[susieice]

MissMelsWell, on 06 November 2009 - 10:37 PM, said:

So, how would YOU use those gems if you were a jeweler? What spectacular piece would you create that would not be over-indulgent and overstated?? LOL. What would you do with 1,000 sand sized diamond chips. LOL Make 1000, two hundred dollar rings? LOL.

ALL precious gemstone art works are over-indulgent by definition... LOL. Why is this different that say a Dale Chihuy glass vase (which, will set you back well MORE than 87K) It's considered art work, it's hand crafted, it a neo-classic design. The christmas ornament and the vase are two different mediums of course, but both still art. Both are indulgent and overstated. They're SUPPOSE to be. LOL. One is an overstated dead plant holder, the other is an overstated dead tree decoration... same thing. Both still art.

Now if you're talking tacky and gaudy, that cell phone is tacky, overstated, and over-indulgent. It's an abomination and an abuse to gold and diamonds LOL.

The 1000 two hundred dollar rings would be more financially sound and 999 more people could enjoy my work. $87,000 for a vase is a lot more than I'd be willing to pay unless I was Paris Hilton, who is one of the most overstated and overindulgent people I've ever heard of, but that aside. The cell phone was definitely an abomination. LOL Over all though I don't agree, I do have to admit I like the way you think

[Purplos]

I can appreciate art if effort is put forth to make it, but I don't like the way this looks. I don't like sparkly things.

Quote

christmas ornaments are suppose to sparkle, they have a winter theme, they're suppose to be sumptuous and over the top to a degree.

I don't agree with this either. In my opinion, Christmas ornaments are supposed to be warm and family-oriented: handmade items that mean something other than, 'Hey! hey! look at our shiny tree.'

To each his or her own.

[Pinx]

Purplos, on 06 November 2009 - 10:11 PM, said:

I don't agree with this either. In my opinion, Christmas ornaments are supposed to be warm and family-oriented: handmade items that mean something other than, 'Hey! hey! look at our shiny tree.'

To each his or her own.

LOL. Go to walmart or kmart and walk down the holiday isles one of these days. (Yes, they're up already, they've been up since before halloween. )

[Rhungobains]

MissMelsWell, on 06 November 2009 - 07:33 PM, said:

I'm trying to figure out WHY... Is it the perceived excess that your don't like? The price? The materials?

People see things like diamonds, gold, and a heafty price tag and think it's ugly because of THOSE things; because they don't like what they represent. I find some people and can't look beyond that to see the craftsmanship and careful design preparation that goes into an art piece.

Let's put it this way... christmas ornaments are suppose to sparkle, they have a winter theme, they're suppose to be sumptuous and over the top to a degree. They are a form of decoration and jewelry to an extent a timeless display piece. It's not really meant to be hung on a christmas tree, but it COULD be if someone decided to. It will remain in someones collection for generations... 200 years from now, it could potentially end up in a museum as a specimin of superior craftsmanship and design.

Now if this was a cell phone covered in diamonds and rubies and made of gold, that would be tacky and not terribly well thought out by the artist unless they were making an obscure statement on the excesses of society and poking fun at anyone that might buy it. I'd laugh at someone that bought a disposable technology art piece. That's stupid (and a poor investment... it would never hold its value).

I dunno, are Fabrage Eggs tacky? Or the Crown Jewels housed at the Tower of London tacky?? Most people would say NO. Are they excessive and foofy?? Yes, they're SUPPOSE to be--just like this piece is suppose to be.

I guess because I am a jewelry designer and do fancy myself an artist since I have several of my pieces in galleries all over town, I wonder WHY you think it's ugly? Is it the pave settings (which can be kind of old fashioned), or is it the lines? Do you have an adversion to stuff that's spherical? I'm trying to figure it out to be honest. If I had to say something critical about it... I'd say it teeters on the edge of being so neo-classic that it's almost boring design wise.

EDIT: hahaha, look what I just found and it can be yours for 1.3 million dollars. Now I think the design and investment quality of this is RIDICULOUS and stupid. This is the kind of excessive materialism that will end up being melted down and taken apart because it serves no useful purpose. It's just laughable it's not even suitable jewelry or a display piece after a certain amount of time--it's just a broken out of date cell phone encrusted in diamonds. To me, that's tacky.

