A digital archive showcasing the extensive collection of jewellery and adornment images shared on the former Ethnic Jewels Ning site over the years. These images have significantly enriched discussions on cultural adornment and its global dispersion.
You need to be a member of Adorned Histories to add comments!
Request your copy of our newsletter.
If you would like to receive our newsletter
Comments
very beautiful!
I looked at it again, the detail work is absolutely wonderful.
I agree with Patti that there is a strong Kazakhi element in this, but it could never be Kazakhi for all that, as the differences are huge. As TH says, it is clearly a mixture of styles - a concoction, really - attractively done, but I feel it is not particularly "honest": there seems to be an attempt to make it look "antique" while it isn't. As TH says, it simply is not authentic. Despite that, it is in its own way pleasing "eye-candy", and as such no doubt very saleable. In TH's words, "beautiful enough to catch export market".
I must confess that, with respect, I thoroughly disagree, Patti. This has been given an artificial "old" appearance and is very much made to look as "genuine work by hand". At a superficial glance, many people would think of it as old, and I think that is what they are INTENDED to think. Of course no piece of jewellery "describes" itself as "antique": it is made in a particular way, so that the onlooker will form an impression. This piece states, I believe, by implication (it cannot do otherwise, of course!) that it is old, and as the workmanship is clever, it succeeds reasonably in that purpose. Many buyers would think it IS old, and would be tempted to buy it as such. It is not a "fake", but closer to a "forgery", by which I mean "a piece newly created (not a specific imitation of an existing piece) so as to create the impression that it is old while it is not". As TH says, it is not authentic (i.e. not genuinely early or part of any specific tradition). It is fanciful and appealing, but not "honest" in its intention. Again, as TH says, it is "beautiful enough" to catch the export market. That points in the direction of, chiefly, a commercial intention to persuade ignorant people to buy something that they find appealing but might wrongly consider old and part an existing tradition. I don't think that this is the sort of article we should particularly encourage current smiths to make. It would be better, I think, if they either made accurate "reproductions" of older pieces or created something genuinely new. if we want to encourage able smiths like this to continue to make highly competent work, then vaguely traditional pieces for an export market will not genuinely take them into the future.
Or - more broadly put! - the workmanship is superb, but I think it would be used for a worthier purpose!
Tribal Heritage, you may make that confident claim about my being wrong about this being made to look old, but you are not God, and I am just as entitled to my view as you are to yours. To my mind the smithing of this piece, and the amalgam of traditional elements, is clearly intended to suggest age. It may be initially sold like a new piece, but the next buyer could easily argue it is old and be believed, and this happens often. Your statement that I am "totally wrong" is quite subjective and in no sense "humble", which you ask me to be. You raise an interesting point about what I would feel if someone found fault with a piece of mine. Well, I have a simple answer to that: (1) I post a great many pieces on public view - many hundreds in fact - and they receive little criticism, which may suggest that on the whole I choose well; (2) sometimes I do get criticised and indeed "harshly", to use your word: ayis described a piece of ours which we thought to be Algerian as "a Moroccan forgery" (surely severe criticism) - I remonstrated at first, but was persuaded, as one should be, when misjudging a piece one owns; (3) if I think the criticism is wrong, I ignore it. So, I quite definitely do NOT object to people speaking plainly about my pieces. What would be the point of a site like this if we all had to praise everything that is posted every time? We post pieces for others to look at. THAT ALSO MEANS THAT WE ARE ASKING THEM FOR REACTIONS, AND NOT JUST PRAISE. iF YOU MADE A MISTAKE, YOURSELF, WOULD YOU PREFER NOT TO KNOW?? Surely we are not here simply to praise whatever gets posted, as though all pieces are equally good and equally honest. There are some real distinctions to be made. If I make a mistake in my comments, I certainly expect to be told, and I will be persuaded by those who PERSUADE me that I am mistaken in a particular belief, as ayis did. You, by simply asserting that my perception is "totally wrong", do not persuade me at all, as you make a bold claim without any argument or evidence.
You yourself, TH, say that the piece is not authentic. Do you mean that NOT to be a criticism? And then you make the statement that it is beautiful enough to "catch" the export market. Is that supposed to be praise, or a neutral statement?
As I read this thread I am aware that this is a wonderful global community where members from very different cultures can share. Every culture is different. The nuances of language , the tone, the choice of words, may have different meanings to different people. Because of this I think it is important to temper our communications, to be gentle in our statements. There are many members of this site who have never posted photographs. I can't help wondering if one reason might be a concern on their part for possible criticism. Sharing needs to happen in a place where people feel safe. If people feel reluctant to participate, we all lose.
Tribal Heritage: I find it very difficult to accept this sort of counsel from you. The way you attacked Linda Pastorino recently, in enormously long posts full of repetitions and aggression, was to my mind utterly at odds with what you wish others to do. I was astounded at the way you carried on and on and on, in a way which clearly was both hurtful and harmful. It seems as though on this thread there is one set of rules that applies so some people and another that applies to others. I was aghast of some of the things you said, as well as the space you took to say them. So long as we have to read posts like these from you - frontal attacks on a person - there is little point in complaining about the fact that not all of us like each piece of jewellery posted here automatically because it is presented to us. To my mind, the quality varies enormously from one object to another, and of late there have been a fair few pieces which were produced as quasi-antiques and which it is in every person's interst to recognise as such. To note only the positive things and not the negative ones would make this a site lacking in proper discernment. Not all pieces are equally good. To observe this has nothing to do with price, per se, as sometimes is suggested - as though people like LInda and I like only expensive pieces. I am still very happy to collect cheap pieces: what I think we should guard against is pieces which are not bona fide. Of course some pieces which are not bona fide will look good - that is to be expected. But a sight like this will become worthless if we don't distinguish between various kinds of jewellery which are not all of the same merit in terms of the purpose for which they are made.
I do not wish to edit the site, as I feel that this is not the ethos I created it with.
I do not wish to remove pieces due to disagreements.
I do not wish to deter members for enjoying using the site by becoming the EJ police!
So please could we all accept that different viewpoints exist here and move on .
Thanks
Sarah
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next