jtodd
89
It took me a couple days to gather my thoughts on this...
Jan 26, 2015,08:23 AM
so sorry in advance if I "go long". First, I agree with Robert's and Joseph's comments and what appears to buyout sentiment. I think this may touch on some reasons why we look at certain watches as very overpriced, "bling", fashion-watches, etc. I often see someone with a watch from certain makers and think that someone obviously was "just paying for status", which a very expensive VC (or some other watches) do not seem "needlessly expensive". I think, for me, it comes down to the craft, the artistry, the "technology" (maybe more in the Minervan sense of that word, than the modern sense) - as well as the bond with the maker and the implicit trust. I think to myself that the people who buy the big bling watches just "don't get it".
Then, on more reflection, I wonder what classical artists thought of Warhol and contemporary artists. There lacked in his art what classicists valued most - tradition, use of certain methods, adherence to standards and rules. I wonder if we are not at a form in the horological road, where old paradigms of value are replaced (or at least joined) by new ones. I think that Vacheron and the other stalwart Maisons saw this during the turmoil of last couple decades and realized that compromise was not an option. You would always (from here out) have two camps - call them the classicists and the post-moderns - that value pieces of horological artwork for very different reasons. Is it right to say that one is better than another, or is it a matter of "taste or what one values vs another. I don't know.
I guess I will apply the old art saying, "I don't know what makes it art, but I do know it when I see it." Anyway, these are my thoughts. I guess, in my similitude, I'll take the classics, but hold off judgement on the post-moderns.