforward, and practicable, or such that, with but slight
modifications, could be rendered quite practicable for working purposes.
It is often stated that art can only flourish through the patronage of
the wealthy, to whose comfort and luxury it ministers. If this be true
at all, then surely of all things in the world the jeweller's craft
should be a case in point, whereas it is conspicuously the reverse. The
artistic jewellery produced in this country has not, from its very
nature, appealed chiefly to the richest classes of the community, but
rather to those of quite moderate means. And while, on the one hand, it
is encouraging to observe how much of good work has been and is being
done towards raising the standard of jewellery design amongst us, it is
nevertheless disappointing to have to record how little support it has
found in influential and official quarters. One notable exception is the
commission Mr. Alfred Gilbert received to design a mayoral collar, chain
and badge for the Corporation of Preston. The sketch model for the same
was exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1888, and, for bold originality of
outline, as well as for the crisp curling treatment of the parts
executed in sheet metal, must have been, as was remarked at the time, a
revelation to the ordinary trade jeweller.
Among pioneers of the artistic jewellery movement, Mr. C. R. Ashbee
holds an honourable place. He stood almost alone at the beginning, when
he first made known the jewellery designed by him, and produced under
his personal direction by the Guild and School of Handicraft in the East
End. It was immediately apparent that here was no tentative nor
half-hearted caprice, but that a genuine and earnest phase of an ancient
craft had been re-established. Every design was carefully thought out,
and the work executed with not less careful and consistent technique. In
fact, its high merits were far in advance of anything else in
contemporary jewellery or goldsmith's work. The patterns were based on
conventionalised forms of nature, favourite among them being the
carnation, the rose, and the heartsease, or on abstract forms invited by
the requirements and conditions of the material--the ductility and
lustre of the metal itself. Most of the ornaments were of silver, the
surface of which was not worked up to a brilliantly shining burnish, in
the prevalent fashion of the day, but dull polished in such wise as to
give the charming richness and tone of old silverwork. Mr. Ashbee also
adopted the use of jewels, not lavishly nor ostentatiously, but just
wherever a note of colour would convey the most telling effect, the
stones in themselves, _e.g._ amethysts, amber, and rough pearl, being of
no particular value, save purely from the point of view of decoration.
Novel and revolutionary as were, at its first appearance, the principles
underlying Mr. Ashbee's jewellery work--viz. that the value of a
personal ornament consists not in the commercial cost of the materials
so much as in the artistic quality of its design and treatment--they
became the standard which no artist thenceforward could wisely afford to
ignore, and such furthermore that have even in certain quarters become
appropriated by the trade in recent times. Mr. Ashbee himself is an
enthusiastic student of Benvenuto Cellini, whose treatises he
translated, edited, and printed in 1898. But fortunately the influence
of Italian style is by no means paramount in Mr. Ashbee's own designs
for jewellery, unless indeed the fine and dainty grace which
particularly characterises some of his later work is to be attributed to
this source. One or two of the necklaces here reproduced are examples of
this lighter manner of Mr. Ashbee's, as the two handsome peacock pattern
brooches are of his more solid and substantial jewellery; while, again,
the necklace of green malachite, turquoise, and silver, with pendants of
grape bunches alternating with vine-leaf and tendril ornaments, occupies
an intermediate position midway between the two former classes of his
work.
One is always glad to welcome an artist who is courageous and firm
enough to grapple with the practical difficulties that surround him, and
who sets about to reform, where need requires, the native industry of
his own neighbourhood. Such is the aim of Mr. and Mrs. Arthur Gaskin.
Their home is in a locality where a large amount of very deplorable
jewellery is produced; so deplorable that they determined, if possible,
to provide an antidote to the prevailing degradation. And the reason why
the vast mass of the trade jewellery manufactured in Birmingham is bad
is that in style and outline it is utterly devoid of artistic
inspiration, while at the same time it is perfect as concerns mere
technique. The pity of it is that such excellent workmanship should be
wasted on such contemptible design. Mr. Gaskin, therefore, saw no
alternative but to start afresh, reversing the accepted order of things.
His plan is to give the foremost care to the design, and only secondly
to regard technique; and so, by keeping design well in advance,
executive skill following after, to raise the former to its proper
level. Absence of mathematical uniformity is no doubt held to be a
blemish in the opinion of the tradesman, but it gives a living and human
interest to the work, and a decorative quality which machine-made
articles cannot claim to possess. Mr. Gaskin came to the conclusion that
it was of little benefit for a draughtsman to make drawings on paper to
be carried out by someone else; studio and workshop must be one,
designer identical with craftsman. It is not very many years since Mr.
