Skip to comments.University researchers discover "lost" Elizabethan craftsmanship to match 21st century technology
Posted on 07/28/2013 4:57:18 PM PDT by Renfield
Elizabethan craftsmen developed advanced manufacturing technology that could match that of the 21st century, claim researchers from Birmingham City University who are analysing a 400-year-old hoard of jewellery.
The team from Birmingham City University have analysed the craftwork behind the famous Cheapside Hoard - the world's largest collection of Elizabethan and Jacobean jewellery discovered in a London cellar in 1912.
Among the historic find which is being showcased by the Museum of London is a Ferlite watch that dates back to the 1600s and is so technologically advanced it has been described as the "iPod of its day"....
(Excerpt) Read more at phys.org ...
Except, unlike the ipod, it is beautiful as well as functional.
We have lost so much.
Just wondering if the author at phys.org might be native Chinese or something other than American english? Other than that, very interesting.
At present our youth find it amazing that people did anything without electricity or computers. Then one day when the juice goes out, they will be screwed.
Looks like the Antikythera mechanism.
In my opinion, an iPod is much more beautiful than a mass of needless decoration pointlessly plastered on the face of a supposedly functional device where such mindless decoration adds nothing but visual clutter.
In my opinion.
Gild brass verge watch, signed G. Ferlite. This watch has calendar indications, hour striking and an alarm. The gilded-brass case has an integral back and hinged lid. The band is pierced and engraved with a scrolling foliate design. Around the pendant is a radiating pattern similar to a sun-burst. In the middle of the back is an engraved flower, possibly a seeded rose. The pendant is badly corroded and the ring is missing. The case has suffered severe damage and in many areas the gilding has been worn off to reveal the underlying brass. At the top is a chapter ring with Roman hour numerals. Part of the Cheapside hoard.
“In my opinion, an iPod is much more beautiful than a mass of needless decoration pointlessly plastered on the face of a supposedly functional device where such mindless decoration adds nothing but visual clutter.
In my opinion.”
Luckily yours is not the only opinion, lol. You must be a form follows function type. I myself, being rather curvilinear in shape and thought, love the watch and believe it beautiful.
It shows craftsmanship. It doesn’t show why silly decorations are added to a watch. They add nothing.
Never DID understand the day/night feature ... stick your stupid head out the window !
That works fine until you travel longitudinally and want to know what time it is ‘back home.’
“It shows craftsmanship. It doesnt show why silly decorations are added to a watch. They add nothing.”
You sir, have no taste, no offense, but you are like a lot of men of a certain sort.
And unlike the ipod it was so expensive that only one person in the world had one.
and there are so many of them
Then you wouldn't like the Sistine Chapel ceiling on which Michelangelo crammed his art to every square inch of the plain plaster.....i.e., hundreds of male and female figures, flora and fauna of many kinds, geometric designs, angels, pillars, cherubs and crowd scenes, just to name a few of the products of his inspired brain.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, it's true, but I find the decorations adorning the ancient watch pictured above to be not silly at all.....but as beautiful and inspired in its own way as is the magnificent art in St. Peter's.
I have no taste? You sir are the sort that would buy furniture with carved scallop shells adorning the hardwood and call it art.
Yeah, the scribblings on that watch are indistinguishable from Michelangelo.
Bauhaus is no more than artistic humbuggery!
You have no soul.
I see modernist minimalism as a atrophy of the modern soul’s appreciation of beauty. Genuine craftsmanship is a wonderful thing to behold.
An Ipod is an impressive piece of technology that through its screen serves as a magnificent window to whatever the user looks for in it. The exterior though is bland, easily mass manufactured and without the function of it’s screen has nothing remotely interesting or remarkable to recommended to people who look at it 500 years from now.
That headline is kinda misleading. The craftsmanship was beautiful but the technology of today is far superior.
“I have no taste? You sir are the sort that would buy furniture with carved scallop shells adorning the hardwood and call it art.”
