![]() Now, none of us are likely to acquire ownership of either a Leonardo da Vinci painting or the Bavarian Crown Jewels anytime soon. In the final analysis, I believe the Crown of the King of Bavaria is every bit a masterpiece for the ages as the Mona Lisa, albeit crafted from gems and precious metals instead of paints. So in a very real sense I don't think it is even possible to directly compare the two works. They are both phenomenal pieces of art, even though one is a painting and the other is a piece of jewelry.īut they are also very different works. Yes, the Crown of the King of Bavaria is one of the minor arts, but is it really any less impressive than the Mona Lisa? I think the answer is no. It simply doesn't show up on society's cultural radar. And until it was removed in 1931, this royal regalia also held the stunning and historically important Wittelsbach Diamond, a 35.56 carat, deep gray-blue diamond.Īnd yet, few people have ever heard of the Crown of the King of Bavaria. The result was a magnificent gold and silver crown encrusted with countless diamonds, rubies, pearls and emeralds. This magnificent work of minor art was designed and crafted in Paris in 1806-1807 by the very best jewelers of the Napoleonic court, including the most renowned goldsmith of the time, Martin-Guillaume Biennais. It was commissioned for king Maximilian I Joseph of Bavaria in 1806. The photo accompanying this article shows the Crown of the King of Bavaria - one of the Bavarian Crown Jewels. Let's examine one specific example of the minor arts as a point of comparison. But does it really deserve its reputation as the single greatest painting ever created in human history? And, by the same token, is the Mona Lisa really better than every single one of the minor arts ever created? It is a very fine late Italian Renaissance painting created by a renowned artist. Now there is nothing wrong with paintings in general or the Mona Lisa in particular. In fact, the very first art historian, Giorgio Vasari, breathlessly wrote about the Mona Lisa in his groundbreaking 16th century book "The Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors and Architects". It has also been over-analyzed by smitten art historians for centuries. It has been endlessly mythologized in popular culture, such as Dan Brown's bestselling book "The Da Vinci Code". I think this dogma has been a great disservice to the fields of both art history and art connoisseurship.įor example, everyone has heard of Leonardo da Vinci's masterpiece painting, the Mona Lisa. Throughout history, academia has had the tendency to diminish the importance of the minor arts while endlessly analyzing and discussing the major arts. The minor arts include jewelry, silverware, objets d'art, coins, miniature sculptures and carvings - in short, anything excluded by the "major arts" such as paintings, prints and monumental sculptures. When I write about art on the Antique Sage website, what I'm usually referring to is a relatively obscure category of art known as the "minor arts". In addition, because paintings and sculptures are intimately associated with the idea of art in the public mind, the field has largely been scoured clean of investment bargains. For one thing, they tend to be relatively large, requiring a great deal of space to properly display. And while these categories of art have been the traditional focus for artists, art critics and wealthy art collectors for centuries, I generally find them to be the least interesting type of art from an investment standpoint. When I talk about investing in art, most people assume I'm talking about paintings and sculpture. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |