Here at AJF we have been very interested in the turn towards luxury that seems to be gripping certain parts of the contemporary jewelry scene – and, notably in the work of Damien Hirst, the fine arts world. Hirst’s poster for his recent exhibition titled End of an Era at the Gagosian Gallery in New York was a close-up photograph of rows of diamonds on some kind of reflective shelf. The image is a detail of works such as Judgement Day (2009), which consists of a 30-foot long gold cabinet filled with 30,000 manufactured diamonds. ‘End of an era’ and ‘judgement day’ both give Hirst some wriggle room in terms of whether he is being critical or crass, but either way the cultural play depends on the allure of diamonds as the most excessive, most luxurious gem. (You can visit the gallery website by clicking here.)

In January 2010 AJF member Lena Vigna’s exhibition Adornment and Excess: Jewelry in the 21st Century opened at the Miami University Art Museum. (The catalogue was in part funded by a grant from AJF through our Grant Award Program that supports museums to promote contemporary jewelry. To learn more about AJF grants, click here.) In her introduction, Vigna writes:

Not just aesthetic, sentimental or related to social status, jewelry can be understood as a material reflection of a society – what it values at a certain time, how and why. Current global issues of sustainability, personal responsibility and questions of wealth and power are fueling investigations of jewelry as a commodity, symbol and carrier of meaning. Contemporary art jewelers, such as the 19 whose works are included in Adornment and Excess: Jewelry in the 21st Century, draw attention to how we consume materials and objects historically, visually and metaphorically. Whether made of plastic or paper, cardboard or metal, reclaimed resources and otherwise, the contemporary jewelry featured in this exhibition both challenges and delights – it offers a dynamic framework for considering questions of sustainability, responsibility, material recycling, ethical consumption, prosperity, decadence and jewelry itself.

Vigna’s show suggests that most contemporary jewelers have a critical purpose behind their dalliance with luxury, and the seduction of excess is undercut through the use of commonplace materials. (You can find out more about the show by clicking here.) But why is it that adornment and excess are being yoked together in such a positive way in the present? And why has decadence become a virtue rather than a vice?

The fact that it is in some sense acceptable is nicely demonstrated by Metalsmith‘s 2010 exhibition in print. Curated by Garth Clark, it is called Neo-Palatial: Objects of Virtue and Vice, and the call for submissions notes:

Throughout history, metalsmiths have sought commissions from the palace to create objet de virtue, extravagant works that challenge the limitation of technique, scale, and sometimes even good taste. Such objects are designed to take center stage, serving as the focal point of parlors, entrance halls, courtyards, or, later in the 19th-century, as “exposition vases” at World Fairs.  They were a little brash, deliberately exaggerated, and virtuosic or at least rapturous in their use of metals, lest they disappoint their patrons and noble guests. Over time, these patrons have changed from princes and warlords, to collectors and museums. For the 2010 “Exhibition in Print,” published by Metalsmith magazine, guest curator Garth Clark is seeking examples of giant “exposition vases,” canonical candlesticks, and jewelry on steroids, in an exploration of the brilliance and decadence of this metalsmithing genre.

There’s no denying that Garth Clark is a provocateur, and no doubt his decision to celebrate extravagance is a way to prod contemporary jewelry, to make it feel uncomfortable and thus to open up space for interesting things to happen. (To learn more about the call for submissions, click here.) Whatever Clark’s motivations, this recuperation of decadence feels more substantial, as though it is speaking to something profound and important.

There’s no doubt many ways to explain and understand this, but one might be in terms of the problems of contemporary jewelry’s audience. For anyone who pays attention to the buyers and collectors of contemporary jewelry, it is obvious that jewelry is in trouble, with an aging and relatively small population of supporters. The decision that contemporary jewelry made in the past half-century to align itself with fine art practice has not paid off in terms of access to a fine arts audience. Could the turn towards excess and luxury be some kind of new gambit on the part of contemporary jewelry to reposition itself in the wider cultural marketplace? There’s no doubt that contemporary jewelry has historically shunned the luxury market while secretly envying its success. Is this new mood a shrugging off of closet envy in favor of a more productive emulation? Might this embrace of decadence at the end of an era actually be a sign of a new, hopeful phase in contemporary jewelry?