Featured CAMEOS: Show & Tell or Ask & Answer

She's a pretty large cameo. She lives next to an equally large sister, who is mounted in a cuff bracelet worthy of Wonder Woman.



The cameo & the metal of the bracelet have a lot of wear. Bet a previous owner was quite something.

Afterthought, perhaps not everyone would know this is Judith with the head of Holofernes.

 

The first one looks like a maiden/crone image. Now THAT would be a cool cameo if a legit copy of the picture ever turned up.

 

If you wore it as a brooch on your chest, you might feel uncomfortable with how long people were staring at your boobs.

Let us not forget Katherine Wallach.

 

Wow -- some of those are hilarious!

 

When I bought the cameo of the geniuses acting out Hades ferrying a hero to Elysium, it was part of a lot of 2 cameos. This one, of Shakespeare & his Muse, was the other:

 

Hahahahaaa I love the subtly of the scene. "That's a lovely warrior woman and....oh." I have to imagine the previous owner delighted in sending A Message when she wore it. I completely understand. I have a large frame pin depicting this lovely work from Artemisia Gentileschi and it lives on a red jacket I wear to events.

Ooooh now I need a Fuckaroo necklace for work! Those are fantastic. Definitely going to be thinking about them for a while.

Fashion is art so you have to get used to the staring. Wore Clytie out last weekend on a coat collar (with safety in place lol) while doing a museum tour and general browsing downtown and had a few ask me about her. One was an older gentleman docent who practically ran over after his presentation to ask about her and say "I just knew you didn't pick her up at some gift shop!" A jeweler wanted to inform me that "left facing cameos are rare" which....is that actually a thing people really care about? I think it's become a weird marketing gimmick but I haven't seen evidence to suggest anyone buying for that reason. Must be a line in a collector book.

That Shakespeare one is a unique idea I haven't seen before.

 

remind me to trim my beard.....and not stare at boobies.........

 

TBH boobs are pretty amazing but you need to be absolutely certain the staring is welcome.

 

Without wasting my time to go look for it, suspect this notion, along with other incorrect ones, was published in Anna Miller's Cameos Old & New.

It is true that they occur less often than (viewer's) right facing ones, but to counter claims of their rarity, I refer people to my Pinterest board of cameo portraits of gents. If you scroll all the way down, you readily see that 'rare', not even 'uncommon' really apply. It has been proposed that left facing cameos are carved by left handed engravers, an idea that may have some merit. The percentage of the population thought to be left handed is 10%, while the occurrence of left facing cameos is definitely more than 1 in 10. This may reflect a greater prevalence of left handedness among gem engravers than in the population on average. However, skilled artisans, such as Tignani & the Saulinis, executed profiles facing either way.

I have never even considered paying a premium for a cameo simply because it was left facing. I have learned over time that the average jeweller today knows next to nothing about cameos.

 

Which way a cameo faces and the handedness of the carver are most likely unrelated. At least if I'm anything to go by. I do lots of things the wrong way around... for me, because that's how everyone else thinks it should look. Sometimes I do them "backwards" just because I can. Other lefties probably work the same way. No accounting for you righties though! Y'all are weird.

 

When I checked the stats on lefties, one caveat was that lefties very often switch hands depending on the task. I had a boyfriend who used mainly his left, but was right handed when it came to knives. I think there is probably some merit in the hypothesis that carvers prefer profiles that face their dominant hand - imagine you were working on a cameo, how much more convenient it would be if your hand were not covering up the work - but obviously not a hard & fast rule.

 

Hmm I wonder if John C King was a lefty. For my own niche amusement I've been researching him (the fire that destroyed his studio, his abolitionist involvement, the other cameists on the same street as him..) and made a spreadsheet of the cameos of his I could find. All 10 I have photos for are left facing. Incidentally, if you have any others kicking about in your files, other than the ones on your board or you've posted in this thread, I'd love to see them.

I've heard some YouTubers mention the left facing thing and many of them point out they use Miller's book, so you're probably spot on. Weirdly, I have more left facing in my collection than right, but it's a smalllll collection. You've seen them all now, other than a costume one I had to have for it's oddity...

There are definitely some artists who prefer drawing figures facing one way or the other. I came from a background that involved making sure my figures were varied so my work is pretty balanced....but it would not surprise me if a cameist had a preference and stuck to it. With roman intaglios it would just be copying a known image. But with clients I wonder if it might be whichever direction they could seat them in their studio facing a light source (my other JCK theory lol).

 

I can't use a scissor left-handed to save my neck. My mom special-ordered lefty sewing shears for me years ago. I had to return them and buy righties because I have a really tough time using a scissor lefty. Knives are mostly lefty, but not always. Pens? Same thing. I can do either out of necessity (Ever try to use a one piece desk slanted the wrong way? Don't.) If you're used to working backwards/inverted, carving a cameo face that way wouldn't be much worse.

 

No others at this time.

I think we can be pretty sure that most cameo portraits made during the life of the sitter were done from a photograph. When you look at old guides to Rome, there are several photography studios just a short walk from many cameo workshops. That way the subject could get on with his sightseeing, come back for the finished work or have it sent on back home.

