MODERN DESIGN IN
JEWELLERY AND FANS

Edited by Charles Holme

OFFICES OF 'THE STUDIO,' LONDON,
PARIS, NEW YORK MCMII

PRELIMINARY NOTE

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.

TABLE of LITERARY CONTENTS

LIST OF CRAFTSMEN AND DESIGNERS

FRENCH SECTION

BRITISH SECTION

AUSTRIAN SECTION

GERMAN SECTION

BELGIAN SECTION

DANISH SECTION

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!

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 ajourements, will doubtless seem to many people too simple or too commonplace. It will be justly urged against them that they are not sufficiently symbolic, that they take no account of the human form. No nymph disports herself amid the fall of the leaves in a lake of enamel bordered by water-lilies and iris blooms; no serpent nor devil-fish winds about in spasmodic contortions: yet these are charming works of art, beautifully and harmoniously designed, and with lines balanced to perfection. They are, in fact, jewels meant to be worn, bijoux de ville, which, while attracting no special notice, form nevertheless most exquisite objects of female adornment.

M. René Foy is a strange artist, rather restless, never altogether satisfied with himself, and haunted by a perpetual desire for something novel. Is he completely himself, that which he wishes or strives to be? This is the question those who have closely watched his career are asking themselves. For my part, I know some delightful things of his, extraordinarily delicate and graceful; but I also remember some of his work in which his exaggerations are such that one despairs of understanding his meaning. Unless I greatly mistake him, he wants the jewel to express more than it is possible for the jewel to express, and therefore is continually restless in his attempts to achieve the unachievable. He loses himself in a maze of "refinements" which, in my opinion, are outside the limits of the art he practises. He has created lovely things, things so novel as to be almost too novel, but I do not think he has said his final word yet. He is a young man who may have many surprises in store for us.

The jewels of M. Jules Desbois are works of pure sculpture. His vision, at once broad and delicate, takes the form of beautiful female forms in dreamy or voluptuous attitude, sleeping amid the masses of their abundant hair, against a background of gold, or shell, or whatever the material may be. Any womanly gesture suffices; and, in truth, what more is needed to make a real work of art in the form of a brooch or a button? No conventional flowers, no complicated interlacements, nothing "decorative" in the bad sense of the word; yet his work is powerfully and delicately modern. M. Desbois' jewels are perfect pieces of sculpture.

Victor Prouvé, the painter, has been influenced in a similar way, but, not being a regular sculptor, he is more complicated without being any more original on that account. There is more "composition" in his jewels than in those of M. Desbois, more real, more visible, intention. His waistbelts, his brooches, &c., are admirably suited to the purpose for which they are intended, their modelling being full, supple, and keen. The jewels, executed with scrupulous care and irreproachable technique by M. Rivaud, are real works of art.

M. Bécker and M. Paul Richard, who are both working almost exclusively for M. Ferdinand Verger ("F. V." is the trademark of the firm), incline to that type of jewellery which might be termed "sculptured." They are very conscientious artists, but in my opinion, at any rate, the originality there may be within them has not yet made itself fully apparent.

M. Louis Bonny's jewels deserve special attention. Like M. Vever, M. Bonny shows a predilection for precious stones, which he has the art of using with rare originality. At the last salon of the Société des Artistes Français he exhibited a series of jewels which attracted much attention, among them—in addition to a beautiful necklace of wild grape in enamel, diamonds, and emerald, in addition to various floral pendants and neck ornaments in enamel and diamonds—a curious diadem, representing cocks in gold and enamel fighting for possession of a superb topaz. This was a real tour de force in the way of execution. Other beautiful things of his I know, particularly his plaque de cou of geraniums, with the leaves in diamonds, the flowers in rubies, the stems and buds in dark green enamel, the whole being at once rich and sober in colouring and most harmoniously and flexibly composed.

M. Joé Descomps is a sound artist, whose efforts, laudable as they may be, nevertheless lack boldness. He has imagination enough, but it looks as though he feared to give it rein. With a little less timidity M. Descomps would doubtless produce something more piquant and more fresh.

