Does Watchmaking Deserve a Place Among the Arts?
Originally published on the author’s substack: https://remontoirblog.substack.com/p/does-watchmaking-deserve-a-place
Ask me what my favorite works of art are, and you’re likely to get a limited genre of responses.
Among the sculptures, you’ll hear Michelangelo’s Pietà or Strazza’s Veiled Virgin. Almost anything by Frederic Edwin Church alongside California Spring by Albert Bierstadt will round out the paintings. Or if I’m thinking a little more outside the box that day, anything from fine poems and literature to the stunning architecture of the Masjid Putra to the chiaroscuro cinematographic excellence of The Godfather might spring to mind.
Yet even as I engage with you in this pleasant hypothetical discussion and reply with my preferences from the worlds of cinema, painting, architecture, sculpture, or music, a little work of art strapped to my wrist can only look on in silent offense.
As I am still young and equipped with a similarly young budget, you won’t catch any particularly outstanding horological masterpieces on my wrist just yet. Nonetheless, I know quite well the intricacies of the finest watches—certainly much better than I know what creates the appeal of a masterful painting. Why is it that when asked this question, I don’t respond with the likes of an MB&F Horological Machine or a vintage Rolex with cloisonné dial?
Although my anecdote may have been slightly hyperbolic, the core point is true for not just myself, but almost all watch collectors. Watchmaking is excluded from conversations about fine arts. Watches are just watches, you’re probably thinking. Their own distinct category. Isn’t there a difference between the painter at his easel and the watchmaker at his bench?
Outside of the context of a watch fair or boutique, even those most enamored with our little wrist-worn wonders tend to simply forget about them when it comes to a discussion of the arts. I’ve certainly found as much to be the case for myself.
It’s a fascinating situation, if you really begin to think about it. Is there a true difference between a watchmaker and an artist?
Let’s begin to break this down. For the most part, aside from modern art, the painter seeks to represent reality on their canvas—although the manner of representation can change. The classical sculptor, likewise, seeks to represent reality in such a vibrant manner that it appears fundamentally alive.
In this context, a watch seems out of place. A wristwatch certainly does not seek to represent reality—could this be the core of the reason why we do not classify watchmaking and fine art together?
Yet there is another artistic element that must be strongly considered here as well: that of storytelling. Much of great art is meant to inspire and encourage through the use of a thousand unspoken words. Consider Cellini’s Perseus with the Head of Medusa, an image of triumph over tyranny and evil. At a glance, it recalls a legend that would’ve been well-known at the time that it was painted
In the same way, watches tell a story. The renowned watch writer Jack Forster discussed as much in his excellent article “The Real Problem with Double Wristing.” In it, he postulates that the appeal of many watches is strongly related to the story they tell. A classic gold Cartier Tank, for example, evokes Golden Era Hollywood charm. Many different models by independent watchmaker GoS recall ancient days of Viking glory. A Breguet Classique hearkens back to the 18th-century creations of the greatest watchmaker ever.
Wearing any one of these pieces immerses you in its story, Forster argues. The same is true of beholding many wonderful works of art. Just like our Perseus above.
More than that, the aesthetic appeal of each artistic masterpiece, that which makes countless works of art timeless and transcendent, is equally true for horological masterpieces. A Berneron Mirage is crafted with the same aesthetic eye as a carefully composed painting. Colors, text, images, and materials all intermingle to form a coherent and appealing whole.
Perhaps most important is the fact that a fine watch is not simply made, it is crafted. I’m aware that that statement has become so cliché that many of my horologically inclined readers will inadvertently cringe upon reading it. Nonetheless, it remains true. It is a labor of passion, realized by the hands of an artisanal master who devotes months to its conception and construction. Just like an artistic masterpiece.
Watches aren’t for everybody, sure. Neither are paintings, sculptures, architecture, or cinema.
However, it’s also clear that each of these latter arts holds an indisputable appeal for viewers due to their aesthetic qualities. Not everyone will become obsessed with studying each brushstroke of a master painter or learning how living flesh is hewn from cold blocks of marble. Yet when the vast majority of people see these works, they are captivated by beauty. The patrons of art museums are not all art history students.
In the same manner, a beautiful wristwatch holds an aesthetic appeal for just about any onlooker. Experienced in person, a well-crafted watch is a thing of transcendent beauty.
Of course, most people would leave such an aesthetic experience with horology not much changed. Just like when they saw that over-hyped Monet at the art museum. They’re not going to go research it and obsess over it. They enjoy it in the moment and leave.
If watches are capable of eliciting the same response as any other fine art, if their appeal is as transcendent across time as an artistic masterpiece, if their appreciation sparks just the same devotion enjoyed by the finest artists—then why aren’t they considered art by the general public?
I have a theory.
Perhaps the key is accessibility.
Masterpieces from Van Gogh, Monet, Picasso, or da Vinci sell for multiple millions of dollars. Sometimes hundreds of millions. And if forking over such a staggering sum was the only way that someone could really appreciate these wonders in person, I think it’s a clear conclusion that they would be a pleasure only enjoyed by the very rich or the very dedicated.
Just like luxury watches.
To be fair, there are already a number of spectacular museums and galleries dedicated to celebrating the wristwatch. The NAWCC Museum, for example, I have visited twice already, and each time is a renewed delight.
But strikingly, wristwatches do not have any place in the art museums of the world. The ones that people visit just because they feel like they should, and end up falling almost by accident into a cultural experience. These are filled with all other physical art forms—glassblowing, sculpture, painting, sketching, jewelry, calligraphy, photography, architecture—and are bereaved of horology.
Does an original Breguet which has seen the touch of the greatest-ever watchmaker’s hand deserve its place among these other scions of cultural beauty? Is the indisputable beauty of a cloisonné enameled Patek Philippe Worldtimer worthy of a place alongside many other paintings? Or is a Jean-Pierre Hagmann case deserving of a spot next to the finest sculptures?
Yes, a thousand times yes. Anyone who has taken a moment to study the history and craftsmanship of these stunning timepieces will be more than aware of their cultural, artistic, and societal value.
The final conclusion from this essay thus becomes quite clear. Quite simply, the watch museums are not enough. It goes without saying that very few people are going to patronize a watch museum who haven’t already had their eyes opened to the beauty of watchmaking.
This article is probably not going to cause that change. But regardless, the potential for change is there.
