Part 1:
First Artwork:
Designer: unknown
Name of the Artifact: “Headdress with phoenixes and flowers”
Origin: China
Season/Year: Ming Dynasty, 16th-17th century
Function: to embellish the hair and to fix the hairstyle
Fabrication: It is made of gold, rubies, pearls, cat’s eyes and iron because those are Chinese traditional jewels that were frequently used to make jewelries for females in the palace.
Form: It came from earlier dynasties in Chinese history. It evolved by simplifying the parts hanging pendants.
This item was designed for the rich, especially women living in the palace who have exalted status and certain authority. If I imagine myself inside, I would lay on the top of this headdress and climb from bottom to top. If I could wear it, I would put a few parts on one side of my hair in formal events. It would feel like me traveling back to Ming Dynasty. It applies texture, solemn, noble, resplendent and dazzling impact to body. The gold is elaborately carved. Rubies and pearls are inlaid inside the gold. If I were to redesign the work, I would make this item from diamond because dimond broke the Chinese traditional and could add the beauty of vulnerability to it. In ancient China, clothing and jewelries with dragons could only be worn by the Emperor and ones with phoenixes could only be worn by the Empress. Phoenix crown, known as Fengguan, was a traditional headdress that covers a large part of history of Chinese jewelries.
https://nasvete.com/chinese-phoenix-crown/
Second Artwork:
Designer: unknown
Name of the Artifact: “Dagger with sheath”
Origin: India
Season/Year: Mughal period, 19th century
Function: to be carried on body for hunting and self-protection
Fabrication: It is made of steel, gold emeralds, rubies, diamonds and ray skin
Form: It came from regular daggers with no embellishment. It evolved as people focused more on aesthetics than making livings.
I first noticed the carved texture on the dagger. The dagger is made by gold and steel, which is inserted into the handle made by jade. If I imagine myself inside, I would want to slide down the carved parts to better feel the curves. It is designed for bodyguard in imperial palace. If I got to wear the piece, I would carry it around the waist and feel like that I am commissioned with responsibility and given masculinity. If I were to redesign it, I would carve patterns on handles as well as for meeting more visual interests. The piece brought me to see how different materials would be designed for certain parts with its own function and purpose. Most Indian daggers are made with jade handles and the curve bladed daggers, which are known as ‘Khanjar’ in India.
https://www.theexplora.com/indian-daggers-objects-of-beauty/
Third Artwork:
Designer: Shaun Leane
Name of the Artifact: “Crown of Thorns”
Origin: Britain
Season/Year: Fall/Winter 1996-97
Function: a crown to be put on head
Fabrication: It is made out of silver.
Form: It came from the olive branch crown.
I was first attracted by the interesting fact that the crown was designed into circular thorns that have movement. If I imagine myself inside, I would carefully touch the thorns and walk through where the vines are intersected. It is designed for people who challenged aesthetics and fashion like Alexander McQueen. I would wear the crown on head with garments showing fragility and vulnerability of feeling. It transforms the body with resistance and inaccessibility. It is related to beauty for its visual impact between sublime and grotesque. It was made into sharp thorns and vines that intersected in a bundle of three. If I were to redesigned it, I would add another medium like Organza to give more dimensions. It gives me inspiration on how the lineworks deliberately took place with solidity provided by silver. When seeing the thorns in an artwork, it reminds me of Frida Kahlo’s work in which she painted herself with the thorn necklace which signifies the pain she was experiencing over her divorce. And Alexander McQueen believed that beauty could be found in the negatives. Therefore, the thorns representing pain well reflect the beauty.
Part 2:
The pair of artworks I want to compare is “Smallsword” from the jewelry exhibition and “Boy with a sword” from the painting exhibition. “Smallsword” was made in 1778, with unknown creator. The materials applied are steel, gold, silver, textile and paste jewels. “Boy with a sword” was an oil painting made in 1961 by the artist, Edouard Manet. The two pieces were both made in France in a different time period, which indicates that they have similar cultural but different historical background. They both have sword as the subject matters that have similar length; however, the sword in the painting was covered by a cloth on the most parts. The fact that the sword in the painting are covered and the boy was holding it carefully with both hands implied the preciousness. “Smallsword” had jewels inserted and embellished also indicated the value of swords in this time period. The hilts of the swords have the similar form, and the smallsword is instantly recognizable for its hilt. Not only for the purpose as a weapon, but also for fashion that the civilians in France used to carry the swords with fashionable dress. Since the 18th century, the sword started to become more like the male jewelry rather than historical weapons.
https://georgianjunkie.wordpress.com/2010/10/24/dueling-and-the-18th-century-small-sword/