 

Makes sense. I had always assumed no one was sitting for a full carved portrait, but maybe a sketch, or even a clay version if the cameist was also a sculptor. I read the JCK account of doing Audubon's portrait and it mentioned him sitting for the the whole portrait (whatever medium that was in). JCK did keep his studio around other artists so photography was available later, although only just commercially viable in 1850 when my portrait was done, and not available commercially when the 2 Audubon portraits were done. Now makes me wish we could see some of those preparatory pieces, whatever they are.

This second one claims to be a cast from an intaglio cut "from life" sometime between 1840 and 1845.

 

If this is cast of an intaglio, then JCK original is right-facing.

 

Will do! I've dropped in a few times in the last couple weeks, but hadn't had time to post anything. I will start each post with Historical (Real) Person Cameo. Most are not mine, but I will continue to post more as I find them.

 

Historical (Real) Person Cameo
Shah Jahan

Shihab-ud-Din Muhammad Khurram (5 January 1592 – 22 January 1666), better known as Shah Jahan the Architect was the fifth emperor of the Mughal Empire, reigning from January 1628 until July 1658. Under his emperorship, the Mughals reached the peak of their architectural achievements and cultural glory. (from Wikipedia).




The auction description was also quite informative:

Oval shaped, the figure cut from the brown layer of stone, standing out against the white layer marble-like, depicted facing left, wearing elaborate turban with pearls, tunic and jewels.3 by 2.5 cm. Unsigned.
CATALOGUE NOTE: The other known pieces are in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London (Robert Skelton et al, The Indian Heritage: Court Life and Arts under Mughal Rule, London, 21 April – 22 August 1982, nos. 376); the Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris (Skelton et al, 1982, no. 377) ; the al-Sabah Collection, Kuwait, the latter only coming to light in 1982 (Manuel Keene with Salam Kaoukji, The Treasury of the World: Jewelled Arts of India in the Age of the Mughals, London, 2001, no. 9.11). In summer 1982, two of the three images of Shah Jahan known at the time were exhibited at the Victoria and Albert Museum exhibition, The Indian Heritage: Court Life under Mughal Rule (Skelton et al, 1982, nos. 376-7).The Indian Heritage exhibition catalogue suggested that this small group of cameos was made or derived from the work of European craftsmen working at the Mughal court (Skelton et al., 1982, p. 123). European travellers mention a number of French and Italian lapidaries at the courts of Jahangir and Shah Jahan, but no actual name is recorded (E. Babelon, Catalogue des camees antiques et modernes de la Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris, 1897, I, pp. 197-8, no. 366, II, pl. XLII).A cameo is a carving from a stone of two or more parallel layers of contrasting colours. The head or figure to be worked is cut in one layer, and the contrasting colour serves as a background. Typical stones used for cameos include black and white onyx, sardonyx, carnelian onyx, and onyx jasper. (Francis J. Sperisen, The Art of the Lapidary, Milwaukee, 1950, p. 300). In this case, the material is sardonyx with a white ground, perhaps reflecting the taste for white ground enamel in jewelled objects at this time.The art of hardstone carving in India dated back to prehistory; most surviving hardstone carvings, however, belong to the Mughal period (1526-1858). In the tradition of Muslim courts, Shah Jahan was trained in the art of hardstone carving and during this reign, the quality of hardstone carving reached its zenith, the finest surviving example from the period being Shah Jahan’s own wine cup that is now in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London (Skelton et al, 1982, no. 356); on a larger scale, the emperor’s interest is reflected in the extraordinary pietra dura panels on the Taj Mahal, the mausoleum Shah Jahan built for his beloved wife, Mumtaz Mahal.This cameo is notable not only because of its rarity, but for the quality of its carving, the stone being used to its maximum effect by carving and polishing techniques contrasting fine details such as the smooth texture of the skin with the matt of his beard. The image depicts Shah Jahan later in life and is a rare image of majesty in-keeping with the European tradition at the time. The very nature and small scale of this piece, which would have been the ultimate in luxury items, suggest that it may have been commissioned by the emperor himself or a high-ranking official at the Mughal court.

 

Historical (Real) Person Cameo
Hayreddin Barbarossa

AN AGATE CAMEO, ITALY, 16TH CENTURY


From the catalogue note:
The oval agate, carved in low relief depicting the bearded figure in profile, looking left, set within a later date 18th, early 19th century gold ring. Dimensions of cameo 2 by 1.5 cm, ring size L½, cased. For a similar example of an important agate cameo depicting Barbarossa and dating to the 16th century, see Sotheby’s, London, 24 April 2012, lot 123. The similar example sold through Sotheby’s, depicts the Turk in an almost identical manner to the cameo illustrated here, except that he is facing right and this example faces left. For example, the distinctive turban with twisted tie running over the top and tied in a knot at the base and trailing down his neck. The rest of the turban is white, as are his robes which highlight his dark skin and white beard and eyebrows, the individual hairs on his face each delineated. Both depictions feature the sitter’s distinctive hook nose and upward tilting chin.

For comparison, I have posted below the two additional cameos of Barbarossa, as well as a painting, all identified and auctioned by Sotheby's.

 

I posted the matching cameo earlier in the thread. It is left facing, as all his others are. Carved in 1844.



The "intaglio" was reported by the daughter of the original owner and she said it was a cast taken from an "intaglio cut from shell"... Which seems incorrect. So it's possible she was confused on the proper term. She also wasn't sure when this version was cut exactly, but I imagine around same as the cameo if they were done "from life" as claimed in both stories. I haven't seen any JCK gem intaglios yet.