I recently saw the Artistic Luxury exhibition exhibition here in SF, Faberge, Tiffany & Lalique jewelry. A beautiful show with more than the usual, especially Faberge. Although not exactly jewelery, per se, they did have some of the eggs displayed. Several pieces with IF provenance, long since passed into other hands- including Joan Rivers. Although I have seen most of the Faberge pieces at other exhibitions over the year. The Lalique jewelry was mostly new to me.
Again, this was based on the 1900 Paris Exhibition.
I do not think so GDElla, the miniatures were made explicitly for the exhibition. Faberge even borrowed back some of the eggs for the Exhibition. He was displaying his wares. Although not permitted to sell, as he was in charge of that department of the exhibition, I am sure he picked up not a few commissions. The others could sell. Faberge did not make the original crown jewels, so they were not his wares.
i saw that exhibition -- it was
amazing!!
i must say i was surprised by a few of the exhibits -- items i
believed i was relatively familiar with.
(...well, as familiar as book images, descriptions & internet jpegs will allow, anyway.)
example:
the
duchess of Marlboroughj egg (clock), was
huge!
at least, it was when compared w/ how large i had, over time,
i had come to believe it be...
whereas, it's possible inspiration --
the dowager empress' serpent egg/clock --
was, in actuality, significantly smaller than i had believed it to be.
y'know,
things like that :-)
SIDE-NOTE: personally speaking, i couldn't fathom
why (virtually) all the Tiffany stained-glass exhibits were displayed in such an
amazingly bad way?!
example:
that rather large, beautiful wall-panel (or was it window-panel?), was so badly & poorly lit , it looked like it was made of
plastic!
it had been hung (or placed) directly on, or in front of, a dark wall w/ the usual sort of museum spotlight track-lighting aimed directly at it ---
and no backlighting, whatsover. it just didn't make sense to me.
example:
all of those beautiful Tiffany lamps -- the iridescent ones, as well as those stained glass ones most people associate w/ the term "Tiffany Lamp",
were also placed in, and against, rather dark settings -- which would have been just fine (the type of setting they were made for...) but due to the wattage of the bulbs, or maybe it was the type used (i dunno), they all -- virtally every single one -- gave off so little light, they (pretty much) made themselves
pointless. i seriously doubt they gave off enough light to read. and on top of that, they (the lamps) had been given less of the spotlight track lighting than the other exhibits (they are
lamps, after all!). but that just compounded the problem.
the rooms were so dark, it was
very difficult to see those famous & very beautiful, bronze stands, the even more famous glass shades sat on. dark stands, holding bulbs that could barely penetrate the gass of their shades & cast even less light downward over it's base... and ALL in dark rooms. one man got so frustrated, he took the safety light off his keychain...sadly, it didn't help... it was one of those odd little clicker types, that give off a bright-ish but
very blue light. i felt his pain.
all that beautiful glass. all those gorgeous bronze lamp stands. all those badly lit lighting fixtures.
it was almost painful.
but THE REST of the exhibits, so awesomely full of so much awesome awesomeness it was.... well....
awesome.
seriously though, everything else was wonderful.
.
okay.
i think my off-topic rant is over. :-)
.
Show Posts
