| 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.
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!