Introduction
Uniqueness, individuality, and being different are important to a lot of people these days.
This article explores how there was less individuality in the past, how and why that has changed over time, how it relates to luxury, to the arts, and to the watch industry.
I’ll cover the following topics:
- Uniqueness, the individual, and society
- Civilization and being different
- Luxury and uniqueness
- The arts and individuality
- Uniqueness in the watch industry
Uniqueness, the individual, and society
Meanings of “uniqueness”
While the fundamental basis of the word is “uni” meaning “one”, there are nuances in its use, for example:
Three of the main types of uniqueness (from the work of philosopher and physicist Itay Brun, and similar frameworks used in intelligence analysis and strategic studies) are:
- logical/ontological (only one of its kind in reality),
- statistical (rare in a population), and
- psychological (feels subjectively special to the owner).
Uniqueness can be absolute, such as the only one original Mona Lisa, or relative, such as something which is different from similar things, making it “special” or “unusual”, such as a “unique” style of painting.
Similar concepts include singular/sole: (existing as the only one), peculiar/eccentric (departing from what is ordinary in an interesting way), unparalleled/incomparable (having no equal), rare (not occurring very often), and personalised (specifically adjusted, designed, or marked for a particular individual to meet their unique needs, tastes, or identity, as our watches are). So make sure you distinguish between their different meanings, and the different types of uniqueness, as you read this article.
Humans mostly function in groups.
This is fundamental to our biological nature, obvious for hunter-gatherers who could hunt bigger prey by working together and rely on the rest of the group continually gathering other types of food while specialist hunting parties occasionally brought large amounts of protein for the whole tribe.
Most people who think of themselves as very individual and non-conformist today, are still very fundamentally functioning due to what’s provided by society in the modern world, which includes, more than ever before, a wide range of opportunities to be different and express some degree of uniqueness, while still having the huge advantages that modern society brings (I’ll go into more detail about those, below).
Historical evolution of group membership.
The nature of the groups that people are members of has changed a lot through history.
For hunter-gatherers and agrarian societies, the main group, essential for survival, was their tribe (lone humans very rarely survived for long). There would typically be some trade, and often raiding and wars, with other local tribes.
While there were a few individuals who travelled widely, such as the wealthy young man from the Mediterranean, buried around 1550 B.C.E. near Stonehenge (in England), as detailed in this article: “From the heat of the Mediterranean?“, and some trade goods from the East arriving in Europe even earlier than that, most people remained in their local area their whole lives.
This hadn’t changed all that much for some people, even relatively recently. I remember in my youth (the 1970’s), while on holiday (vacation) in rural England, hearing that one of the men in the village had never been as far as the next village which is a two hour walk away.
As history progressed to feudal societies, the groups that most people interacted with became somewhat larger, with a lord sharing some news from other regions, and sometimes needing his serfs to travel off to war against other regions or countries. Trade was also becoming more common.
During the industrial revolution (starting in 1760, illustrated above), a lot of people moved to towns or cities, sometimes living away from family, specializing and learning from other specialists, interacting with colleagues and people at other levels, and hearing daily news from the whole country and the world.
A specialist in any area of expertise was a lot more individual than a general farm worker (which most people had been a generation before). This meant membership of a small group of similar specialists, as well as having some degree of interactions with much larger groups due to dramatic developments in communications and media.
Contemporary individuality.
These days the groups that most people interact with are much more varied than in the past. Most people travel to another country at least once a year, being in contact with a lot of groups of various sizes via various connection methods as well as in person, and social media being used by the majority of the world’s population.
There are over 5.6 billion social media users worldwide, representing over 68.7% of the global population (from Global Social Media Statistics, by DataReportal Global Digital Insights, in collaboration with wearesocial.com and analyst Simon Kemp of Kepios). The average time spent on social media is approximately 18 hours and 36 minutes per week, and YouTube is the platform that has the highest total time of usage globally, and TikTok having the highest time per user (data from Digital 2025: top social platforms in 2025 by DataReportal).
The range of what is available in the world today has broadened hugely, even in just the last few decades. For example, not many years ago the most expensive hi-fi sound system available was around $3,000. Now one can buy just one single phono cable for over $10,000, and there are plenty of ways to spend six figures or even seven on an audiophile hi-fi system (such as the BSD Acoustic Dragon system for $4 million).
The same is true of the multitudinous and minutely differentiated subcultures which most people are part of. Most of the reality of what people call “being individual” actually means having strongly involved membership of a small subculture which is obviously different from other subcultures they interact with in physical terms in the rest of their daily life. More on that below.
