JEWELLERY MADE BY ARTISTS: THE DIANE VENET COLLECTION AT THE NORTON MUSEUM

Summary

If Jewels Could Talk with Carol Woolton: Episode Summary

Episode Title: JEWELLERY MADE BY ARTISTS: THE DIANE VENET COLLECTION AT THE NORTON MUSEUM
Release Date: May 8, 2025
Guests: Rachel Guffstafson, Chief Curatorial Operations and Research Officer at the Norton Museum of Art

---

Introduction to the Diane Vernet Collection

In this illuminating episode of If Jewels Could Talk, host Carol Woolton delves into the fascinating world of artist-made jewelry through the lens of the Diane Vernet Collection, currently showcased at the Norton Museum of Art in West Palm Beach, Florida. The exhibition, titled Artist Jewellery From Cubism to Pop: The Diane Vernet Collection, spans from the latter half of the 20th century to the present day, featuring renowned artists such as Picasso, Man Ray, Jeff Koons, Alexander Calder, and Salvador Dalí.

Rachel Guffstafson, the museum’s Chief Curatorial Operations and Research Officer, joins Carol to discuss the intricacies of the collection and the upcoming exhibition. Rachel provides an insider’s perspective on how the collection was curated and the significance of showcasing artist-made jewelry on such a grand scale.

The Genesis of Diane Vernet’s Collection

Diane Vernet's passion for artist jewelry began in the 1980s, inspired by her husband, Bernard Vinay, an internationally acclaimed sculptor. Rachel shares a heartwarming anecdote about Diane’s first piece of artist jewelry: "Diane is married to Bernard Vinay, who's a very internationally renowned sculptor. Her first piece of artist jewelry was actually made by Bernard and became their engagement ring" [00:05].

This personal connection laid the foundation for Diane's extensive collection, which now approaches 250 pieces. Unlike traditional collections housed in institutions, Diane keeps a significant portion of her collection with her in Paris, allowing her to wear and personally engage with these artistic pieces [02:50].

Significance of Artist-Made Jewelry

Artist-made jewelry transcends traditional jewelry craftsmanship by merging the realms of fine art and wearable design. These pieces are not mere miniatures of larger artworks but are standalone creations that carry the unique signatures of their creators. As Carol aptly describes, "These are mini works of art that aren't actual miniatures of the artists other work, but at the same time they definitely bear the artist's creative signature" [00:37].

Rachel emphasizes the element of surprise in the exhibition, noting that many attendees may not be aware that iconic artists such as Dorothea Tanning and Jean Arp ventured into jewelry making. "People might not know that these artists made jewelry. And I think what people will find is not only do they make it, but they excel" [08:05].

Curatorial Approach and Exhibition Structure

The exhibition's curation follows a loose chronological order based on art historical movements, creating a narrative that parallels the evolution of art itself. Rachel outlines the structure: "We are organizing the objects more or less by loose art historical movements. So, for example, after we have the introduction of Bernard's engagement ring for Diane, we move into avant garde and surrealism, and then we move into abstraction" [22:29].

To enhance the visitor experience, the exhibition incorporates innovative display techniques:

• Standing Cases: Two pieces of plexiglass allow viewers to feel as though they are seeing the jewelry from the wearer's perspective, fostering a personal connection [22:29].
• Interactive Elements: Table cases permit visitors to imagine how bracelets or rings would look on their own hands [22:29].
• Scale Manipulation: Art objects are hung alongside jewelry to blur the lines between large-scale art and wearable pieces, challenging visitors to question the distinction between art forms [22:29].

Additionally, the use of sheer white fabric interwoven with color codes corresponding to different art movements guides viewers through the exhibition’s thematic transitions [26:01].

Notable Pieces and Artistic Collaborations

A highlight of the collection is Salvador Dali's Watch Hairpiece, a multifunctional brooch that exemplifies the fusion of art and practicality [12:22]. Rachel describes it as "a hairpiece… It would have been like a pin" [12:22], noting its versatility and the artist’s playful approach to functionality.

Alexander Calder stands out as the most prolific artist in the collection, having created approximately 8,000 jewelry pieces [40:38]. His ability to transpose his expertise in sculpture to wearable art is showcased through various unique pieces in the exhibition.

Another intriguing piece is the Anni Albers Drain Cover, adorned with paper clips and transformed into a necklace. Rachel praises its simplicity and the repurposing of everyday objects into artful jewelry: "It's very pretty. But it's everyday objects. And I think of her time at Black Mountain College and all the people that were there" [35:30].

Challenges in Artist Jewelry Making

The episode explores the complexities of defining artist-made jewelry within the broader art world. Rachel discusses the dynamic between artists designing pieces and the fabricators who bring these visions to life: "Some of these artists made their own pieces and some of these artists designed the pieces and then worked with fabricators. And so I think she was probably looking to those studios as well" [09:06].

The conversation also touches upon the commercialization of artist jewelry, particularly with contemporary artists like Damien Hirst, who produces pieces in large editions. Rachel reflects on the balance between artistic integrity and mass production: "The idea of maximalism… producing a lot of work and seeing the monetary gains of those outputs" [13:46].

The Future and Importance of Artist Jewelry

Both Carol and Rachel underscore the importance of artist-made jewelry as a medium for personal expression and as a bridge between fine art and everyday life. Rachel expresses hope that the exhibition will inspire other artists to explore jewelry making: "I think artist jewelry is, I hope, an ever growing field. Maybe this show will encourage other artists to think of a new form of art making and allow people to make their own statements through their creative output" [38:14].

Furthermore, the episode highlights the evolving landscape of jewelry making, with platforms like Etsy democratizing access for emerging artists to showcase and sell their creations directly to consumers. Rachel envisions a future where artist jewelry remains a vibrant form of creative expression, accessible to a broader audience: "If someone wants to wear it, then they can choose whoever they want to purchase something from" [41:24].

