I admire her necklaces very much. A significant oeuvre.
So simple and straight up, yet rich with nuances and ideas.
Jewellery is not always worn.
It changes when it is worn.
So, what is it when it is not on a body?
One of the unspoken tenants of contemporary jewellery is that the object should stand on its own as a discreet object, equally meritorious when worn, or on the shelf.
This is challenging for the maker, because the forms used in jewellery are very specialised; a brooch for example has some sort of pin. Do you hide that or make it prominent?
I have been critical/bored of contemporary jewellery, in that it tends to shy away from the body- it is 'worn' only by the whitespace of either the gallery or the photograph. (I have been as guilty of this as anyone- so I feel qualified to make this evaluation). Like we are bathing it in milk, or putting it in a snowstorm.
This tends to result in dream-like objects that are probably more like sculptures about jewellery, more than they are actual jewellery, and lets face it, this is a bit weird, especially after we've seen about a million examples of it.
Before you c.j. kids start calling me a spoil-sport... I think Planteijdt negotiates this problem with extraordinary grace and clarity.
The 'on-shelf' arrangement of these necklaces is somehow monolithic, glyphic. Disarmingly simple, like an Agnes Martin painting.
Rather than being duped by an unwearble jewell, we get two-for-one; the shape of the piece becomes something else when suspended from the neck as it is rearranged by gravity.
They are immanently wearable.
Annelies Planteijdt exhibition now showing at Gallery Viceversa.