Most people observably have a strong need for membership and believing passionately in something. As traditional religions are experiencing declining membership in the developed world it is observable that people usually find themselves believing in something else, whether it be nationalism, opinions about the climate, politics, or something else, with the same “religious” fervour.
While such people might like to think that their beliefs are chosen from their own free personal decisions, in reality one doesn’t observe a multitude of unique and unrelated belief-systems, one for each individual. The observable reality is that belief is determined mostly at the group level, and the “free choice” (in reality mostly determined by fairly obvious factors) is of which groups to be a member of, although there are a few people having an apparently significant role in forming new groups (more on how groups really work, below). This is true even though the groups involved are typically divided into much smaller sub-cultures than was the case a century ago.
This point about much smaller groups is made by music industry expert Rick Beato in his video “The Death of Music Genres“, where he explains that we are now in an “algorithmic age where discovery is personalized rather than collective.” As he says, this is because there are no longer unifying mass media broadcast platforms working with major music labels who control the distribution of music, and thus no mass consensus and dominant genres across whole societies. Today the influences and consensus are applied to much smaller and more individually defined groups.
A related phenomenon, the real cause of “going viral”, misunderstood by most, is that it’s almost always due to a small number of influencers with huge followings which make content “viral” (whether it is their free choice or whether they are paid to do so), rather than a large number of independent decisions by individuals. Which shows that some of the phenomena that people assume are due to large numbers of people making free choices, are really due to the profound influences of group membership.
Being different (sort-of).
In the book “Hello, I’m Special: How Individuality Became the New Conformity” the author Hal Niedzviecki found that trying to be non-conformist was actually a new form of conformity, since a lot of other people were trying to do that too. “Uniqueness” is trendy which makes it self-contradictory.
It is now much more acceptable to be “different” (which almost always means being a member of at least one relatively small subculture), and to have a little more self-determinism and freedom, within the context of one’s survival, comfort and enjoyment of life, as well as the practicalities of subculture membership, being almost entirely facilitated by society.
Increased freedom naturally results in increased differences between different people. When conducting research to try to show that more freedom would result in everyone being more similar, researchers determined that the Scandinavian countries had more apparent freedom (although, of course, higher tax, so this apparent “freedom” is, in my view, really mostly about exchanging one form of limitation for another), and were surprised to find that the increased freedom actually resulted in far a greater degree of differences between individuals.
For example, the more freedom of career choice women were given, the fewer women chose careers in engineering. Giving people the opportunity to be more unique and individual tends to result in people being more different to each other, or, to be more precise, forming a wider range of different sub-groups.
These changes through history have been mirrored in changes to how society views its members. Most societies today have moved towards granting somewhat equal rights to their different types of members, while also allowing and contributing to a wider range of possible choices and opportunities.
There can be a lot of tension between being different and fitting in. People want to be seen as being different, and tend to think of themselves as being different, while, in reality, acting strongly as members of sub-groups, and finding people who are different in the same way they are.
For example, as an artist creating paintings for greetings-cards, I met a sales-rep for the greetings-card company I was painting for. He told me that, for Christmas cards, retailers will say that they want something “completely different”, while in reality wanting something only a few percent different . . . just different enough to not be exactly the same as last year, but mostly determined by the same subconscious influences that are automatically accepted in a society, and which only evolve slowly.
Another artist told me a very similar story . . . he was commissioned by a business to draw their company Christmas card design. They said that what they wanted was something totally new, nothing like their previous cards. So he drew something new. Their response was “where’s the polar bear? We always have a polar bear on our Christmas cards!”. By the end of several rounds of changes, what they really wanted was something almost identical to their previous cards, just barely different enough to be able to be justifiable as “different”.
See below for an example of how dramatic the results of fitting in or being genuinely different, can be.
We’ll also look at how all this relates to the evolution of the arts (and then watch brands), in later sections of this article.
Civilization and being different
Civilization can be seen as a set of limitations. These include laws as well as social norms (acceptable behaviour and common preferences), and come with huge benefits.
For example, the decrease in violence resulting from an increase in the degree of civilization is dramatic.
Violent deaths of all types have decreased from about 500 per 100,000 before the middle ages, to around 7 per 100,000 now (data from “The Decline of Violence“, Scientific American). That’s a huge change. To put it in other words, life for an average human in a developed country is now more than 98 times safer than it was.