Conclusion

Carol and Rachel conclude with reflections on the exhibition's anticipated impact on both traditional jewelry enthusiasts and art aficionados. Rachel anticipates a diverse audience, from those accustomed to luxury estate pieces to individuals intrigued by the artistic dimension of jewelry: "We have 1.5 million people that live on the west side of the museum who don't deal in everyday luxury but would also be interested in seeing what artists can make when they propose jewelry" [43:58].

As the Norton Museum prepares for its grand opening, the Diane Vernet Collection promises to be a transformative showcase that redefines the boundaries of jewelry as an art form. Carol encourages listeners to visit the exhibition and experience firsthand the enchanting convergence of art and adornment.

---

Notable Quotes:

• "People might not know that these artists made jewelry. And I think what people will find is not only do they make it, but they excel." — Rachel Guffstafson [08:05]

• "Artist jewelry is, I hope, an ever growing field. Maybe this show will encourage other artists to think of a new form of art making and allow people to make their own statements through their creative output." — Rachel Guffstafson [38:14]

• "If someone wants to wear it, then they can choose whoever they want to purchase something from." — Rachel Guffstafson [41:24]

---

About the Podcast:

If Jewels Could Talk with Carol Woolton explores the multifaceted world of jewelry, delving into its historical context, design intricacies, and the personal stories behind each piece. Hosted by Carol Woolton, Britain's leading authority on jewelry and gemstones, the podcast is a treasure trove for jewelry enthusiasts, design aficionados, and anyone captivated by the stories that precious stones can tell.

For more episodes and information, visit carolwalton.com.

Transcript

[Rachel Guffstafson]

Making your own mark in the world by how people see you is important, just as important as your voices in the world. So yeah, I think artist jewelry is, I hope, an ever growing field. Maybe this show will encourage other artists to think of a new form of art making and allow people to make their own statements through their creative output.

[Carole Houlton]

I'm Carole Houlton, the voice of jewellery. Welcome to if Jules Could Talk. I'm an author and broadcaster and the woman who initiated the role of jewellery editor at magazines like Tatler and Vogue. This is a podcast for everyone, for people who do like jewellery, for people who don't realize they like jewellery, and anyone intrigued by fascinating facts, new ideas and forgotten histories. So join me as I tell sparkly tales and meet all sorts of people delving into four centuries of jewellery culture and investigate what's happening now. Today we are talking about artists jewellery. These are mini works of art that aren't actual miniatures of the artists other work, but at the same time they definitely bear the artist's creative signature. So they can be pendants, rings, brooches, which like a painting or sculpture, spring from the same creative approach of the artist, but it has a different purpose and that is to be worn. From April 12th this month until October, the Norton Museum of Art in West Palm Beach, Florida are holding an exhibition titled Artist Jewellery From Cubism to Pop the Diane Vernet Collection, which spans a time period from the second half of the 20th century to today, including works by Picasso, Man Ray, Jeff Koons, Alexander Calder, Salvador Dali, etc. And I am delighted today to welcome the Norton's chief curatorial operations and research officer, Rachel Guffstafson, who worked closely with the collector Diane Vannet on the show and collection with which is the largest of its kind in the world. Rachel, thank you very much for joining us today.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

Thank you Carol, for the warm introduction.

[Carole Houlton]

And first of all, I want to know, has Diane been collecting since the 1980s and how many pieces do you think are in her collection?

[Rachel Guffstafson]

Well, from my understanding it's approaching 250. The exact number is up for debate, but the latest figure she gave me was 225 and she's still out there looking for new acquisitions. Wow, it's ever growing.

[Carole Houlton]

And where does she keep all these?

[Rachel Guffstafson]

You know, a lot of them are actually with her. She very much wants to be in a situation where she has access to them and is able to wear them. So from my understanding is they're with her in Paris most of the time.

[Carole Houlton]

And did you go to Paris to look through the collection to decide what to exhibit.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

You know, that would have been a great use of curatorial funds, but I did not indeed do that. I wish I had the opportunity. But what we did do is deanne and I worked very closely on the selection of the jewelry pieces in the show. And so there was. It's very much, I'd say, like the jewelry pieces. It's kind of a guest curation, if that makes sense. Deanne is very much driving the decision making behind which jewelry pieces best reflect kind of the wide expanse of artists that do make jewelry. Whereas my contributions were looking at that list and finding. I'm using air quotes here, but more traditional artworks in the Norton's collection that kind of speak to her collection to show this much larger history of artists working across medium in surprising ways. Because I think the big undertone of this show is surprise, because many people don't know that these artists made jewelry. And I think what people will find is not only do they make it, but. But they excel. And so that's kind of was more my contribution was our collection curation. And in conversation with deanne's curation for her collection.

[Carole Houlton]

So how many pieces did you boil it down to?

[Rachel Guffstafson]

189. So we didn't boil down much. Nearly the whole thing.

[Carole Houlton]

She hasn't got much jewelry to wear right now. You've stripped her.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

She doesn't. I wonder. She's probably thinking pretty hard about what she'll wear to the opening because there isn't much left to bring with her. But yeah, it's almost the full collection that we're exhibiting, which is great.

[Carole Houlton]

That really is amazing because often in these shows you see one or two pieces and you don't see a significant body of work, as it were.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

Yeah, this is a real grouping. And, you know, compared with that, there's 64 works from the Norton's collection. So in terms of a number of objects, this is a very big show. This is probably one of the biggest exhibitions. And in terms of things to see objects, to see artworks, to see that.