Faberge Eggs are tacky, the Crown Jewels are tacky (if I had my way I'd melt them and the entire royal family down and forge gold bullion to give to the poor (Charles' ear wax alone could make £20 million), and, whatever the hell that thing is in that picture, is most definitely tacky.

[MissMelsWell]

Rhungobains, on 07 November 2009 - 03:50 PM, said:

Faberge Eggs are tacky, the Crown Jewels are tacky (if I had my way I'd melt them and the entire royal family down and forge gold bullion to give to the poor (Charles' ear wax alone could make £20 million), and, whatever the hell that thing is in that picture, is most definitely tacky.

Oooook... so two questions... WHAT makes them tacky? and second, what art isn't tacky in your opinion?

This post has been edited by MissMelsWell: 08 November 2009 - 04:42 AM

[Rhungobains]

Art is an expression of emotion. It may cost £82k, but I see no more artistic value in that bauble than I do in a £5 glitterball. The profligate, ostentatious use of expensive jewels, and the primary desire to simply make it the most expensive bauble ever by cramming in as many rubies as possible, for me, overrides any artistic expression the designer may have originally harboured. I couldn't care less if they were real rubies or drawn on with red marker. It's kitsch and tacky:

Quote

"It was more about making something unique, but as we researched other amazing baubles we discovered the most expensive one was £26,874."

"We thought, why not see if we can beat it - but we were bowled over when it was valued at £82,000."

At the same time that doesn't mean anything expensive is tacky, and anything cheap is art, the point is that whatever the cost, material value should merely be a byproduct of what you are trying to create. Yes, you can look still at it as well-crafted piece, and it obviously takes great skill to create something like that, but that is irrelative to the point.


In my own opinion of art, if you place material value or beautification above an expression of emotion, then it ceases to be art.

[GreyWeather]

I find diamonds... Blugh. Maybe it's 'cause they're everywhere, but there's nothing precious about them. To me, they're very tacky and 'meh'.

The craftmans ship isn't all that spectacular, it's ordinary and there's nothing at all in it. Whoever actually buys this item is simply wasting their money. They could find something - or indeed, many other things - that are far more awe inspiring else where, than this bauble.

[MissMelsWell]

Rhungobains, on 08 November 2009 - 05:43 AM, said:

Art is an expression of emotion. It may cost £82k, but I see no more artistic value in that bauble than I do in a £5 glitterball. The profligate, ostentatious use of expensive jewels, and the primary desire to simply make it the most expensive bauble ever by cramming in as many rubies as possible, for me, overrides any artistic expression the designer may have originally harboured. I couldn't care less if they were real rubies or drawn on with red marker. It's kitsch and tacky:



At the same time that doesn't mean anything expensive is tacky, and anything cheap is art, the point is that whatever the cost, material value should merely be a byproduct of what you are trying to create. Yes, you can look still at it as well-crafted piece, and it obviously takes great skill to create something like that, but that is irrelative to the point.


In my own opinion of art, if you place material value or beautification above an expression of emotion, then it ceases to be art.

So it is the materials then more or less. See, I don't look at it and see it the same way. I see it as artwork, I really do. Fantastic design, expert craftsmanship, high quality materials... I do see it as art. However, I've seen plenty of CRAP that people call art which is pure expression of "emotion" ... I wouldn't pay 2 cents for some of that junk. In MY opinion, art should be beautiful; it should have excellent design, color, texture, balance, and it should be unique and creative. Creative expression if you will... not necessarily emotional expression. Sometimes artwork will trigger an emotional response, but I think that should be low on the list of priorities for the artist.

When you have artists focused on soliciting an emtional response only... that's when we start to see junk like the NEA sponsors... pure crap in most cases. Self-indulgent junk created by self-centered talentless hacks. I don't care if the artist suffered childhood trauma and the manifestation is a series of paintings of his mother missing her fingers. That's crap, but that's what a lot of people call art. It's purely emotional. I wouldn't pay a penny for any of it.

Quote

I find diamonds... Blugh. Maybe it's 'cause they're everywhere, but there's nothing precious about them. To me, they're very tacky and 'meh'.

The craftmans ship isn't all that spectacular, it's ordinary and there's nothing at all in it. Whoever actually buys this item is simply wasting their money. They could find something - or indeed, many other things - that are far more awe inspiring else where, than this bauble.

