WatchProSite|Market|Digest

Horological Meandering

Finishing and decoration...

 

is similar to the 19th and early 20th century distinction in architecture made between ornament and decoration. That is, ornament is a heightening of some architectural quality, be that structural, programmatic, thermal, symbolic, whatever. In this view, ornamentation is a further expression of a necessary condition while decoration is a quality laid onto the work and somewhat removable or transferable. However, the trouble in these type of moral aesthetic arguments lie with what is necessary, especially with an item that in these time of cellphones and atomic clocks is functionally useless, namely watches. Are gold chatons held in by blued screws in the German manner ornament or simply decoration? The jewels need to be set in place in some manner, but are the screws overkill or good common sense? Again, the engineer in us might pull out all types of testing equipment to prove the durability of one approach or the other, but ultimately I think these are aesthetic decisions. This does not mean that they are decisions beyond judgement. It seems to me in an aesthetic decision we are always looking for a particular viewpoint toward the work, and therefore toward the world itself that rings true to us. Thus, we can talk about a Swiss, German or American approach to watchmaking or compare Patek to Breguet to Richard Mille's approach. The question is not what is right, but instead, what has value to us today and perhaps forever. All of this is perhaps a long-winded response to the question of what is the difference between finishing and decoration: it depends.

  login to reply