[Carole Houlton]

We'Ve ever done, that's so exciting. Tell us a little bit of how Diane started to collect.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

I love this story. It's a bit of a romantic story. Some people may know this, but Diane is married to Bernard Vinay, who's a very internationally renowned sculptor. And I believe the story goes, as I understand it, that her first piece of artist jewelry was actually made by Bernard and that piece became their engagement ring. If you're familiar with Bernard sculpture, it does tend to take on geometric Shapes, whether that's lines or circles. And so the ring that's actually exhibited in the show, it'll be the first, the only object on view in the first gallery people enter is this ring. And so you think of jewelry. I'm sure this comes up on your show all the time, Carol. But the gesture of giving jewelry and how intimate that is, and that really began the beginning of deanne's appreciation and really dedication to collecting jewelry pieces by artists and feeling like she too could be part of an artist's oeuvre by wearing these pieces. So it really began because of her and Bernard's relationship. And then also I should point out, artists tend to gravitate towards other artists. So Bernard had his own circle of folks that would come in and out of their lives. Frank Stella is a prime examp where deanne was actually able to, because of their relationship, because of their friendship, talk artists into making jewelry pieces that never thought that they'd ever make jewelry. And so there is this really thrilling intimacy, a circle of friends, you know, that is the underpinning for the whole interest.

[Carole Houlton]

I think deanne has, I think she calls it, I've seen her collection is an intimate museum. I would agree, because it's so compact, but because artist jewelry is essentially a key that combines private history and the history of art. But the history of art because as you say, she had this special access, right?

[Rachel Guffstafson]

That's true.

[Carole Houlton]

If you didn't have the access, you might not have strong armed people into making jewelry.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

Yeah, I mean, it's a lot easier to convince someone to do something when you're friendly with them than when they're a stranger. So yes, that is true.

[Carole Houlton]

And with the engagement ring in the first room, do you have one of Bennard's sculptures as well alongside?

[Rachel Guffstafson]

We tried really hard, but unfortunately we weren't able get something that was close enough to South Florida. But the best thing that we were able to do was we've included a to scale reproduction. So right alongside the jewelry piece, the ring, you'll see at scale, like a large photo mural that shows his large scale sculpture that creates kind of sets the tone for this idea that the artist's main form of jewelry making or main form of art making aligns with the jewelry making. And so it's kind of the perfect thesis to kick off the rest of the show.

[Carole Houlton]

Because it is. You really see it, don't you?

[Rachel Guffstafson]

Oh, absolutely.

[Carole Houlton]

Reflected in that miniature form.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

It's kind of. That's the part that was again, surprise is the word. I'll Keep on coming back to. But as an art historian, that was the most surprising part to me as, as we were looking at these jewelry pieces by someone like Dorothea Tanning or Jean Arp, and then you look at these objects in our collection by the same artists, not only do you see the same gestural mark making, but in some cases you see the same forms. And so these are things that are stuck in artists heads and they just reveal themselves across media. Whether it's jewelry or printmaking or painting or sculpture, they're there.

[Carole Houlton]

So once she'd maybe exhausted their close circle, what do you think she went on to? How do you think her mind works when she's looking for a piece of jewelry to add to their collection?

[Rachel Guffstafson]

Well, I would say deanne is absolutely an art historian as well. I think she was, and this is a guess on my part because we haven't spoke in depth about this element of her collecting, but she knew her history. I think she knew which artists engaged with jewelry making. Of course, Alexander Calder comes to top of mind because he was a prolific jewelry maker. And I think her hunt for other artists that worked in this form of art making just continued from there. Of Calder's works in the show, we have three unique pieces. So those are hard to come by. Even though he was so prolific. The unique pieces are. You don't come across them every day. So I really do think it became kind of a dedicated search on her part to see which other artists throughout history engaged in jewelry making and then also the fabricators they worked with. I'm sure this will come up later in our conversation, Carol, but some of these artists made their own pieces and some of these artists designed the pieces and then worked with fabricators. And so I think she was probably looking to those studios as well to see who else might be engaging with this very different or just maybe unfamiliar kind of art making.

[Carole Houlton]

But why don't tell us a bit about that now because do you think that affected her, her view of it? When you have somebody who might have made by their own hand, like Alexander Calder allegedly did before he went out to dinner, he'd knock up somebody's initial and give it to them at dinner. So, you know, it came literally with his fingerprints on to somebody like Salvador Dali who would design and do a drawing, but then that was out of his hands and it went into, as you say, fabricators hands.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

To me, that's such an essential art question because it doesn't just happen in jewelry making. It happens throughout all of art history, really. But it is an interesting question. I think when you think of artist as designer and then artist as art maker, people do kind of place an emphasis or more of a value on art made by the hands of the artist. That's why, for example, maybe printmaking is more accessible in the market than a unique drawing is. I think that's maybe something society places on value on the aura of the artist. But in my mind, the artist is still dreaming up the idea. And who puts the idea into motion? Who realizes the idea is important? But the idea is. You think of conceptual art. Someone like Lawrence Weiner, whose work is actually in the exhibition, he proved, and many other conceptual artists, that the artist's contribution is the idea, not necessarily the material object. And so I think we can see some separation. And I will say, I think people like Francois Hugo and Jem Montebello that worked closely with the artists, they're contributors. You know, they were able to do things in jewelry making that the artists couldn't do by themselves. And I think it's important to acknowledge those fabricators. And when we do know who they are, that information is included on the label in the exhibition. So we think that's important.

[Carole Houlton]

But somebody like Salvador Dali. You've got an amazing piece, haven't you? Which is.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

Yes, the watch hairpiece.

[Carole Houlton]

It's a part watch, part co.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

Exactly.

[Carole Houlton]

Sort of multifunctional. And what is it? A brooch, Right.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

It is actually, the way we understand it is it's a hairpiece. So it would have been like a pin. Yeah.

