Jewelry shows present a dilemma for art museums, which may explain why we see them so rarely. It's true that jewelry is one of the more imaginative arms of design, a field in which function tends to play second fiddle to aesthetics. But it has also been a field in which taste trumps art, in which ostentation and conspicuous expenditure can count for more than originality and aesthetic conviction.
So it was in 19th century Europe before Art Nouveau. Preciousness was the order of the day. Taste was governed by what has been termed "the tyranny of the diamond" - a habitual preference for glinting diamonds and platinum in designs that were formulaic and colorless.
Then came the fin de siècle. We know what a tumultuous period the 1890s were in art (any period associated with artists as magnificently overripe as Gustave Moreau, Paul Gauguin, Edvard Munch, and Odilon Redon has to be worth getting to know). So it's perhaps not surprising that jewelry experienced tropical spasms of its own.
The 100-odd pieces in "Imperishable Beauty," which was organized by Yvonne Markowitz, the MFA's curator of jewelry, all come from a single US private collection whose owners prefer to remain anonymous (although there are strong clues in the catalog). More than 40 of them are by Lalique, which is wonderful, because Lalique was the movement's unrivaled genius (he later became known as the preeminent glass designer of Art Deco, but it was as a trailblazing jeweler that he came to fame).
Lalique had a contrarian streak. You can see it in a piece like his "Branch Brooch with Cherry Blossoms," made between 1900 and 1902. The pink blossoms, each one exquisitely individuated, are made from clear glass lightly brushed with pink enamel and acid-etched to give it a soft, matte finish. Glass, you'll remember, comes from sand. It's cheap.
Now look at what Lalique has used for the branch, the part of the design relegated to a mere supporting role. Why, diamonds of course!
