Featured Cameos. Pieces of art or craft?

A miniature work of art or another piece turned out by a craftsman?
Looking at the widely varying prices of cameos, sometimes completely unrealistic IMO, I thought it might be a good idea to discuss the qualities of particular pieces and determine their true value from artistic point of view.
I would like to start with these two cameos which at a first glance look very similar.


Art or craft? What do you think?

 

I think you should take this up with @Bronwen .........!

 

On that top one, does that crack go through just the background or both the figure and the background? I like them BOTH, but think the work in the lower one is more delicate......not sure how to answer your question.....I think they are both artistic and it takes a craftsman to create either....it would depend on their degree of talent, to me!!! @Bronwen might be the best one to ask!!!!

 

I would love to hear from anyone. Not just the cameo specialists. What do you see? What do you like and don’t like in the images?

 

Good question, Aquitaine

 

How do you define “delicate”?

 

The first one flows more, has more detail to my eye and far better composition. It's more complex too.

 

You'll be sorry you did!!!!

It might be possible to sort of assign relative values to pieces, but 'true value' doesn't apply to anything in this world, since 'value' comes down to human opinion/belief & willingness to exchange one thing regarded as valuable for another. This is a very epistemic can of worms you have opened.

Think we can agree that fineness of execution is a minimal criterion & that we look for the same things in a cameo that we look for in a drawing or a sculpture when it comes to execution. In the second cameo, where is the part of the left arm that should show through the kithera strings? There is a disembodied left hand holding the instrument. Anatomical correctness is always something to look for.

Material. Are hardstone cameos the only ones that can qualify as art? Are other materials such as shell, coral & lava too soft & therefore too easy to work to require the same level of mastery and too fragile to be seen as gems?

Method. Does all the work have to be done by hand? Is computer guided ultrasonic cutting allowed? I would be interested in seeing the findings on the second brooch to get some idea of age. It looks fairly new to me, so possibly done using more modern methods. Aqui's delicacy makes me question how it was made.

Level of difficulty. Compared to multi-figure full scenes, these ladies are relatively simple. Does that bar them from being art? Or can quality of execution make up for that?

Creativity. Most cameos are copies of works in other media, or of intaglios, sometimes intaglios of works in other media. Does originality of composition matter to this question? La Citerista, the Kithara Player originates with a fresco found at Herculaneum. Finds there & at Pompeii were very influential on artists of all types. Giovanni Pichler engraved an intaglio of this little dancer. Santarelli, who engraved the top cameo (yes, cracked right through the figure) may have copied from an illustration of the fresco or from one of the Pichler gem or from another cameo.

The second one most probably derives from the first or another like it; it's a widely replicated design. On this one the hands have been repositioned to get a good grip on the instrument, not to play it. The hair has been changed to flowing tresses. Are the changes for the better? Does this one score a point for originality? Would faithfulness to the original fresco matter?

Subject. Can only 'arty' subjects qualify as art? Among all those portraits of beloved husbands & wives, fathers & mothers, do any of them surpass competency? Portraits cut by Tommaso & Luigi Saulini are treated (priced) as though they are art. Do they deserve to be on artistic merit, are they so superior to many others that do not get the star treatment? Is the added value simply in the presence of a known signature? Here we get to a bugboo of mine about why a signed average piece will sell for more than an unsigned superlative one.

I prefer the cleaner, crisper lines of the first cameo to the billowing gauziness of the second (is she standing on her veil?), even though when you look closely you have to wonder where her right arm has got to. I dislike these unnatural orange stones that seemed to come into vogue late in the 19th. I'm not sure I would grant either of them the status of Art, not compared to other pieces to be found in the glyptics world, including some of Santarelli's other work, so it comes down to personal preference. (I'm not giving any weight to the settings, which is clearly an unequal contest or to the damage to the first one.)

Aren't you sorry you asked?

 

I like the first one, and that's before I read Bronwyn's marvellous reply!

 

Well said, agreed.

I've raised the image quality of the left image for this side-by-side view.

Also, I know zero about cameos.

To me both exhibit Art and Craft.

Not seeing the arms is fine and does not detract from either image. Also, I see each as bodies floating, so the vial is just in the air. The carved detail, deep or shallow, I like the more defined cut.

The musician's left hand holding the lyre on the orange cameo is a deal breaker as to who's the better artist. It's not the grip one would naturally hold that instrument and it looks bad. Try to comfortably get your hand in that position. All five fingers should not be positioned as carved.

Because of that hand, it's my artistic viewpoint that the cameo with the dark background gets the blue ribbon in the Art portion of this discussion. If it were not for that hand, it would only come down to liking subtle or bold figures.

James.

 

Hear, hear! The whole positioning of the kithara & the hands holding it on the second cameo is strained & unnatural.