[Carole Houlton]

Not so handy to tell the time up there, but.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

No, no, not so much. I think the funny thing, too, about these brooch pieces, what I'm finding is people wear them as they'd like. You know, it might be intended as a pin, but if someone wants to wear it as a pendant or someone wants to put it in their hair, it's up to the wearer. A lot of these pieces, I think, can be worn in various ways.

[Carole Houlton]

But that might be an edition of quite a few, mightn't it? For instance, I think that sound piece.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

Is like one of nine or eight. So it's a small addition. There are some artists in the show. I'm trying to think of an example off the top of my head, but more contemporary artists, where you see an edition of like, 200, and. Yeah, then you start asking questions about authorship. Again, the aura of the artist, things start getting a little bit more commercialized is a word I could use. But the idea still generated with the artist. And I don't like losing Sight of that.

[Carole Houlton]

Something like Damien Hirst's pill bracelet, for instance. Correct.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

That's a great example. Yes.

[Carole Houlton]

How many are those knocking around? Probably quite a lot.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

I think it's in the hundreds. I would agree with you there.

[Carole Houlton]

Okay, it's in the hundreds. I did interview him, actually, when he started designing those. He then went on and worked with some Californian guys called Horse and Booth in Gold and collaborating with them.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

I do think, you know, he's definitely a generation of artists kind of post Andy Warhol who are thinking about this idea of maximalism, you know, like producing a lot of work and seeing the monetary gains of those outputs. And I think the charm bracelet in that instance is kind of in tandem with the rest of his art practice when he's making multiples. But it does vary. Carol, you're absolutely right. Like something handmade by Calder 15 minutes before dinner versus this charm bracelet by Hearst. It really strings the gamut of what artists are capable of doing.

[Carole Houlton]

He described it to me. Damien Hirst said, do I want to be the guy who makes the Mona Lisa or do I want to be the guy who puts the Mona Lisa face onto keyrings, pencils, coffee cups? He said, I want to be both.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

Right. And that's perfect. That makes me feel better about what I just said then, because it's in line with his practice.

[Carole Houlton]

And you have to say he's the guy of his era who created that thought.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

Exactly.

[Carole Houlton]

And created his art with that idea.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

In mind, a la Andy Warhol. For sure. I see that. To your point, though, I do see the difference between an artist who's physically made the jewelry object versus a fabricator. But I do think it can get a little gray. I see where places overlap.

[Carole Houlton]

And then do you think sometimes she was attracted by the way an artist's studio and the way they worked? I mean, maybe there were some particular materials that were unusual that she hadn't got included in the collection.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

Oh, yeah. I would say materiality must be a big driving force of deanne's interest, because when you look at all these objects, they are so vast in what they are made out of. And also the imagery that they portray in these miniature pieces of sculpture or artwork. I think that's definitely, you know, it's. It's a varied. You think of. If I think of her collection, like her own jewelry collection, and you think of the way that you, as an individual, collect pieces to accompany, you know, your whole outward facing Persona. It's very diverse, you know, it's very diverse between silver, gemstones, rock. Simplicity versus complexity. So I really do think she has an eye on thinking of the collection as a whole and how she would.

[Carole Houlton]

Wear it, how she would wear it, not just something that she hadn't already got.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

I would say so. I mean, I think. And like, you'll notice in some of these pieces, like there, for example, is a Vasarelli pair of earrings and a bracelet. And when you look at the addition numbers, they're slightly different. Like, it's. I'm just using hypothetical numbers here, but it's like 51 out of 100 is the bracelet, and then the earrings are 49 out of 100. So it's obvious in my mind then that she was looking for the set, couldn't find it in one location, and then sought to get it together. And so I think there's probably twofold here. I think it's the idea of collecting all the work by artists who made jewelry. So let me use a word like encyclopedic to describe that goal. And then I think the secondary goal is, yeah, she loves these pieces. She loves wearing them. So I think she's thinking about how she can deploy them, how they can be part of what she wears day to day.

[Carole Houlton]

Because the Frank Stella necklace, which is a clown's bow tie with an abstracted flower on the. That's 11 inches.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

It's huge. Yeah.

[Carole Houlton]

Crafted in steel and gold paint.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

Yes.

[Carole Houlton]

That's heavy, too.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

Yeah, it's, it's. It's big. You know, with the objects just arrived at the museum. I'm curious about that one. I cannot tell if it's actually going to be if it's heavy as it is or is like the gold paint overlaying some lighter material. But yes, it is a heavy looking thing for sure. And that was one of the pieces she convinced an artist into making. So, you know, by our accounts, the first jewelry piece someone like Frank Stella would make, you know, first drafts are never the final drafts. So I think as we see with Stella moves on in his jewelry making, things get a little bit more tightened up, you know, not as unwieldy on the neckline. But this is so interesting in the fact that it was his first piece and she compelled him to make it.

[Carole Houlton]

And do you think she wanted to know what an artist like that was going to make or did she just give them carte blanche?

[Rachel Guffstafson]

That's a good question. I mean, I would assume she gave them carte blanche and was just curious to see, you know, she probably looked being so close to someone like Bernard and Living with him day to day and seeing how he realizes ideas small and large. I would be very sure that she was just interested in seeing what Stella could do if Stella went small. Because, as we know, historically, he doesn't tend to do that in his own art making. So the challenge of varying your scale is not something that is easily done. I think it's very. As an art historian, as I look at objects all the time, it's very easy to be impressive when something is big because you're a human, and it makes you feel small. When something is larger than you, when you bring the scale down, it's harder to be impressed. You know, you really have to look at form in a different way. And I think she was probably curious to see how he'd realize that.