Gaskin, ably seconded by his wife, started with humble, nay, almost
rudimentary apparatus, to make jewellery with his own hands; but the
result has proved how much taste and steadfast endurance can accomplish.
Their designs are so numerous and so varied--rarely is any single one
repeated, except to order--that it is hardly possible to find any
description to apply to all. But it may be noted that, whereas a large
number have been characterised by a light and graceful treatment of
twisted wire, almost like filigree, the two pendants here illustrated
seem to indicate rather a new departure on the part of Mr. Gaskin, with
their plates of chased metal, and pendants attached by rings, a method
not in any sense copied from, yet in some sort recalling the beautiful
fashion with which connoisseurs are familiar in Norwegian and Swedish
peasant jewellery.
Next in order may be mentioned Mr. Fred Robinson. This artist is
actuated by similar ideals as Mr. and Mrs. Gaskin, as is evidenced more
especially by his necklace with bent wire pendants of open-work
arabesque.
Another artist of distinction is Miss Annie McLeish, of Liverpool, whose
jewellery design, particularly in the way in which the several parts are
connected together--an ornamental feature being made out of the
structural requirement of strengthening and tying together the portions
pierced _à jour_--is curiously suggestive of the perforated iron guards
of Japanese sword-handles. At the same time, it is not to be implied
that Miss McLeish is at all an imitator of Japanese work. Another point
to be noticed is her decorative use of the human figure, in which regard
two more lady designers, Miss Larcombe and Miss Winifred Hodgkinson,
also excel. The latter, to whose work black-and-white reproduction
scarcely does adequate justice, is stronger in her figure work than in
that which comes easiest to most people--to wit, the treatment of floral
forms that constitute the subordinate portions of the design.
The number of ladies who have achieved success in jewellery design
proves this, indeed, to be a craft to which a woman's light and dainty
manipulation is peculiarly adapted. Besides those already mentioned one
has only to instance Miss Ethel Hodgkinson and Miss Swindell, who both
contribute graceful designs for hat-pins and other small articles; Miss
Dorothy Hart, whose charming _pentacol_ is executed by herself; Miss
Kate Fisher and Miss McBean, in whose designs for clasps, etc., enamel
is a prominent item; Miss Alabaster, whose beautiful gold brooch,
adorned with blue and green enamel, is based on a _motif_ of trees with
intertwining stems and roots; and Miss Rankin, whose four silver
hat-pins of handsome design, representing a peacock, thistles, and
Celtic beasts respectively, are executed by Mr. Talbot, of Edinburgh,
himself a designer as well as artificer. Miss Edith Pickert, in her
designs for various articles of jewellery, usually employs a fairly
thick outline of metal to enclose a coloured enamel surface. How
diversely one and the same _motif_ may be rendered in different hands is
illustrated by a comparison of Miss Pickert's belt design and Mr. Nelson
Dawson's belt-clasps, both in enamel and both founded on the flower
"love in a mist."
Mr. Nelson Dawson, well known as an eminent metal-worker and active
member of the Society of Arts and Crafts, is also Director of the
Artificers' Guild. Another belt-clasp from his design represents the
delicate form of the harebell plant.
Mr. Edgar Simpson, of Nottingham, is an artist of great gifts, as his
drawings and, still more, the specimens of his actual handiwork here
illustrated fully testify. Many excellent designs lose vigour and
character in the process of execution from the original sketch; but Mr.
Simpson, on the contrary, manages to give his designs additional charm
by the exquisite finish with which he works them out in metal.
Particularly happy is this artist's rendering of dolphins and other
marine creatures; as in the circular pendant where the swirling motion
of water is conveyed by elegant curving lines of silver, with a pearl,
to represent an air-bubble, issuing from the fish's mouth.
Mr. David Veazey's work, including, among other things, a hair comb
decorated with enamel, has a variegated opal-tinted quality of colour;
while Miss Barrie obtains admirable effects in translucent enamel
without backing, after the Russian method. Her design for a belt-clasp
with interlaced ornament and stones is excellent. Other belt-clasps and
buckles are from designs by Mr. Oliver Baker. Some of this strap-work
ornament looks as though it might have been produced by casting from a
model; but, as a matter of fact, it is entirely wrought and folded by
hand.
Mr. and Mrs. McNair's jewellery, as well as that of Mr. and Mrs.
