Watch 1830 - 1840

Editor: We’re looking at a silver pocket watch, made sometime between 1830 and 1840. The craftsmanship seems very delicate. What do you see in this piece beyond just its surface appeal? Curator: Well, this isn’t just a timepiece, it’s a potent marker of social standing and labor. Who had access to this type of luxury, and who toiled to produce it? Consider the silver itself: its extraction, processing, and the silversmithing. The elaborate ornamentation, seemingly frivolous, speaks volumes about class division. Editor: I see what you mean. It's easy to get caught up in the aesthetics, but you’re right, it's about the whole production line. The floral patterns… how do those connect to the social context? Curator: The floral design, quite common in decorative arts, becomes almost weaponized here. The high bourgeoisie wanted to differentiate themselves, and that meant consumption, materiality and refinement as methods of distinction. Look at the labour embedded into it - the flowers are repeated using similar techniques which suggests a system of production which reduces time. How did new techniques change the value assigned to this type of adornment over time? Editor: So it’s not just about beauty; it's about conspicuous consumption, made possible by systems of labour we rarely consider? Curator: Exactly. What we consider decorative is in many ways structural. Where do you think watch making was going as mass-production methods developed? Editor: I guess I hadn't thought about the economic statement it makes. Thanks! I’ll definitely look at similar objects differently now. Curator: Good. Recognizing that connection between the decorative and its broader context can bring new life into decorative art.