[Carole Houlton]

Yes, it's not easy, is it? And so many artists in other areas, be it architecture, fashion, are then attracted to jewelry. And I don't know whether it is a small scale or they can realize it quickly, more quickly than maybe a large building or a whole fashion collection, maybe over many years, but it's not necessarily something that they can get right.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

Yeah, I think it's definitely trial and error. I would say that across all art making. You know, I had the privilege just a few weeks ago of seeing a Calder mobile from the 1960s that someone is considering loaning to the Norton. And I walked in there having this show on my mind, and I'm like, oh, my goodness, this is a pair of earrings at a grand scale or a necklace or a bracelet of his at a grand scale. And it kind of gives you goosebumps, because no matter where Caulder is going, whether it's giant mobiles meant to fill a big space or something to adorn the human body, he is thinking of proportion. He is thinking of how it relates to. To the larger whole. And I think what seeing the jewelry and seeing that sculpture in such close proximity, in my mind, I was like, oh, it's undoubtedly true that this artist understands the implication of size, whether that be, again, on a smaller scale or on a larger scale. But I think some artists just really excel at that. They know, like, what will hold a space. And again, is that space a museum wall? Is it your home, or is it your ring finger? And I think really talented artists can do that across the board.

[Carole Houlton]

And I suppose some of the shapes they work in are more easily transcribed. You know, sort of squiggles, swirls, and shapes easily. You can see a story easily, can't you?

[Rachel Guffstafson]

Absolutely.

[Carole Houlton]

Whereas maybe some other motifs aren't so readily made wearable.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

Yeah. And I would say, too, like, even different art movements in time, like the human body doesn't have many right angles. Right. Maybe our nose or our cheekbones, if we're lucky. But when you think of architectural spaces, there's a lot more hard lines. And so I do think in different art movements, like, for example, abstraction. When you look at artists that deal with abstraction, I think their jewelry is very successful because there's a lot of relationships happening, I think, between the sinuous curves of a human and the sinuous curves of a. That sometimes abstraction can take. Other times, you know, something like geometric abstraction, you have all these hard angles and you see that then in the jewelry. But then that complements the human body because they're opposites. So I do think different moments in time in art making also reveal themselves as like, good moments for jewelry making. I don't know if that makes sense, but there's relationships there between different periods of art making and how they translate into jewelry.

[Carole Houlton]

I suppose, actually, the way we dress now is quite helpful to artists. Jewellery, because you do need a sort of plain background, don't you?

[Rachel Guffstafson]

Yeah. There's more skin showing than before. Yes.

[Carole Houlton]

So now, faced with these 198 pieces, how did you decide to structure the exhibition? I'm interested by that, that whether or not you thought, now, this is jewelry or these are artworks? I mean, did you try to hang it in the way you would hang an art exhibition?

[Rachel Guffstafson]

It's a great question. This is probably the big challenge of the show was exhibition. I will say we worked with Dan's concepts of tracing art historical chronology. So we are organizing the objects more or less by loose art historical movements. So, for example, after we have the introduction of Bernard's engagement ring for Diane, we move into avant garde and surrealism, and then we move into abstraction. We go to minimalism and conceptualism, Kinetic art, Pop art, and then we ended contemporary. And so we do follow this loose chronology, because what you'll notice, of course, that the artists cannot be separated in the moment in which they're making their artwork. So the jewelry follows the same ideas that reveal themselves in their other forms of art making. So we felt it was easiest for the viewer to kind of understand those developments if we follow kind of loose timelines that they might already be familiar with just generally. And so to realize the show and have a relationship between the works from our collection and the jewelry, we did very purposely mess with scale. So what you'll notice in this show is there's a grouping of Standing cases, wall based cases, table cases, and then wall installations. And for the standing cases, basically what that is is it's two pieces of plexi that sandwich the jewelry. So you, as a visitor, can walk behind one of those cases and see or feel like someone else on the other side can be looking at you while that jewelry is stationed on your body. So there's a few of these moments where you're able to, like, embody yourself or insert yourself in the role of the wearer. There's a few table cases where you can slide your hand underneath a plexi box and look at a bracelet or a ring as it would look on your own hand. So we wanted to bring in the wearer into those moments. And then as we flipped the script to the art objects, we wanted to kind of show that relationship between adorning the walls of a building and jewelry adorning the body. So you'll notice a lot of our artwork in this show is hung up rather high. There's also rope attached to paintings so it looks like they're pendants. And so there's a few of these things where we're intentionally asking people to look closely at small things and then step back and look at large things so you can kind of maybe challenge the way you perceive both large and small objects. So we hope people walk away from the show being a little maybe confused about which is which. The jewelry, what's the art? I think my question is, why do we need the distinction? And hopefully the exhibition design reinforces that idea.

[Carole Houlton]

That's really interesting. I haven't seen that done before.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

If I survive this one, I'll be impressed. We also draped all the walls of the exhibition in fabric. So there's this reinforcement of clothing also behind the artwork. Again, to insert this body that's missing from the architectural space. If we're asking the question about why does jewelry need to be separate from art making at large? And I would argue it doesn't.

[Carole Houlton]

So what is the fabric?

[Rachel Guffstafson]

It's a sheer white fabric. And then what you'll notice is all those loose chronological moments that I mentioned where we're grouping objects by art movement, Each of them have a color code. So, for example, surrealism in avant garde is like this really lovely teal blue. And so the sheer fabric goes over the blue, and you see that through the fabric to denote, okay, these are all the objects that are in this moment. And then you move to pop art and it goes pink, and you move to surrealism, or, I'm sorry, minimalism. And it's gray. Abstraction is yellow. And so you have these pops of color behind the sheer fabric. Not everywhere, but in some moments to kind of help us organize our ideas around why certain objects are grouped together.