I greatly like the work of M. Charles Rivaud. It displays a love of simplicity too often wanting in the productions of many of his fellow artists. If his jewels recall—without imitating—the ornamental jewellery of Egypt or Greece, those of primitive civilisations or those sorts popular in Russia, I can see no harm in the fact. Better for him and for us that he should turn to these inexhaustible springs than become a mere imitator of other imitators of successful jewellers. His rings and his necklaces, in which he is always careful to leave to the materials employed all the natural charm they possess, are productions which will please the artist rather than the bourgeois and the "snob." They are discreet and honest, never loud or eccentric.

No less interesting, in another way, are the jewels by M. Mangeant and M. Jacquin. It is urged against them that they are crude, incomplete and imperfect in execution. The truth is, these two artists—whom I bring into conjunction, although their work is dissimilar, save from their common regard for freedom in the use of materials—have, above all, a love for natural forms. Out of a flower, a piece of seaweed, or any humble motif, vegetable or animal, they construct jewels in gold or oxidised silver, discreetly relieved by stones, which, if of no great intrinsic value, are nevertheless highly decorative. M. Mangeant, with mother-of-pearl and hammered repoussé silver, has created charming jewels, in which all the constructive parts have been intentionally left visible. Professional jewellers shrug their shoulders at the sight of these jewels, which bear so plainly the stamp of the hand that fashioned them. Yet, in their naïve rudeness, they appeal to me far more forcibly than does the polychromatic tin-ware of so many highly-esteemed producers.

M. Charles Boutet de Monvel, although gifted with a richer and subtler imagination, may be included in this little group. In certain of his jewels there is, as it were, a reminiscence of Byzantine art—in this owl-comb, for instance, which I regard as one of his best works. His swan hair-pin, his seaweed buttons in gold and silver on greenish enamel with a pearl in the centre, his plaque de cou in translucid enamel, are also strong and captivating. His sunshade handles too, and his scarf-pins, are full of delicate fancy.

It is impossible, within the space at my disposal, to describe in detail the productions of many other workers well worthy of extended mention. Let it suffice, therefore, to cite the names of M. Henri Nocq, that fresh and bold artist; of M. and Mme. Pierre Selmersheim; M. Feuillâtre; Mme. Annie Noufflard; MM. Haas, Cherrier, Chalon, Falguières, Dabault, G. Laffitte, Houillon, Archambault, L. H. Ruffe, Quénard, Blanchot, Muret, Desrosiers, Le Couteux, Marioton, Lucien Hirtz, and Nau—artists who work, some on their own account, some for the big jewellery firms.

Of the firms in question one must in justice name in the first place those of Boucheron and Falize frères, not forgetting L. Aucoc, Vever, Sandoz, Lucien Gaillard, Fouquet, Després, Teterger, Chaumet, Templier, Ferdinand Verger, J. Duval, Coulon, and Piel frères.

Such, briefly, is the modern art-jewellery movement in France. Its intensity, as one sees, is so great as to be almost alarming. Whither is it tending? Some of its excesses are dangerous; what will be the result? M. Emile Molinier, in a recent article on "Objects of Art in the Salons of 1901," expresses certain fears which I share. He dreads a reaction due to the eccentricities of certain artists, to their love of the outrageous and the bizarre, to their lack of proportion, both in form and in choice of material.

"It would really be a pity," he says, "if so promising a revival of the true artistic jewellery should come to a bad end. Happily we have not reached that point yet, but it is a result which may soon be reached if artists continue to foist these weird things on the public. A fashion in jewellery should last longer than a fashion in dresses or in hats; but it should not be forgotten that it must rely in the long run on its appropriateness and adaptability." My sincere hope is that these fears may prove to be groundless.

Gabriel Mourey.

(French)

DESIGN FOR A FAN
BY
GEORGES DE FEURE.

Plate 1

Comb in Horn, Silex, Black Enamel and

Obsidian. Insects in Gold

RENÉ LALIQUE

Plate 2

Fig. A Fig. B

A. Pendant in Gold, Ivory, Enamel and Pearl

B. Pendant in Gold, Enamel and Pearl

RENÉ LALIQUE

Plate 3

Watch in Ivory, Gold and Enamel

Clasp, Leaves of Plane Tree, in Silver

RENÉ LALIQUE

Plate 4

Comb, Leaves of Sycamore

Horn and Silver

RENÉ LALIQUE

Plate 5

Combs in Horn and Silver

RENÉ LALIQUE

Plate 6

Parure de Corsage, in Gold and Enamels

MUCHA and G. FOUQUET

Plate 7

Girdle with Pendants in Gold,

Pearls and Brilliants

G. FOUQUET

Plate 8

Necklet with Pendant,

Gold and Enamel

G. FOUQUET

Plate 9

PENDANT AND NECKLET
BY
E. GRASSET.