 

I, too, prefer the first cameo for the detail in the carving, especially in the hair, the sculptural detail of the face, and the depth of carving.

The question of art vs craft has surfaced more often in recent years. Items that are functional, meant for a specific purpose, or follow a set of instructions for a predefined result are often considered craft, while items made strictly from imagination, that incorporate unique details, or require significant level of skill and genius are labeled art.

To me, the first cameo is closer to art then the second cameo. The second cameo seems to be of lower quality and has more characteristics that indicative of a mass produced item by a lower skilled artisan. I do consider hiqh quality cameos as works of sculptural art, whether or not they are signed or from a known artist.

 

Found this to compare a carved shell of the same image as the Santarelli.

 

, post: 3278782, member: 5833"]You'll be sorry you did!!!!

All I can say is WOW! You are truly amazing.

It might be possible to sort of assign relative values to pieces, but 'true value' doesn't apply to anything in this world, since 'value' comes down to human opinion/belief & willingness to exchange one thing regarded as valuable for another. This is a very epistemic can of worms you have opened.



Think we can agree that fineness of execution is a minimal criterion & that we look for the same things in a cameo that we look for in a drawing or a sculpture when it comes to execution. In the second cameo, where is the part of the left arm that should show through the kithera strings? There is a disembodied left hand holding the instrument. Anatomical correctness is always something to look for.

Material. Are hardstone cameos the only ones that can qualify as art? Are other materials such as shell, coral & lava too soft & therefore too easy to work to require the same level of mastery and too fragile to be seen as gems?

Method. Does all the work have to be done by hand? Is computer guided ultrasonic cutting allowed? I would be interested in seeing the findings on the second brooch to get some idea of age. It looks fairly new to me, so possibly done using more modern methods. Aqui's delicacy makes me question how it was made.

Level of difficulty. Compared to multi-figure full scenes, these ladies are relatively simple. Does that bar them from being art? Or can quality of execution make up for that?

Creativity. Most cameos are copies of works in other media, or of intaglios, sometimes intaglios of works in other media. Does originality of composition matter to this question? La Citerista, the Kithara Player originates with a fresco found at Herculaneum. Finds there & at Pompeii were very influential on artists of all types. Giovanni Pichler engraved an intaglio of this little dancer. Santarelli, who engraved the top cameo (yes, cracked right through the figure) may have copied from an illustration of the fresco or from one of the Pichler gem or from another cameo.

The second one most probably derives from the first or another like it; it's a widely replicated design. On this one the hands have been repositioned to get a good grip on the instrument, not to play it. The hair has been changed to flowing tresses. Are the changes for the better? Does this one score a point for originality? Would faithfulness to the original fresco matter?

Subject. Can only 'arty' subjects qualify as art? Among all those portraits of beloved husbands & wives, fathers & mothers, do any of them surpass competency? Portraits cut by Tommaso & Luigi Saulini are treated (priced) as though they are art. Do they deserve to be on artistic merit, are they so superior to many others that do not get the star treatment? Is the added value simply in the presence of a known signature? Here we get to a bugboo of mine about why a signed average piece will sell for more than an unsigned superlative one.

I prefer the cleaner, crisper lines of the first cameo to the billowing gauziness of the second (is she standing on her veil?), even though when you look closely you have to wonder where her right arm has got to. I dislike these unnatural orange stones that seemed to come into vogue late in the 19th. I'm not sure I would grant either of them the status of Art, not compared to other pieces to be found in the glyptics world, including some of Santarelli's other work, so it comes down to personal preference. (I'm not giving any weight to the settings, which is clearly an unequal contest or to the damage to the first one.)

Aren't you sorry you asked?[/QUOTE]
All I can say I

 

The figure on the right shows anatomical correctness and knowledge of the mechanics of the human body but, no matter how difficult to achieve, it is compulsory and just means to an end. To become art it has also to express an idea or emotion.
I can’t claim to know what the artist wanted to convey. I can only say what I get as a viewer.
For me the image represents the beauty and the power of music.
The female body is shown levitating above the ground. That’s achieved by the position of the feet but also the position of the head. That is where I would look if I suddenly took off the ground. Further, to suggest weightlessness, a gentle breeze blows alongside with the upward motion of the body. I can tell that by the precise billowing of the piece of cloth around her and the arrangement of her hair.
That is what the music can do. It can make us fly.
And what about the beauty of the music?
That’s easy. Put a beautiful female body and voilà. Everything in the position of the body I find elegant. Even the omission of her right hand, IMO, is on purpose. I can’t think of a way to elegantly hold the instrument. So that would have been a distracting spot in a otherwise perfect composition.

 

And then there's the issue of differentiating between art and technique. Is a great technician necessarily a great artist? Can a thing be art if it's primary virtue is technique?

 

Me too!