Unfortunately people don’t react to reality in this area. What people react to, in terms of how dangerous they feel that the world is, is determined by how easily danger comes to mind, not how likely it is to actually happen. With the media of all kinds obsessed with the sensationalizing of danger, because that’s what makes them money or gets them attention, people are exposed to many more examples of danger now than they used to be when life was, in reality, 98 times more dangerous than it is now.
This decrease in violence is generally agreed to be due to larger groups (typically countries) monopolizing the use of force, increased interdependence and knowledge about others, and increases in education and rationality.
These limitations that result in civilization, as well as resulting in more comfort and an easier life, confer a lot of practical increases in freedoms and the available range of opportunities.
For example, there’s not many activities a hunter-gatherer can experience. If they cease spending most of their time hunting, gathering, or defending their territory, they starve. And the life of a farmer soon after that (or as it mostly still is in some parts of the world) is no less time-consuming, hard-working, and lacking in choices. This can be seen in the popularity of those born on a farm in a 3rd world country, particularly women, moving to work in factories in or near cities. While ignorant Westerners often complain that people shouldn’t be allowed to work in such poor conditions as 3rd world country factories (while those same ignorant Westerners knowingly benefit from what those workers produce), few realize what a dramatic improvement in lifestyle, freedom of choice (such as who to marry) and range of opportunities the choice to work in such a factors presents, in the reality of the people making that choice, compared to the only other option of remaining a manual farm labourer under the control of their family.
Even compared to a millionaire just a hundred years ago, for the average person in the developed world, the comfort, freedoms (such as the freedom to be unique), resources (all the world’s information available instantly, and more spending power than ever), and opportunities for a wide range of experiences are considerably superior now.
Being too far from social norms has obvious disadvantages. An optimum degree of individuality might be being unique in some ways, while being part of subculture communities of other people who are unique in similar ways, and at least being somewhat aware that the freedom and opportunity to be so unique is largely, in practice, conferred by the society one is very much still part of.
And society is still evolving in the direction of increasing uniqueness. In this article “Gen Z: the new brand battleground?“, by Rahul Titus, Head of Influence, Ogilvy, he says of Gen Z, (born between 1996 and 2011).”Gen Z’s fundamental individuality presents the biggest challenge and opportunity for brands.” Note that this need for uniqueness in contemporary consumer psychology, based, at least to some degree, on observable psychological data, is a different type of perspective from modern subjectivity and the “single individual” in modern thought which is a more philosophical perspective rather than being empirically based.
Luxury and uniqueness
Luxury was evident in some ancient cultures, such as ancient Egypt (3100 to 30 BCE).
There was significant disapproval of luxury from early times, such as ancient Rome and Greece, yet most people at the time still aspired to elevate their standard of living, with people then, as now, consistently acting, in many areas of their life, in the opposite way to what they say they believe.
It should be mentioned that some of the things which are now easily accessible by most people in the developed world were considered luxuries only a generation ago, so the concept is very much an evolving one, and much more comparative than absolute.
Château Haut-Brion wines, from 1521, the oldest known luxury brand.
Silk, lace, and gold jewellery became more widely available during the Renaissance. Then in the 17th century (especially in France), the concept of luxury began to lose some of its negative connotations, as the degree of real wealth was dramatically increasing for everyone in society.
From the 18th century some brands who were focused on luxury products started to become more accessible to wider society, and brands used their logos to express their character and focus, with watch brand logos reflecting this evolution.
Luxuriousness as we now know it began in the late 19th Century, with Charles Frederick Worth in England, who had the idea of making “collections” of fashion, available for the different seasons, instead of making each piece only on request as had been done before. Details about this innovation can be found in the article “The fashion show” (on the Victoria & Albert museum website).
Luxury emerged more strongly in the “Roaring Twenties” (1920’s, illustrated above), as a reaction to the austerity just before that, when assembly lines and mass production made many more formerly luxury goods (like cars) easily accessible to most people in the developed world.
Luxury and social interactions.
Another significant factor in the current use of luxury goods as a status symbol arises from changes in society during the 20th Century, as described by the 1957 study “Family and Kinship in East London”. It focused on East London, a relatively poor area, where, typically, most of a person’s close relatives would live close by, often in the same street, and where everyone knew the other neighbours nearby.
The researchers found that it was only when nuclear families were moved, by the government, out to new neighbourhoods, where they were no longer surrounded by close family, that people suddenly started to want to buy more expensive cars and other status symbols to show how they were better than their new neighbours who were strangers. The concept of “Keeping up with the Joneses” arose in this era.
