In Albrecht Dürer’s idealized, early-Sixteenth-century portrait of Charlemagne, the Holy Roman Emperor wears a blinding crown. The diadem, topped by a cross, was itself very actual. Nevertheless it didn’t exist till round 962 CE, over a century after Charlemagne’s loss of life.
Thought of the oldest ornamental artwork, jewellery has such an influence to speak that artists have been keen to bend the reality to take advantage of its associative capacities — or so argues Past Adornment: Jewellery and Identification in Artwork (2025). Yvonne J. Markowitz, jewellery curator on the Museum of Nice Arts (MFA), Boston, and Susanne Gänsicke, senior conservator of Antiquities on the Getty Museum, discover what the depiction of bijou in artwork says about adornment, artists, and their topics.
Allow us to return to the imperial crown of the Holy Roman Empire. Its panels — 4 of which depict Jesus Christ, King David, King Solomon, and the Prophet Isaiah — are beset with pearls, garnets, sapphires, and a glut of different jewels. “By Me Kings Reign” reads the inscription on the panel bearing the picture of Christ. Therein lies a clue as to why Dürer portrays Charlemagne in a crown he by no means would have seen. The inscription, writes Gänsicke, is “evidence of the power of emblems to retain their symbolism over centuries — in this case bestowing legitimate imperial power granted by the power of God to the wearer.”
This apply of eschewing historic accuracy with a view to construct a compelling narrative is a prevalent theme, and the e-book’s dialogue of Archaeological Revival jewellery — European and American items from the 18th and nineteenth centuries that sought to recreate historical kinds — is especially fascinating. In Spanish painter Vicente Palmaroli y González’s 1870 portrait of aristocrat Enid, Girl Layard, the sitter wears jewellery created from “numerous ancient cylinder seals and stamp seals” present in excavations at Nineveh, the impact of which Gänsicke describes as a “historical melange.” Her husband was a distinguished Assyriologist recognized for uncovering the Library of Ashurbanipal. Maybe, Gänsicke suggests, “the set’s purpose was as much to declare her husband’s accomplishments as to adorn the wearer.”
Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres, “Portrait of Madame Moitessier” (1851), oil on canvas (picture courtesy Nationwide Gallery of Artwork, Washington, DC)
Past Adornment delves as deeply as to ask what defines jewellery within the first place, discussing Frida Kahlo’s “Self-Portrait with Thorn Necklace and Hummingbird” (1940), through which the artist depicts herself with a bloodied neck and a cat and monkey resting on her shoulders. Hanging like a pendant is a useless hummingbird symbolizing the tip of her marriage to Diego Rivera. In her hair are two glittering butterfly clips described by Markowitz as “symbols of metamorphosis, transcendence and resurrection.” A definition for jewellery is borrowed from artwork historian Marjan Unger’s Jewelry in Context: A Multidisciplinary Framework for the Examine of Jewelry (2019), which describes it as “an object worn on the human body, as a decorative and symbolic addition to its outward appearance.”
The e-book’s closing chapter, the place this definition could be discovered, is its most compelling. In it, Emily Stoehrer, MFA Boston’s senior curator of Jewellery, focuses on jewellery from “a sociological and material culture point of view” to deftly steadiness visible evaluation with educational and cultural criticism. Greater than a complete, satisfying conclusion, she offers an totally convincing case for the larger research of “jewelry theory” and the worth of this e-book as a contribution to that burgeoning subject.
Past Adornment: Jewellery and Identification in Artwork (2025) by Yvonne J. Markowitz and Susanne Gänsicke is revealed by the J. Paul Getty Museum and is on the market on-line and thru impartial booksellers.
