Edited by Charles Holme
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.
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 ajourementsbijoux de ville