I’ve been away but not gone — swamped with getting ready for Gossip Girl and graduations and art fairs. But I’ve been checking out my daily Google Alerts and reading the papers: continually amazed by what passes for jewelry – soul-inspired, nose rings, “steam punk”, “cheap” advertised everywhere. I don’t get it — maybe I’m just an old fuddy-duddy.

I waited a long time to find out if any of my four pieces of jewelry that were taken — and are still held — by the stylists of Sex and the City 2 would appear in the film, which I saw a few nights ago. They were not in it (and I really want them back). The movie was all about the clothes, which you either like or not (I, and many others as I hear it, did not), and any jewelry shown was rather incidental as often happens, depending on what is being sold. So you don’t think I’m all sour grapes, I’d like to go on record that the nicest item worn by any of them, clothing or jewelry, was a pair of Wendy Brandes’ earrings — elegant and classy, a real stand out in this movie that was neither, IMHO.

I have a Master’s degree in Art History, so long ago I learned about the progression of civilization and its representations in art from all cultures and throughout time. I may not like all of it, but I understand why it mattered, what its place in history indicates.

Likewise I have studied jewelry in the Metropolitan Museum and in books, but I simply do not understand much of what passes for pretty in much of jewelry these days.

So can someone please explain to me why much of today’s jewelry matters? what will it’s place in history indicate of our civilization? what passes for “pretty” today?

Tags: Sex and the City 2, Wendy Brandes

This entry was posted on Friday, June 4th, 2010 at 5:49 am and is filed under Celebrities Wearing MSturman Jewellery. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.