[Carole Houlton]

And the viewer to sort of feel they have a flow that.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

Exactly.

[Carole Houlton]

To announce they're entering into a new space. A new space, Absolutely.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

That's right.

[Carole Houlton]

Yeah. So contemporary is right now, is it? What's the age span of the contemporary section?

[Rachel Guffstafson]

I would say for most, by and large, the contemporary objects. And this isn't always the case because some artists are still living and are in other sections of the show. But the contemporary grouping is more or less objects made after 1970 and artists that are, by the most part, very much active living, still making work today.

[Carole Houlton]

What I was very surprised about was I never realized that Yoko Ono had made a piece or two of jewelry that I really. That's. I had no idea. And that's somebody who's written about artist jewelry quite a bit. I mean, where did Diane find Yoko Ono's work?

[Rachel Guffstafson]

You know, I'll have to ask her about that one. That was a surprise to me as well. There were a few other artists that, to me, jewelry just doesn't translate in their practice as much. Like Rasheed Johnson, for example. I had no idea that he made this Anxious man ring, which is like part of his bigger series of painting, but it's the same circular figurative face image is on the face of this ring as it is in a painting that's downstairs in the Norton's galleries right now. But I had no clue. Like, I know him as a multidisciplinary artist, but had no idea that he dabbled into this part of art making. So I would agree, like, Yoko Ono was a surprise to me as well. I didn't know that that was. You know, I know her more for performance art and conceptual art than any object making. So that was quite different and unexpected.

[Carole Houlton]

And this was a ring called Imagine? Yes, in yellow gold in the form of a record.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

That's right.

[Carole Houlton]

So it must be associated with John Lennon's Imagine.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

Exactly. It's very much a reference to that.

[Carole Houlton]

Song, their piece Activism, right in the seventies. That's so great. Anything else you think people are going to find really surprising?

[Rachel Guffstafson]

Again, I think people are going to be surprised at the varied number of artists who engage in jewelry making. And for me, there is this, and I've mentioned this on a few different interviews, but it's definitely worth repeating is, you know, I've been studying art approaching, like, 25 years now. And so many of these artists, I just had no idea. I knew they were sculptors, I knew they were painters, but I had no idea that they got into jewelry making. And then I was asking myself, you know, we'd have curatorial meetings, we would talk with colleagues, and when I would say, I'm doing an artist jewelry show, I would get a bit of a look like, oh, you are, you know, okay. And a bit of an undervaluing of the idea that someone's also making jewelry because it's not the fine arts. Again, using air quotes. Because there's always been this wide gap between. Between craft things that are usually associated with female production or female wear, whether that's like, textiles, for example, or ceramics and jewelry making versus the more traditional painting, sculptor, printmaking, photography. So I noticed there was this, like, kind of veiled cynicism towards the idea of artists making jewelry. And I wanted to understand why, because I even carried it. I was like, oh, it's an artist jewelry show. I don't know, how are we gonna make this work? Because I didn't know the depth of the history. But now that I'm there and I'm in it and we're making this challenging, these ideas about, well, why do we need this separation? You know, I hope that's something people take away, too, is that an artist's creativity is unbounded. It doesn't matter what they make. And I think as society, we probably need to loosen our reins a little bit on what is a valued object versus unvalued objects. And then the history of jewelry being a luxury good. I mean, that's a whole nother. And art being a luxury good. Right. So there is this, like, societal underpinning under this show that if you look a little bit closely, I think you'll be asking yourself some questions when you leave. And in my mind, that's good.

[Carole Houlton]

I think part of that. Do you think it stems from the fact that people think jewelry is something that should be made here? The air quotes for me, precious materials, I. E. It's got to have a diamond. It's got to have this. But actually, what makes jewelry precious is our association with it and what it means to us. So we embody it with something precious.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

With precious, Absolutely. I mean, I think of the word heirloom a lot usually associated with jewelry because it's something that is precious by its meaning, by the act of giving it, by the act of making it in some cases, and yet it's separate from fine art making, or it feels like it's separate. Fashion feels separate too, for some reason. And yet these are all creative pursuits. And if we're calling someone an artist is not everything. They make art, right? Their soup, perhaps, their cup of coffee, who knows? But the idea is that we're all creative beings and it doesn't matter how big it is or what material you make it out of. So I think that eternal question of what is art is alive and well in this show.

[Carole Houlton]

One thing that is interesting about separating the art and the jewellery is this idea of longevity and permanence. And I think maybe the young British artists of that era really challenged that, didn't they, by creating things that we know now don't stand the test of time. And I'm thinking here, like Mark Quinn's Artist's Garden series of exotic plants preserved in silicone oil, one of my favorites. Well, that won't last.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

It won't. But yet he made a ring in the shape of an orchid that's in this show and that is permanent. In fact, one of your questions that you had shared was, like, what would be an artist I'd want to see make jewelry? And it's funny you said yba, because I was like, I'd love to see Rachel Whiteris, I would love to. And maybe she's made jewelry, I just don't know. But her use of resin, I think would translate well to jewelry making. But you're right, the idea of permanence is absolutely something that artists continue to challenge. And yet we go back to that word heirloom, this idea of jewelry being passed on through generations. So there's a lot of things to unpack, for sure, because maybe we don't have to.

[Carole Houlton]

Maybe we just enjoy it in our lifetime. In our lifetime and it disappears with us.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

That's true.

[Carole Houlton]

Dust to dust, Right? Off it goes.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

I mean, isn't that. The Egyptians were buried with all their jewels. Right. So they took these things. Many, many cultures took their pieces with them into the ground.

