An item, torn out of the May 12, 2010, New York Times asks the above question about a new line of jewelry and concludes that the jewelry is “maybe all three”.

Well, why not? And how is it that this confluence of three vital definitions do not occur more frequently in jewelry today?

This news item has sat on my work table for nearly a month now. I confess I did not want to further explore what the competition was doing! I have just now picked it up and investigated the web site of Ashley Hanosh’s trendy clothing store, Honey in the Rough (www.honeyintherough.com) that displays the work, a collection of new jewelry from Florian, called Zulu Soiree.

I was prepared to snigger, but came away with full respect and admiration for the collection, produced in Austria, home to Swarovski and cradle of Czech beads. The bib neckpiece pictured in Mary Billard’s article is, simply put, a series of circles hanging from a circlet. All of it is done in Czech seed beads, one of the least expensive materials available to bead artists.

So: so what? Why does it cost so much and why had it commanded the attention of a New York Times writer, let alone garnering a home in a Manhattan boutique? Yup: Bah! Humbug!

Thus emotionally armed, I visited the website to explore the collection, including close-up details of the pieces as well. Yes, there were those silly large seed beads I hadn’t deigned to use in years.

But there is no “simply put” about this work: there is a great deal of art present in it. Let me tell you, having put together similar pieces, that managing colors, shapes and negative space is not as easy or infantile as it appears to be. Therein is the art that so many bead artists struggle with on a daily basis:  this is what the public pays for.

I am especially intrigued with the configuration of many of the necklaces that affords the wearer different ways to wear each necklace — so interesting. I plan to schedule a trip down to the shop, between heat, humidity, snow and rain, to see this collection in person and experience up close the careful planning involved in making this art. I hope there will be some left for me to see.

Care to join me?

Seems impossible to avoid the Oscar drama, it’s everywhere! Over my morning coffee, I scanned the usual yearly projections of winners and long shots in the New York Times.

Back at my laptop, I saw a blog post entitled “How David Rockwell’s Oscar Set Makes Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin Funnier” by Alissa Walker, that discusses the role of the set and focuses on the Swarovski curtain, appropriately named Crystal.  ” . . . the star of the show is still the 100,000-Swarovski crystal curtain, but 16 additional inches of topaz crystals were added to add a level of smokiness that matched this year’s color scheme.”

Then I read the SheFinds blog,”Oscar Nominees, Take Note: Our No-Fail Guide To Black Tie Dresses” that reviewed some of the past mistaken choices, contrasting them with the hit choices.  Seemed to me that few of the stars wearing the dresses wore much jewelry.

So with all this in mind, I entertained the fantasy of each of the stars wearing Swarovski jewelry — mine of course! — in what would become a blinding television extravaganza.

Earrings seemed to be the thing during the award season Oscar run-ups, so my fantasy features the long-shot, long-necked Emily Blunt, perhaps wearing my Peacock Earrings, woven with vintage Swarovski Atlas stones, contemporary CRYSTALLIZED — Swarovski Elements beads and gold-plated seed beads.

I can easily picture the always-tasteful and regal Helen Mirren in my elegant Queen’s Collar, trimmed with vintage Swarovski beads.

And if filling a neckline is out this year, a large, sparkly bracelet, such as my Double-Sided Cuff, replete with CRYSTALLIZED – Swarovski Elements, would not be amiss, gleaming on the wrist of Sandra Bullock, touted as winner in the best actress category, as she accepts the Oscar.

Not Harry Winston diamonds, but I think these Swarovski pieces are a lot more captivating — don’t you?

What a word: Artisanal. Artisan. Artist. …. The article in today’s New York Times Style section, by Tim McKeough, page D4, is entitled “Artisanal Treasures” and subtitled “Valuing the personal in an era of mass production”. Yes! Amen and Hallelujah! Not a concept as compelling as it should be today, especially in this down economy.

“Valuing the personal” — knowing that an artist’s eye was captured by the materials and compelled to create from them; knowing that an artist’s hands produced the treasure, rather than a machine; knowing that the treasure is a unique object — perhaps one-of-a-kind or of limited production — rather than having been mass produced.

The profiled entrepreneur, Stephen Burks, begins by saying: “Modern manufacturing processes are good at churning out one identical product after another. But shoppers in search of a little more character are increasingly drawn to objects handmade by artisans around the world.” Are you in search of “character” in what you buy?

Each piece of jewelry I produce is personal, each has a history of some sort, each piece is handmade painstakingly — an investment of time and love. Everyone asks how long it took me to make the statement piece “Be Mine” — but how can I begin to quantify the wealth of energy and commitment, no less the pleasure, inherent in its creation, or the ease of simply wearing it with something simple and black and standing out in the crowd? I assure you: I did not churn it out.

Mr. Burks continues to talk about treasures “having that immediacy of making, and that direct connection to people and community groups” – isn’t that what we are searching for these days with our Facebook and Twitter postings and connections? So why not in the treasures that we buy, wear or live with?