I agree with your first statement. Diamonds are "blah". They aren't rare, they are overpriced, and they are one of my least favorite stones. Do I like the way they refract light? Yes, but the much less expensive Moissanite will do the same thing. I don't think diamonds are tacky, but in my opinion, they aren't special. I think in this piece though, they do suit the purpose.

Actually, as someone who is well versed in jewelry and jewelry making, the craftsmanship on this piece is spectacular to a trained eye. I can see how you would see it as ordinary and not special though. The design itself is simple. It does teeter on the edge of being boring. But, I do think there are design elements and proportion that cause it to land on the side of simple elegance rather than boring.

And, IF someone purchases this piece, it will actually wind up being a good investment. They'll never lose their money. This is the kind of thing that would eventually become a museum piece believe it or not.

This post has been edited by MissMelsWell: 08 November 2009 - 04:41 PM

[Purplos]

Quote

Go to walmart or kmart and walk down the holiday isles one of these days. (Yes, they're up already, they've been up since before halloween.

I know. I don't like it. I reject the insane commercialism of Christmas. I don't even worship Jesus Christ, so it's not one of those religious "Reason for the Season" things. I think rampant commercialism is a lot tackier than a diamond-encrusted bauble.

[MissMelsWell]

Purplos, on 08 November 2009 - 09:22 AM, said:

I know. I don't like it. I reject the insane commercialism of Christmas. I don't even worship Jesus Christ, so it's not one of those religious "Reason for the Season" things. I think rampant commercialism is a lot tackier than a diamond-encrusted bauble.

Well I'd agree... I don't celebrate christmas for all intents and purpose, never have. Even so, my former mother in law used to love to give me the Hallmark Precious Moments tree ornaments every flipplin' year. Good lord, talk about tacky. She's a lovely woman, but how she failed to see that I never had a christmas tree to put them on (not that I would) is beyond me. LOL. The sentiment was sweet, but I wonder if my ex-husband ever found all those things in that box I shoved into his boat when I threw him out. LOL.

now, his mother DID also give me all the christmas balls that his grandmother made back in the 50s. They were styrofoam, covered in velvet or silk, studded with metalic ribbons, salvaged rhinestones from jewelry, and all kinds of whacky adornments. They were SO cool... guady tacky-licious. LOL. I kept those and still have them displayed on a shelf in my spare bedroom.

[ChloeB]

MissMelsWell, on 08 November 2009 - 10:34 AM, said:

So it is the materials then more or less. See, I don't look at it and see it the same way. I see it as artwork, I really do. Fantastic design, expert craftsmanship, high quality materials... I do see it as art. However, I've seen plenty of CRAP that people call art which is pure expression of "emotion" ... I wouldn't pay 2 cents for some of that junk. In MY opinion, art should be beautiful; it should have excellent design, color, texture, balance, and it should be unique and creative. Creative expression if you will... not necessarily emotional expression. Sometimes artwork will trigger an emotional response, but I think that should be low on the list of priorities for the artist.

When you have artists focused on soliciting an emtional response only... that's when we start to see junk like the NEA sponsors... pure crap in most cases. Self-indulgent junk created by self-centered talentless hacks. I don't care if the artist suffered childhood trauma and the manifestation is a series of paintings of his mother missing her fingers. That's crap, but that's what a lot of people call art. It's purely emotional. I wouldn't pay a penny for any of it.



I agree with your first statement. Diamonds are "blah". They aren't rare, they are overpriced, and they are one of my least favorite stones. Do I like the way they refract light? Yes, but the much less expensive Moissanite will do the same thing. I don't think diamonds are tacky, but in my opinion, they aren't special. I think in this piece though, they do suit the purpose.

Actually, as someone who is well versed in jewelry and jewelry making, the craftsmanship on this piece is spectacular to a trained eye. I can see how you would see it as ordinary and not special though. The design itself is simple. It does teeter on the edge of being boring. But, I do think there are design elements and proportion that cause it to land on the side of simple elegance rather than boring.

And, IF someone purchases this piece, it will actually wind up being a good investment. They'll never lose their money. This is the kind of thing that would eventually become a museum piece believe it or not.

Seems you judge art based on aestheticism. Going by this, you'd eliminate work from someone like Salvador Dali as being art?

