Assuming that one of the main goals of research in the history of art and the history of jewelry design is to identify and explain the genesis of its form or any of the motifs that decorate it, then more than once we will face a problem that can be briefly described as "déjà vu." The viewed form seems familiar, and the thought that we have already seen it somewhere... But where?
While in the case of the study of the history of fine arts this phenomenon can be considered almost obvious, even natural, and the work of the art historian is precisely to present the existing relationships between objects, in the sphere of the antiquarian jewelry trade the impression of "similarity" can cause concern that we are dealing with a forgery, for example. It's obvious that ruling out or confirming a forgery requires a certain amount of effort - e.g., examination of the metal and other materials used, analysis of the appearance of test, hallmark and name marks, recognition of the technology used to make the item, etc. This leads to three basic conundrums, that the item under examination is:
an original product;
a counterfeit product;
a recomposed work (repaired, with an altered original function, assembled from several different original products, etc.).
This kind of research, therefore, serves to judge the authenticity of an object and thus translates directly into the condition of the act of buying and selling on the antiquarian market. Other issues in the basics of the design historian's work are no longer of such importance to buyers and sellers. However, they are much more important for the aforementioned design art history research.
So, how - in an obvious nutshell - can two, particular important phenomena in the field of analyzing the forms of jewelry artworks be presented when the impression of the similarity of objects is aroused?
1. Genetic relationships
The first is the clear and undeniable genetic links between the objects under analysis. Figuratively, it can be presented like this - one creator created an object, while the other creator has picked up on this work of his and created his work - but inspired, referring to the original. Thus, this second work is not a very exact replica-copy-repeat, but a sort of processed work of the first; between them there is a connection in that without the first work, the second work would not exist. In ancient art, especially in the field of painting, moreover, the concept of "workshop copy" is operated, where students learned their trade by copying - and somewhat processing - the works of their master and teacher. Such a connection can be seen just as easily if the goldsmith's object reproduces the appearance of a work of nature: a brooch, pendant or ring with the form of a lizard, leaf, fruit directly refers to the shape of that very lizard, leaf and fruit... One can sometimes indicate a certain degree of simplification of the object's form, but the inspiration of nature and nature will always remain clear. In this situation, it is difficult to "accuse" the artist of plagiarism against nature, because this kind of inspiration is not plagiarism, after all, although it has a clear reproductive rather than creative value.
2. Analogies
The situation is slightly different when dealing with the phenomenon of analogies of form. It can be described as follows: the forms of two analyzed objects are similar, sometimes even very similar, but there are no genetic connections between these objects: the artists did not know each other, were not inspired by each other's works, we can not in any way demonstrate and prove that the realization of one work in any way caused the creation of the other. Relationships of analogy therefore exist when, for example, a hypothetical brooch in the form of a flower - such as a tulip - is very similar to such a hypothetical pendant, but the relationship between these objects ends only in the similarity of form.
It is this second "between-object" relationship that sometimes causes some problems - seeing the similarities in the form of the objects, we, as it were, assume in advance that one object was the inspiration of the other, and that their creators were in some way in contact - or at least knew each other's work (if they lived at the same time). However, if We take for granted the fact that some of the works have "only" analogous forms, this will rid us of the intrusive thought that the similarity is due to plagiarism or forgery.
Finally, let's cite "iconography" as an example. The first illustration is an image of an Atlantic herring, and its "artistic" reproduction can be found in the brooch in the second illustration - so it is the aforementioned genetic connections when a goldsmith's work refers to the natural world and imitates its forms, as it were.
In the third illustration, on the other hand, the brooch may be a reference to the brooch in the second photograph, but with no evidence of this beyond mere resemblance, we can only speak of shape analogy.
~ Michał Myśliński, prof. Instytut Sztuki PAN
Comments