This, in my view, can be seen as a transition from being obviously a member of a small group (extended family and well-known neighbours) to interacting with others more as an individual or nuclear family (just parents and their children). This makes sense from the concept of an individual continually negotiating their self-definition with strangers they come into contact with (to get it agreed upon, as detailed by Identity Negotiation Theory (INT), developed by Stella Ting-Toomey), but not so much with people you already know well (because, with them, it’s already mostly agreed).
The concept of luxury is still evolving, with a current emphasis on an emotional connection with luxury goods and the stories associated with them.
Luxury has always been about uniqueness and customization, such as selling items as limited editions or one-off pieces (as fine art is), offering bespoke options and personalization.
Having a brief look at how this relates to our own brand . . . our watches (below) are personal explorations and expressions, which is one of the defining factors of art, and art is typically not defined as luxury since luxury relates to functionality, (more on luxury and the arts below). Each of our pieces not only represents artistic vision but becomes uniquely yours through personalised material selection. Your choice of metals transforms these small numbered release sculptures into individually crafted expressions that reflect both the creator’s artistry and your personal aesthetic.
If you find our watches interesting subscribe to our Priority List for early access to our small, numbered releases, exclusive creator insights, and behind-the-scenes glimpses of our artistic process before they’re shared anywhere else.
The arts and individuality
As described above, societies have evolved from relatively few options to having many more subculture options available.
In my view, this parallels the evolution of the Western Art Tradition, which has evolved, over the last thousand years, from a specific type of simple symbolic relationships, through more and more complex symbolic relationships, to, in recent decades, letting go of using symbols and instead exploring the vastly more complex, and typically fractal, nature of reality itself, which I detail in my article on what I consider to be the biggest revolution in the western art tradition.
An example of what I see as almost-abstract art, from the time when the revolution mentioned above was partly evident, when complete abstraction was not yet acceptable, is this Monet water lilies painting.
I have been fascinated by fractals (and fractal art) for many years. I remember looking at an oak tree (most natural objects are fractal, although over a limited range) being fascinated about the way its fractal properties function to make it a unique individual oak tree, different from every other oak tree in the world (there are probably over a billion), yet, at the same time, obviously an oak tree, different from any other species.
Where-as design is typically done by committee (as it is for fine jewellery, and for most watches currently), the fine art process is fundamentally done by an individual. While there have been some famous art collaborations, part of the definition of fine art is that it is a personal exploration and expression.
Pieces of fine art are also fundamentally unique, unlike most design work (even before mass-production). Some artists do sell limited-edition prints of some of their work, but that doesn’t change the fact that a copy of the Mona Lisa can never be the Mona Lisa, even if it were such a good copy that most people looking at it could not distinguish between the two. Creation is very different from copying.
The concept of luxury applies to things with a degree of functionality, so fundamentally cannot apply to the enjoyment fine art for its own sake, since art is, by definition, focused on aesthetics, even though fine art can have as much of a price differential as luxury goods The act of owning fine art can definitely be considered to be a luxury, and it could be said that investing in fine art, which is using the value function of art rather than being based on aesthetics, is a luxury.
From fine jewellery to conceptual art jewellery.
The vast majority of jewellery in the world so far is what’s now called fine jewellery (or fashion/costume jewellery which imitates it using less expensive materials), which almost always emphasizes simple geometric shapes and smooth, polished surfaces, is valued for the materials it uses, and is usually considered to be design rather than art.
By contrast, art jewellery (which began emerging in the late 19th century, through movements such as Arts and Crafts and Art Nouveau, and fully developed as a distinctive field in the early to mid‑20th century) can be seen as being part of the revolution in the Western Art Tradition, often using complex forms, rough, sometimes broken, surfaces, and sometimes incorporates materials of little intrinsic value:
Conceptual art jewellery is created by an individual exploring and expressing their unique self. So it fits the broadly agreed (although somewhat controversial and subjective) definitions of art rather than design, and is valued as such.
I’ll explain how this relates to the watch industry, below.
Uniqueness in the watch industry
Early watch variations were largely a by‑product of tools and craft constraints at the time, such as slight differences in plates, wheels, engraving etc. not an intentional promise of personal identity for the buyer. Modern luxury and independent watchmakers often pursue uniqueness deliberately (innovative complications, artistic dials, bespoke commissions), which is conceptually different from the unintentional uniqueness due to manual watchmaking techniques.