[MissMelsWell]

ChloeB, on 08 November 2009 - 10:17 AM, said:

Seems you judge art based on aestheticism. Going by this, you'd eliminate work from someone like Salvador Dali as being art?

Ummmm... as you might guess... I don't like Dali, his work does absolutely nothing for me. BUT on the other hand I can appreciate what he did. He was quite exceptional with perspective obviously, he was definitely a pioneer in surrealism which opened the door for other MORE talented artists. I appreciate Dali and his works... but I don't like his work. Dali is art, not art I like, but art none-the-less.

Now if you'd used Andy Worhol as an example... I'd tell you he was a talentless hack... crap, complete self indulgent talentless tasteless tacky crap.

This post has been edited by MissMelsWell: 08 November 2009 - 08:05 PM

[ChloeB]

MissMelsWell, on 08 November 2009 - 02:04 PM, said:

Ummmm... as you might guess... I don't like Dali, his work does absolutely nothing for me. BUT on the other hand I can appreciate what he did. He was quite exceptional with perspective obviously, he was definitely a pioneer in surrealism which opened the door for other MORE talented artists. I appreciate Dali and his works... but I don't like his work. Dali is art, not art I like, but art none-the-less.

Now if you'd used Andy Worhol as an example... I'd tell you he was a talentless hack... crap, complete self indulgent talentless tasteless tacky crap.

I'd agree with you on Warhol, but I like Dali a lot actually. About the bauble, I don't see anything too exceptional other than the diamonds and the price tag. I'd say if you changed out the diamonds and rubies for swarovskis, it would be something I would expect to see in Macy's for sale. But not my thing, I guess. I can't get excited about a vase either, whether it's Ming dynasty or not, lol.

This post has been edited by ChloeB: 08 November 2009 - 09:40 PM

[MissMelsWell]

ChloeB, on 08 November 2009 - 01:39 PM, said:

I'd agree with you on Warhol, but I like Dali a lot actually. About the bauble, I don't see anything too exceptional other than the diamonds and the price tag. I'd say if you changed out the diamonds and rubies for swarovskis, it would be something I would expect to see in Macy's for sale. But not my thing, I guess. I can't get excited about a vase either, whether it's Ming dynasty or not, lol.

I thought about that too actually... but even if that piece was Swarovski (which I LOVE) it would still be many many thousands of dollars. My mom likes to get me Swarovski's ornament every year (I like to hang them on stands on my shelves) and they're generally simple, very simple, but still run about $75-$110. There are also a set of Swarovski wine glasses that Macy's does carry. They're a crystal glass, and the stem is filled with loose diamond shaped crystals... they're simply gorgeous... and run about $600 a PAIR. If this piece had been Swarovski and say some metal other than gold, it would still be roughly 2K or better... you'd never see something like like that bauble from Swarovski though... it's not their style (and if I'm not mistaken, they don't make a crystal small enough to pave set anyway)... But I do understand where you're coming from...

But for fun, here's Swarovski's 2009 ornament! It's not as pretty as last year's, but I'm hoping mom decides to add to my collection anyway. LOL



Stemware: (I totally want these some day. LOL)

[ChloeB]

MissMelsWell, on 08 November 2009 - 04:04 PM, said:

I thought about that too actually... but even if that piece was Swarovski (which I LOVE) it would still be many many thousands of dollars. My mom likes to get me Swarovski's ornament every year (I like to hang them on stands on my shelves) and they're generally simple, very simple, but still run about $75-$110. There are also a set of Swarovski wine glasses that Macy's does carry. They're a crystal glass, and the stem is filled with loose diamond shaped crystals... they're simply gorgeous... and run about $600 a PAIR. If this piece had been Swarovski and say some metal other than gold, it would still be roughly 2K or better... you'd never see something like like that bauble from Swarovski though... it's not their style (and if I'm not mistaken, they don't make a crystal small enough to pave set anyway)... But I do understand where you're coming from...

But for fun, here's Swarovski's 2009 ornament! It's not as pretty as last year's, but I'm hoping mom decides to add to my collection anyway. LOL

That ornament and the glasses are very pretty. I hope your mom gets it for you. I believe you can buy loose Swarovski rhinestones, that's probably more what I was thinking of, but I'm not sure how small they come, but no they aren't cheap either and it probably would still be in the thousands.