Watch 1685 - 1695

Editor: We're looking at a pocket watch, made between 1685 and 1695 by Daniel Quare. It’s crafted from silver and currently resides at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. The level of ornamentation is impressive, but how do we consider such a precious object as part of its time's history? Curator: That's an astute question. Think about the socio-political context. This watch isn’t merely a functional item; it’s a potent symbol. In the late 17th century, possessing such a decorative timekeeping device signified wealth, status, and access to technological advancement. It also highlights the increasing importance placed on measured time in emerging capitalist societies. Who do you think this would be visible to? Editor: Probably other members of the upper class, meant to project an image of sophisticated wealth and to express control over their own time, versus, say, laborers whose time was determined by the rhythms of their work. What about Quare, the maker himself? Curator: Precisely. The act of displaying such a watch also speaks to emerging social hierarchies and the public performance of identity. Daniel Quare, by marking the watch, advertises his skill and business in a very competitive market for luxury goods. Think of the watchmakers in London at that time. Guilds had historically controlled the access to this work; who would the creation of objects like this threaten and who did it serve? Editor: So, this small object embodies much larger historical forces. I see it less as a purely aesthetic object and more as evidence of social and economic shifts. Curator: Exactly! Examining the history of art involves thinking critically about objects as participants within complex networks of power and meaning. Now, if we considered the Baroque ornamentation… Editor: That adds another layer! So much to think about. Thanks for illuminating that!