Some of the main horological periods, each with different perspectives on uniqueness vs standardised products (which I detail in other articles on this website), are:
- artisanal pocket‑watch era,
- 19th‑century standardisation and industrialisation,
- mid‑20th‑century mass production,
- quartz disruption,
- late 20th‑century mechanical luxury revival.
While there are many revolutionary, unique, and creative watches available today, in my view, nearly all of them have almost no influence from anything other than mechanical engineering and fine jewellery (such as their external surfaces being polished), like these beautiful examples of unusual watches:
Yet in some areas of the watch market there is an intense desire for innovation, individuality and uniqueness, along with a rejection of mass-production, especially among relatively young microbrand enthusiasts, as well by collectors watches.
There is also the interesting subject of limited edition watches, which were originally about uniqueness and still sometimes do that well, but are sometimes not so much about that in a deeper sense any more, merely changing minor details in order to be marketed as a limited edition. Here is my article where I investigate the reasons behind this love/hate relationship with limited-edition watches. The difference in degree of uniqueness between, for example: a watch collaboration with an artist where each watch dial is individually hand-painted, and a mass-produced watch with a slightly different dial colour only, just so it can be sold as a “limited edition”, is very significant. Make sure you see for yourself the difference between uniqueness that is based on perception and marketing, and uniqueness based on objective reality.
Microbrands allow the creative freedom and innovation which is rare in the big brands, and there is a resurgence of craftsmanship and artisans in this and other related industries.
Another way each individual watch can be unique is by using materials with unique visual patterns, such as some semi-precious stones, or the woods used in some organic watches. Uniqueness is just one of the many factors which enable one to answer the fascinating question “Are watches art?” Another factor relating to uniqueness is an increased focus on story and concept in watchmaking.
There are a few watch designs which can be seen as being influenced by art jewellery, but, so far, it is usually a relatively minor influence as an addition to conventional watch design and components, even though there are watches being described as wearable art. More on the relationship between art jewellery and watchmaking, here. This is about to change . . .
UnconstrainedTime as a unique microbrand.
Our brand as a case-study of uniqueness in the watch industry . . .
Because my influences (i.e. I am a fine artist not a watchmaker), as the creator of the initial range of UnconstrainedTime watches, they are very different from those of most watch designers, and our brand is very individual.
We are also a solo-founder start-up, so there’s no compromise on our aesthetic choices.
We are, arguably, the first brand based on conceptual art jewellery (which is fine art) combined with an ancient horological concept. Unlike watches that merely incorporate artistic elements into traditional designs, each UnconstrainedTime piece is conceived and executed as a unified artistic vision. Every watch includes its creator’s signature, is individually made in the metal personally chosen by the buyer, and is part of a small, curated collection – bringing true fine art from gallery walls to your wrist.
Our watches are, of course, very unique (and thus very collectible), as you can see for yourself:
For more details on that, and on other aspects of our brand, see my article on the UnconstrainedTime microbrand.
Why not get involved in the development of something unique and fascinating? . . .
Our community platforms allow owners to share experiences, creating a collective narrative around these artistic expressions. Every UnconstrainedTime piece becomes part of a shared journey—connecting collectors who recognise that true artistic innovation transcends conventional categories.
We welcome your comments and suggestions about our brand and watches. Comment below, on our other articles, or on our social media (links near the bottom of every page).
If you love unique watches, make sure you don’t miss our launch! . . . subscribe to our Priority List for early access to our small, numbered releases, exclusive creator insights, and behind-the-scenes glimpses of our artistic process before they’re shared anywhere else.
So . . . what do you think of our watches? How unique do they seem to you, and for what reasons?
Author: Chris Melchior
This article was authored by Chris Melchior, founder of UnconstrainedTime and creator of the original range of wrist-worn sculptures of this unique artistic adventure.
Chris has extensive knowledge and experience of creativity, including fine art and cutting-edge contemporary music composition, and was awarded a First Class Honours Degree in fine art and music, with a minor in philosophy, from a leading UK University.
Chris’s life-long artistic obsessions include organic forms and textures, abstraction, fractals, and the aesthetic essence of musical genres.
He has developed unusually deep insights into the elemental concepts underlying areas including Eastern and Western philosophies, science and technology, creativity and the arts, as well as advanced empirical spirituality in which he is acknowledged as a leading authority.
He has a profound fascination and love for the unique and synergistically creative combination of fine art with the ancient essence of time-keeping which evolved into the UnconstrainedTime project.
Leave a Reply