LOL. First, I suspect one would not call someone named flag”lady”, a “sir”, so you get one demerit point for not being observant. Second, carved scallop shells are indeed curvilinear, and therefore would be to my liking. Give me that old rococo or the wonderful art nouveau. And no, you don’t seem to have my taste in art. Your taste, I suspect is much more concrete, with lots of straight lines, and more in line with perhaps modern art. But that’s all right. Each to their own.
If you are in a cave or basement—the day-night feature would be handy. But, admittedly, its a limited feature. I wish more of our technolical elements were made with more decoration. This watch was for a rich man and was state of the art for the time. I guess I am more a Captain Nemo type and would like our world to look a bit more like the 19th Century.
“Each to their own.”
I also love art deco.
BTW, the saying is, “To each his own.”
“BTW, the saying is, To each his own.
Not when I’m talking about the two of us. How egocentric of you.
It's hard to imagine Steve wasting time creating trivial, hand-made decorations on an artifact of little utility and extreme production cost.
The iPod is incomparably more beautiful.
Work smart, not hard.
BTW, I love Art Deco too. I like Art Nouveau better, but Art Deco is mighty fine too. I have assorted objects d’art in both styles. Along with colonial, traditional, Prairie style, Arts & Crafts, French Provincial, Chinese, a tad of English country, and a partridge in a pair tree. To say my tastes are eclectic is an understatement, lol. Oh, and a smidgen of Victorian, just a smidgen.
I recommend Beijing.
Wanna know what time it is back home? Look at your watch and swap AM and PM. (Works on the East Coast).
Then all you need to do is figure out what day it is.
“Not when Im talking about the two of us. How egocentric of you.”
Sorry, but I really don’t think that makes any sense at all. Correct is correct, and incorrect is incorrect. It has nothing at all to do with my (considerably battered) ego.
“I like Art Nouveau better”
I think I do too. Mucha, Dulac, Lindsay, Parrish...
“Sorry, but I really dont think that makes any sense at all. Correct is correct, and incorrect is incorrect. It has nothing at all to do with my (considerably battered) ego.”
Actually, the reason it didn’t make any sense was I thought I was responding to the other guy I had been engaged in conversation with, not a new person, namely you. It wasn’t your ego I thought I was referring to. Apologies.
As to Art Nouveau, if you saw Francis Ford Coppola’s movie of Bram Stoker’s Dracula, there are a couple of scenes of Lucy on her deathbed where Coppola uses a halo effect around Lucy’s neck that is a direct take from Alphonse Mucha’s style. To quote: “Mucha’s works frequently featured beautiful young women in flowing, vaguely Neoclassical-looking robes, often surrounded by lush flowers which sometimes formed halos behind their heads.”
Also, Dracula himself (played by Gary Oldman) appears later in the film in a flowing robe which is pure Art Nouveau in design this time copped off from Gustav Klimt in pattern. I might add that Klimt’s lifelong companion, Emilie Floge, designed those kind of robes like Dracula wore, and Klimt would then provide the decorative design. Klimt also wore her smocks himself. I have a poster of him wearing one of her smocks while boating with her. One of the reasons I love that version of Dracula by Coppola, is it’s wonderful artistic Art Nouveau touches.
“I think I do too. Mucha, Dulac, Lindsay, Parrish...”
Actually, I wouldn’t categorize Dulac, Lindsay, and Parrish in the Art Nouveau style as much as those of graphic artists, etchers, and illustrators working at the turn of the century and beyond. Overlap with the time period of Art Nouveau, but stylistically not so much. Mucha, although an illustrator, I would definitely put in the Art Nouveau style.
Your response is typical of the philistinism so prevelant on FR. It is tragic, and repugnant that the high level of artisanship and love of beauty that characterize that piece are dismissed as “trivial”.
What next, burning the Mona Lisa as fuel?
It also mystifies me that on a news group described as conservative.I encounter so many with no knowledge, respect or appreciation of the tradtions of the past.