[Carole Houlton]

So, yes, definitely. So that's something to think about. Yes. Lots of challenging ideas in this show. So we've got the range of materials. I also saw the Anthony Gormley steel necklace and actually that was interesting because I talked to him about that years ago. The first person to show that when Louisa Guinness.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

Yes.

[Carole Houlton]

Who has actually appeared on the podcast in an earlier show that we did.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

She's a friend of the Norton. Yes, we love her.

[Carole Houlton]

She's a friend of the Norton and she came on to talk about. There was a show in Barcelona about Picasso and we Talked about that then. But when she very first opened her gallery in London, I wrote a story for a national newspaper. I think it was a telegraph. And I photographed Sam Taylor Wood, Anthony Gormley. But I particularly remember the Sam Taylor Wood and Anthony Gormley because he did these big. Which is in your show. The big.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

The blocks.

[Carole Houlton]

Lumps of steel. Blocks. Blocks is a better word than blocks of steel. And when I talked to him about it, he said, you know, we were talking about how people would wear it and maybe just under a white shirt and everything. And then as we talked about it more, he said, the thing is, it's gonna get more beautiful as it rusts.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

Patina. Yeah.

[Carole Houlton]

And then I thought, that's going to rub off on somebody's white shirt.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

Reminds me of a sculpture actually, too.

[Carole Houlton]

Yes. I mean, it is beautiful. It really is beautiful. And Sam Taylor Wood, her piece was really very rude, so I had to be quite careful of how I showed that.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

Yeah, that was on the checklist at one point as well, and came off. So the rude one. Yes, yes, exactly. Maybe not for all audiences, perhaps. I'm not sure.

[Carole Houlton]

So which is your favorite piece, do you think, in the show, if you have one out of so many?

[Rachel Guffstafson]

I do. And this was actually a late addition to the checklist, and I wasn't sure if deanne was going to include it because I think it speaks to your question of preciousness. But it's Anni Albers drain cover with the paper clips attached to it because it is just using everyday throwaway materials. I don't know if this is in your images, but this was a piece that I believe if mine.

[Carole Houlton]

Which part of the show is it in?

[Rachel Guffstafson]

This is in the first chronological grouping. So it's avant garde and surrealism. And essentially what she has done is she's taken a metal. A silver metal drain cover, removed it from its utilitarian purpose and added onto the bottom quarter of the circle paper clips, and has attached a very simple silver chain to the top of it. And so it makes this, like, central circle at your chest. Yeah.

[Carole Houlton]

Very pretty.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

It's very pretty. But it's everyday objects. And I think of her time at Black Mountain College and all the people that were there. Robert Rauschenberg, her husband, you know, just thinking of the ideas and the conversations that must have been had and how she came to the conclusion to make jewelry out of these pieces of garbage, more or less. And I love that story. I love the idea of found objects in art making. I think it just, again, for me, reinforces the idea of, does it matter how the object is displayed in the end, or is it the idea behind the object? And while it is made of throwaway materials, it's beautiful. It's this, like, very simple design, simple shapes, and you have to look closely to be like, what is that? Oh, right.

[Carole Houlton]

I tell you what, it resonates with me. It's sort of like one of these big sort of breastplates that the Bronze Age wore and made.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

Like antiquities of some sort. Yeah, there's a few artists in that section, actually. I think Braque is another one among them, where they are looking at ancient Greek kind of metal making, I think, in their jewelry practice that recall kind of an earlier age of jewelry making. And I find that fascinating as well.

[Carole Houlton]

Do you think it's more important to have sort of artists jewelry in a world where we are more homogenized and there's very little design in so many aspects of our life?

[Rachel Guffstafson]

I think it would be up to the wearer in that point. You know, jewelry is an extension of personal expression, the way fashion is. It's ironic that the piece of jewelry I'm wearing today was something I just bought at a random department store with really not much thought behind it. I should have been more particular on what I was wearing.

[Carole Houlton]

Tell us what it is, Rachel.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

It has. It's like one of those layered necklaces that has a shorter line with small pearls and then a longer thread with a medallion at the bottom of it. But it has the letter C engraved into it, which is the first letter of my daughter's name. And, you know, again, to your point about personalization, about meaning, I think when we pick out these things to wear on our body, we're doing it in a very thoughtful way about who we are and how we want to outwardly present ourselves. And so when you take that to the line of artist jewelry. Yes. I think the answer to your question is yes. Making your own mark in the world by how people see you is important, just as important as your voices in the world. So, yeah, I think artist jewelry is, I hope, an ever growing field. Maybe this show will encourage other artists to think of a new form of art making and allow people to make their own statements through their creative output.

[Carole Houlton]

And actually, every piece in the show, I imagine, has its own story that relates to Diane. And that's the same as your necklace relating to you and your daughter.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

Right. It's a personal choice.

[Carole Houlton]

Is everything commissioned from an artist or did she. She bought some of them at auction.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

She did, yeah. So I Would say more of the contemporary, like, more of the pieces in the contemporary zone. So the last gallery people will see, I would say, is more because of her living relationship with them than something that the artist was already doing and she sought it out. But I'd say there's a. I mean, when I look at the checklist and I look at the number of objects that are listed as unique and, you know, made by the artist, it's a surprisingly large number. It's not exactly half, but it's not far away, so. So there is a fair amount of artists that either made unique pieces and then deanne sought them out, or in some cases, her direct relationship with them becomes the catalyst for them doing this. I think that's lesser the case than the idea of an artist making jewelry on their own. But it is something that has happened because of deanne's insistence in some cases that the artists try another way of art making and bless her for doing it, because we have great examples now.

[Carole Houlton]

Who was the most prolific? Was it Calder or Picasso?

[Rachel Guffstafson]

I think it was Calder for I understood. And maybe you might know. You'll definitely know this better than I will, Carol. I think he made something like 8,000 jewelry pieces. I could be wrong, but it was. It's an intense number because there's quite.

