Tiffany Dubin on Artists’ Jewelry

What inspired your interest in jewelry?
My interest grew out of a lifelong passion for art, history, and storytelling. Each piece holds a story: the artist who created it, the moment in time it represents, and the individual who wore it. That layered narrative is what continues to inspire me. Engaging with jewelry challenges artists to think differently, recognizing that meaning isn’t just seen—it’s carried, worn, and lived. Jewelry is one of the rare art forms that is truly lived with—touched, worn, and passed down.

What are your earliest memories of jewelry?
When I became a teenager, my mother [Judy Taubman] started taking me to Paris to attend the couture shows. She had friends who worked in all the big design houses—Florence Grinda at Ungaro, Countess Georgina Brandolini at Valentino, Baroness Helene Ludinghausen at Yves Saint Laurent. After each show, she would usually purchase one great piece. She would carefully choose the item, and I would watch her every move. I knew she was engaged in finding something she’d be content with for life, not simply until the start of the new season. I would also watch how the designer accessorized the work he had created and then how my mother later would give the work her twist and place her stamp on the job with her choice of jewelry.

Do you have a particular area of interest?
I have a passion for artist-made jewelry created by painters and sculptors who saw jewelry as another canvas for their creativity. I’m fascinated by how jewelry evolved in the 20th century, transitioning from a symbol of status into a form of artistic expression. In the 20th century, jewelry broke free from its conventional role and became a canvas for visual artists to reimagine what jewelry could be. It offers a new way of looking at both art history and jewelry history, where boundaries blur, materials transform, and adornment becomes artistic expression. This wasn’t just a new style of jewelry—it was a radical shift.

What about this exhibition did you find most compelling?
By pairing the jewelry with works by the same artist in another medium, the museum recognizes it as part of the artist’s broader oeuvre, just like painting or sculpture. They used a variety of visual examples to showcase the diverse approaches and materials used, while also emphasizing the conceptual and formal qualities that elevate these works to the level of fine art. By presenting jewelry alongside paintings and sculptures, the Norton Museum of Art made it impossible to view these works as “lesser” or “secondary.” They’re simply another form through which the artist’s vision emerges. It’s a reminder that creativity isn’t confined to a medium—it’s a lifelong language that adapts and evolves.

Can you share some examples?
The museum thoughtfully pairs [Louise] Nevelson’s jewelry with one of her black boxes. This juxtaposition highlights the seamless translation of her monumental sculptural language into wearable art. Both the sculpture and the jewelry pieces showcase her exploration of form, space, and texture, demonstrating how she adapted her aesthetic to different scales and functions.

I loved how clearly you could see the connections running through all of [Max] Ernst’s work. They showed a painting, a sculpture, and three brooches side by side, and you could feel how naturally he moved across mediums. The bird really stood out—first in the painting, then reimagined in two of the gold pendants. You could also see the link to his large totem-like sculptures; Tête-Triangle feels like a miniature version of those larger, totemic faces. His fascination with primitive masks and mythology runs through all of it.

Tiffany Dubin. Photograph by Jordan Doner.

Which major artist was the most prolific in terms of creating jewelry?
Over his career, Alexander Calder created more than 2,000 necklaces, brooches, bracelets, and earrings, applying the same aesthetic strategies he used in his wire sculptures, large mobiles, and stabiles. He started at the age of nine, crafting pieces for his sisters’ dolls, and was never without his pliers and a spool of wire. He captured the movement and energy that defined his larger works but on an intimate, wearable scale. Hand-hammered jewelry became a mainstay of his practice. His works come alive when worn—just like they do when suspended from the ceiling.

What was the evolution of artists making jewelry in the 20th century?
[It] really begins with René Lalique at the turn of the century. His Art Nouveau creations fused sculpture and symbolism, bringing a sculptural dimension back to jewelry—something that had been lost as gems became the focus in the 18th and 19th centuries. His impact is still felt today, in part because he first trained as a sculptor before designing for major jewelry houses. He thought of shapes and volume like a sculptor and colors as a painter, which was revolutionary in the world of jewelry. Materials were central to his design, chosen for the way they reflected light, their structure, or color. He didn’t care if they were precious or not. In a corseted world, his inspiration was drawn from fauna, flora, and the female figure.

What era reflects our time today?
The late-19th century saw a flood of diamonds from new mines in South Africa. Jewelry, once reserved for the aristocracy, suddenly became accessible to the middle class, and jewelers almost went out of business as high jewelry clients didn’t want what everyone else was wearing. In response, there was a desire among sophisticated artists and intellectuals to break with tradition and look to new jewelry artists. Today, the market is being overwhelmed with lab-grown diamonds, and I think we will see something similar emerge.

Looking ahead, I think we’ll see artists taking inspiration from figures like César, who, in the 1970s, transformed women’s everyday jewelry remnants into walking autobiographies. Future jewelry won’t be about perfection—it will be about individuality, change, and the story the wearer brings to it. It will live and evolve with us.

How do you approach evaluating or collecting artist jewelry differently from traditional jewelry?
With traditional jewelry, materials—gold, diamonds, craftsmanship—often dominate the conversation. With artist jewelry, it’s the idea that matters first. I look for the artist’s hand, their vision, their voice. How does this piece connect to their broader body of work? Is it an extension of their sculptures, paintings, or philosophy? This is why Calder is so important: he seamlessly moves between mediums. Provenance and intent become much more important than carat weight. You’re collecting a moment of creative experimentation. Not just an ornament, but a piece of artistic history.

Which contemporary artist would you love to see create jewelry today, and why?
I would love to see someone like Olafur Eliasson create jewelry. His work explores perception, light, and movement—things that are so deeply connected to how jewelry is experienced when worn. I can imagine him playing with transparency, color, and even kinetic elements, creating pieces that change as you move or as the light shifts. It would be a way to bring his monumental, environmental ideas down to an intimate, human scale. That’s where I think artist jewelry is most magical.