Thoughts on Future Classics

… to choose a piece you personally consider a classic, one that has not yet received this recognition – or so the text of the invitation from Klimt02 read. This inevitably gives rise to the question as to the meaning of terms such as “a classic” and “Future Classics”. 

Instead of answers, new questions come to mind … Is the word pair “Future Classic” not actually a contradiction in itself? Should we not envy anyone who has worked out the recipe for market-ready future classics?
Should we not expect inconceivably great boosts to sales, be it in industry, the crafts trades, or in jewelry?
Who awards the rare distinction of “classic” in the first place? – Is there an official agency to which one can apply for the accolade? (No, of course there is not.) What qualities must an object exhibit in order to have the cherished title conferred on it, which is equivalent to “especially valuable”?

Basic elements and basic colors, meaning “classic” shapes such as the square, circle, triangle, and colors such as red, yellow, blue + the non-colors white, black, and silver, all seem to be helpful; materials such as wood and leather, e.g., in the field of furniture, can also contribute. Can we not then simply speak of the characteristics that tend to be associated with infamous Bauhaus?

And what does this mean for jewelry, for contemporary jewelry? Does it mean that only pieces made of gold and silver can be considered classics? Do we not automatically end up at a chain of pearls? Would we really want to refer to such a necklace as a classic or preferably only as traditional? Would works made of plastic, of organic materials, of base metals not invariably be chucked off the list of applicants? 

And is a classic also automatically an artist’s most important work? 

The answer to all these questions is: All of this can be, but does not have to be the case. The remark “first of its kind” seems, by contrast, to be a knock-out criterion. To be a classic, something has to be the first in the lineage. Or is this wrong? Does this not immediately undermine a lot of what I have just said? 

Is thinking of the timeline one-dimensionally (in the sense of reviewing history) not perhaps only half the truth when it comes to the definition of a “classic”? Is it not in fact far more the present and future that decide on this exclusive attribute of being a “classic”, together with us, the viewers, buyers, collectors, print media, social media, university professors, museum staff, bloggers and influencers? Is it not much more a collective decision down through the years, decades, and perhaps centuries that makes a “classic” a classic and precisely not a short-lived matter of fashion on the basis of a hype? The tubular steel chair would be a good example here, and possibly “Billy” shelves, and most certainly the “Kleenex” brand, which has become a synonym for paper handkerchiefs.

So who were the designers of the chair and the shelves and, for instance, the name “Kleenex”? Does the distinction of “classic” not also involve the loss of the name of the designer? Did companies such as MUJI or IKEA, which in the heyday somewhat overhastily simply erased the names of the designers? And have we the whole time overlooked the fact that it is perhaps the production runs, and thus a straightforward economic aspect, that makes an object become a classic? Could the question on “Future Classics” even be asked when it comes to jewelry? 

What object do we think of when we talk about a ‘classic’ in the field of jewelry? Would Otto Künzli’s armworn jewelry, Gold macht blind a classic? Or the neck-worn jewelry by Yasuki Hiramatsu? The bottle necklace by Bernhard Schobinger? The ring towers by Wendy Ramshaw? Do not such deliberations almost automatically take us to the protagonists of modern jewelry … In other words, when speaking about jewelry, are we ever speaking about a single item? Or are we not perhaps talking about visionary artists and/or their oeuvres? To my mind, that thought seems to be the most pertinent one today. 



Why Future Classics?
What Makes a Contemporary Jewelry Piece Become a Classic? Our aim is not to define academic criteria or impose any form of conservatism, but to collect subjective perspectives that help us understand the values and expectations shaping our field, without reducing them to fixed rules or hierarchies. By sharing these voices, we invite you to think together and open a conversation about durability, relevance, and the ways particular works contain certain patterns or enigmas that make them continue to speak over time.
 

About the author

Dr. Petra Hölscher studied Art History, Romance Languages, German Literature and Industrial Anthropology at Christian-Albrechts-University in Kiel.
She worked at the Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden and later in Munich for the Bavarian State Palaces, where she curated major exhibitions on Jugendstil and historic interiors.
Since 2002, she has been curator at Die Neue Sammlung – The Design Museum, and since 2007, senior curator. She is responsible for exhibitions and acquisitions in industrial design and contemporary jewellery, and has curated projects on artists such as Anton Cepka, Thomas Gentille, Tone Vigeland, Therese Hilbert, and Warwick Freeman.
She has taught design history at several universities and published widely, including Schmuck – Jewelry (2020), the first overview of the museum’s jewellery collection.