[Carole Houlton]

A lot of Picasso about, too, isn't there? It seems to be.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

There is. And I just can't remember, was he always working with Jim Montebello on that, or was it.

[Carole Houlton]

I think so. I think from quite early on. But they always say he was making it for his wife at the time and his girlfriend. And you think, surely not all those pieces. But then he did have a lot of relationships.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

Oh, he certainly a lot of women to keep happy. So maybe that was part of it.

[Carole Houlton]

And when you said, you know, we should have more of it. How could people start their own collection if they wanted to, do you think?

[Rachel Guffstafson]

Well, this goes back to this. This other idea, these essential questions of, like, the difference between a designer and an artist. There's so many individuals out there that platforms to make jewelry now and sell it to consumers to just general members of the population much more broadly. Like maybe within the last decade, things like Etsy really taking off things like other online distribution elements that allow people who are everyday jewelry makers but don't have a line. Right. Because, like breaking into that. And you'll definitely know more about this, Carol. But like, how people go from being, you know, a designer to being on a jewelry line that then gets carried in stores, you know, In a way that we can actually have access to them. You know, those kind of old traditional lines have kind of broke down it seems with some of these more user based models where the people making the art can also sell it directly. So you know, does it need to be made by a well known artist for us to appreciate artist made jewelry? Or could it be Professor Smith at your local state college who's a sculptor by day and a necklace maker by night? I think that's still critical. And if someone's looking for a unique again piece of personal expression, then they can choose whoever they want to purchase something from. I think that's an interesting change that's probably happened in the last, I'm guessing decade.

[Carole Houlton]

And I guess they could get lucky. This person could then go on to fame and fortune.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

Exactly. You gotta start somewhere and then the.

[Carole Houlton]

Little piece that you bought years ago suddenly has a value. But I guess the point of this, as Deanne wears it the whole time is that this shouldn't be ever jewelry that's locked away in a vault. It should be worn.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

Worn right. And it's the same thing for artwork. There's so many pieces of art that people buy and squirrel away and we never see them again. And same thing with jewelry, it's just perhaps easily done because they're small. But yes, the idea is very still true I think, you know, you buy these pieces to experience them, to let other people experience them. So hopefully people not only want to pursue artist made jewelry, but want to share it by wearing it.

[Carole Houlton]

And having been to Palm beach and been to the Norton and had dinner there. I see there's a very big jewelry wearing community there. Yes, but the jewelry they wear couldn't be more opposite to artists jewelry. Yes, it's big, it's, it's valuable, it's design led, it's estate pieces. How do you think they're going to appreciate this?

[Rachel Guffstafson]

I think people might say, oh, artist jewelry. I'm interested in jewelry, therefore I'll come to the museum and see what this is about. And that's good. I mean that's. We want people obviously in our community have an interest in precious objects. But we also have 1.5 million people that live on the west side of the museum who don't deal in everyday luxury but would also be interested in seeing what jewelry, what artists can make when they propose jewelry. So I think it'll be surprising for everyone, those that are expecting precious jewels made in more traditional ways and people that are surprised to find that an artist can take this other art form. So I think for the people on the island, hopefully they walk away with a smile on their face, but it probably is not what they. They expected. I would. I would agree.

[Carole Houlton]

And you've got the artworks there as well, so there's something for everybody.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

That's true. Yes. I think with this show we'll get people that have always been appreciative of art, but maybe not jewelry, and then people who've always been appreciative of jewelry, but maybe not art. And we'll get people to cross into our space that wouldn't otherwise. So that's a great thing as well.

[Carole Houlton]

Well, I hope I get over to see it and. Oh, please do, Rachel. Thank you so much for talking us through it. It's fascinating and you've curated a wonderful show and I hope as many people as possible will come and see it.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

Thank you. And we are so grateful to Deanne as well for being this willing to share her collection and engage in this conversation with me so people can see this is not a one off. These artists make this form or tell this story in all these different ways. So thank you. Thank you, Deanne.

[Carole Houlton]

And no pressure about what she's going to wear that opening night.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

I have so many. I am worrying right now about what jewelry I need to go find for the opening show. I need to go do some like thrifting on the island, I think. But yeah, that is a big thing on my to do list here.

[Carole Houlton]

I guess it'll be quite a big gala evening.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

Yeah. So it's funny because this point in the time of the year, around April, we'll start seeing like attendance go down because people are leaving South Florida or perhaps people are starting to do their summer vacations. But we have like hundreds of people scheduled to come to the opening. So I think people are excited the word got out.

[Carole Houlton]

Good. Well, thank you very much for telling us all about it. Thank you, Rachel.

[Rachel Guffstafson]

Thank you, Carol. It's a pleasure.

[Carole Houlton]

Thank you for listening for this and other episodes of it. If Jules Could Talk. And we have a back catalogue of nearly 100 episodes. Go to carolwalton.com and do share it any way you can. We have a very large community now, globally, so share it, pass the word on and leave us a comment and a rating and a star if you feel like it and join me again in two weeks for the next jeweled nugget. In the meantime, don't forget that if Jules Could Talk, the book is out in all good bookstores and Amazon so you can hear more of our stories or read more of our stories on that, and indeed you can hear them. It's available on audio. And join me again in two weeks when I will be talking to an absolute jewellery legend. A woman who's been in the industry for decades has an extraordinary reputation that precedes her, and quite possibly she has just about the finest collection of rare stones and gems and jewelry in the world. So join me in two weeks to find out who she is. And thank you for listening. Bye. Bye. If Jules Could Talk with Carole Walton is produced by Natasha Cowan. Music and editing by Tim Thornton. Graphics by Scott Bentley. Illustration by Jordi Labander. It.