Plate 10

A. Pendant in Gold, Enamel and Stones

B. Pendant in Gold, Enamel and Pearls

G. FOUQUET

Plate 11

Plate 12

Both designed by L. HIRTZ

C. Pendant in Gold, Diamonds, Pearl, Opal and Enamel

VEVER

Plate 13

A. Waist-band Buckle in Silver

Designed by PAUL RICHARD. Executed by F. V. ÉDITEUR

B. Brooches in Chased Gold

Designed by L. HIRTZ. Executed by BOUCHERON

Plate 14

Chatelaines and Watches

F. V. ÉDITEUR and PAUL RICHARD

B and C designed by E. BÉCKER

Plate 15

Brooches in Chased Gold

JULES DESBOIS

Plate 16

Buttons and Brooches in Chased Gold

JULES DESBOIS

Plate 17

Brooch in Chased Gold and
two Waist-band Buckles in Silver

JULES DESBOIS

Plate 18

(French)

Plate 19

A. Comb in Gold and Horn. Leaves in
green translucent Enamel, set with
Siberian Amethysts

B. Horn Fan Handle, incrusted with
Gold, Brilliants, and Enamel

VEVER

Plate 20

Fig. A Fig. B

A. Hat Pins in Gold, Enamel, and Pearl
B. Umbrella Handle, Silver Gilt and Stones

CH. BOUTET DE MONVEL

Plate 21

A. Comb in Horn and Gold with Turquoises
B. Comb in Ivory, Silver and Mother-o'-pearl

CH. BOUTET DE MONVEL

Plate 22

Fig. A Fig. B

A. Hammered and Chased Silver Brooches
B. Comb in Silver and Mother-o'-pearl

E. MANGEANT

Plate 23

Clasps in Hammered and Chased Silver

E. MANGEANT

Plate 24

{ A. Pendant in Gold and Enamel
{ B. Hanging Mirror in Gold and Enamel
Executed by L'ART NOUVEAU { Designed by MARCEL BING
{ C. Pendant in Gold and Pearls
{ Designed by COLONNA

Plate 25

{ A. Brooch in Gold, Enamel and Ivory
Executed by { B. Pendant in Gold and Enamel
L'ART NOUVEAU { MARCEL BING { C. Belt Clasp in Gold
{ COLONNA

Plate 26

Combs in various materials

Designed by ORAZZI
Executed by LA MAISON MODERNE

Plate 27

{ A. & B. Brooches in Gold with
{ Precious Stones
{ Designed by M. DUFRÊNE
Executed by { C. Comb
LA MAISON MODERNE { Designed by ORAZZI
{ D. Gold Pendant with Enamels
{ and Precious Stones
{ Designed by P. FOLLOT

Plate 28

Combs

Designed by ORAZZI
Executed by LA MAISON MODERNE

Plate 29

Hat and Hair Pins

Designed by ORAZZI
Executed by LA MAISON MODERNE

Plate 30

A. Plaque de Corsage in Gold,
Enamel and Precious Stones

B. Rings

CHARLES RIVAUD

Plate 31

Silver Waist-band Buckles

Designed by TH. LAMBERT
Executed by P. TEMPLIER

Plate 32

A, B, C & D. Silver Brooches

Designed by TH. LAMBERT
Executed by P. TEMPLIER

E. Chatelaine and Watch

Designed by M. DUFRÈNE
Executed by LA MAISON MODERNE

Plate 33

A & B. Silver Brooches
C. Silver Necklet with Pendant

Designed by TH. LAMBERT
Executed by P. TEMPLIER

Plate 34

A. Painted Fan

GEORGES de FEURE

B. Lace Fan

Designed by FÉLIX AUBERT
Executed by LA MAISON MODERNE

Plate 35

(British)