Mackintosh, has that quaint mannerism which one instinctively associates
with the Glasgow school of decorators, as also, in a still more marked
degree, that of Mr. Talwyn Morris, whose characteristic book-covers are
well known. For jewellery, he frequently elects to work in aluminium.
His design is strikingly original in effect, though on analysis it is
found to consist of very simple units, such as various-sized rectangles
overlaid, their boundary lines interpenetrating; with the occasional
apparition of a peacock's eye-feather or the bird's neck and head in the
midst. In these cases a completer sense of organic unity might be
obtained if, instead of a detached limb, the whole bird were
represented, or some other logical coherence established between the
incidents of the composition.
Mr. Thomas Cook, of West Ham, inserts small slabs of mosaic, after the
Italian mode, only he frankly adopts a purely conventional treatment,
wisely refraining from any approach to pictorial realism.
It is a hopeful sign that in many of the technical art schools
throughout the land students are taking up jewellery design, and not
only that, but in some cases carrying out the actual work themselves. It
is largely due to the same fostering influence that the beautiful art of
enamelling, frequently referred to above, has been developed amongst us,
notably at the Central School of Arts and Crafts, where classes for this
department were inaugurated under the able guidance of Mr. Alexander
Fisher. But if the improvement in jewellery is to be general and
permanent, in order to set it on a secure basis the motive power must
come from within. Much good, therefore, may be expected to result from
the official sanction afforded by the Goldsmiths' Company to the
jewellery work of their Technical Institute, to which a number of very
creditable designs owe their existence. Among others may be singled out
some decorations for watch-backs, a branch of the craft as useful as it
is neglected; those who have taken it up, like Miss Kate Allen, for
instance, being unfortunately but rare exceptions. There is no reason,
however, why everyone who carries a watch should not enjoy in it the
constant companionship of a thing of beauty.
To sum up, then, if our modern art jewellery cannot boast any
conspicuously brilliant features, at any rate it is of a high average
standard. And though, as is the case of all good work, it must needs
share many qualities in common with the noble treasures of the past, it
yet does not assimilate to any historic style. In fine, it is original;
and, withal, there may be traced in most of it a certain family
likeness. It seems almost as if some new-born idea were really beginning
to dominate it with the impress of a distinct nationality, destined to
develop some day into a tradition which future generations may justly
feel it a privilege to follow.
The case of fans is the exact opposite to that of jewellery. In the
former department, it cannot be said that there exists any sort of
consensus of ideals, nor any paramount type of ornament. And,
notwithstanding the existence amongst us of some few fan-painters of
very considerable repute, their operations remain as yet quite personal
and individualistic. They have no regular following; have founded no
school of decoration. It is, therefore, a subject still open to
determine by what principles the ornament of fans should be guided.
Firstly should be taken into account the peculiar shape of the surface
available for decoration; and, secondly, the fact that this surface is
not a flat plane, but such that must in practice infallibly be broken
into so many set divisions or folds. The latter circumstance is the real
crux of the question, many decorations, otherwise beautiful enough in
the flat, being utterly ruined in effect as soon as they undergo the
ordeal of mounting. Thus it may perhaps seem an ingenious plan to
subdivide the space horizontally, but it must be remembered that every
horizontal line will lose its value when converted, as it must be, into
a series of irregular zigzags. The folding is an essential factor,
without taking which into account no fan decoration can be satisfactory.
In setting out the design, then, it should always be borne in mind that
no sharply defined straight lines are admissible, except those that
radiate from the centre; and that, of curves, concentric ones are the
best, such, that is, as are parallel with the arc shape. If the ornament
is floral, it may take the form either of a powdering, or of an all-over
pattern of moderately small scrolls. Those on a large scale would run
counter to the folds in too emphatic a manner to be agreeable. In figure
subjects, of course, care should be taken so to dispose them that no
important feature like an eye or a nose be split asunder by the lines of
the folds. The larger and more pronounced the pattern, the more
necessary it is to observe these conditions. On the other hand, where
the colouring is of fairly even tone, and without strongly contrasted
masses, or where the design is on a small scale, the surface can the
more safely be spaced out by lines or medallions or cartouches, or other
devices that may commend themselves.
As regards material, there is no question that a silk ground, prepared
with rice-size and stretched, until the decoration is completed, on a
stretcher, offers as suitable a texture as one could desire for delicate
and softly-blended harmonies in water-colour; as the fans of Mr. Conder,
a prolific fan-painter, whose work appeals to a large circle of
admirers, amply testify. The detail is all Mr. Conder's own, though the
influence of French XVIIIth century ornament is unmistakable.