Are Watches Art? Are There Works Of Art Which Also Tell The Time?

By Chris Melchior.

The above image shows our Tropical Crystal watch on the left.

Sections Of This Article:

• Art is enjoyed for its own sake, not for its practical usefulness.
• Art is focused more on aesthetics than on functionality.
• Decorative arts.
• Art has special focus
• Art is unique
• Art is creativity relating to conceptual ideas used as a means to communicate, evoke emotions and present challenging perspectives and concepts.
• Art is personal
• So . . . Are watches art?
• Do-UnconstrainedTime-watches-meet-the-definition-of-art?

Introduction

When considering the question: are watches art, it seems to me that, considering the multitude of different definitions, the best approach is to use a cluster of related factors which together define something as art. In this article I have taken what seem to me (based on my extensive observation, education and experience in this area) to be the most significant and valid aspects from various current definitions of art, including perspectives from the page: What is Art, on the Philosophy Now website.

The definition of art is controversial, so it will inevitably be subjective to some degree. It can be said that one of the purposes of art is to challenge accepted views, so the definition of art is, by its nature, a subject of controversy.

This aspect of the definition of art can be seen in many art movements, especially recently, which are founded on the concept of challenging the definitions existing at the time. Examples include the cubists, Dadaists, and Stravinsky, who (as stated on the Wikipedia article on the Theory of art) rejected the idea that art must conform to an accepted idea of “beauty”. They largely succeeded, and now art can choose to be anti-beautiful (punk music being an example) or non-beautiful.

Another example is the Arts And Crafts movement and Art Nouveau which both tried to say that art and craft are the same. This was less successful because it was done by ignoring their different definitions. While the overall definition of art has broadened in recent times, art and craft (now often described as artisan creations) are usually still seen as different things, today, showing that there is enduring validity in distinguishing between the two.

I have used a perspectives on definitions based mainly on my experience and education in the subject from very well-regarded educational establishments, on my own observations, and on research into what leading authorities in the subject say, putting less emphasis on attempts to claim that art and design are “the same” or that art “has no definition” etc.

Art should fulfil all the factors I outline in this article to be defined as art.

Watches no longer have vital value in terms of their timekeeping function (with everyone having the precise time on their smartphone), so people, for various reasons, seek to define them as something else of value. Especially when they are obviously beautiful and come with hefty price tags, it is common to define them as “art” while ignoring what art really means. This also relates, to some degree, to the aftershocks of the quartz crisis, which polarized watches into either cheap functional items, or expensive, beautiful ones.

Definitions evolve due to participation from people with differing perspectives, so, get involved in the process . . . if you have a different view to anything I have said in this article, let me know in the comments (or on our social media).

We’ll look at how each of these factors are involved in how art is defined, and how they relate to watches . . .

Art Is Enjoyed For Its Own Sake, Not For Its Practical Usefulness.

Design is primarily enjoyed for its functionality. By contrast, most art has no practical usefulness at all, and is enjoyed for its own sake.

Some art is in between, having some degree of functionality, but is more about how it looks or the concepts it conveys. Examples of this include Art Nouveau objects such as lamps, which have a function, but are seen as much more about how they look than what they do, which makes them accepted as art, and which also relates to the next part of the definition of art, below.

Art Nouveau (around 1900) and the Arts and Crafts movement (mid-19th century Britain) both tried to say that there is no difference between art and craft, by ignoring the real definitions. When you’re reading this article, you’ll understand how the two things are still differently defined today.

An interesting study at the University of London showed that looking at art can create an instant dopamine release, resulting in feelings and emotions similar to looking at someone you love. So the “joy” part of this aspect of the enjoyment of art, is very real.

The Haldimann H9 (above), a watch which doesn’t have any form of time-display is an interesting example of moving beyond the functionality inherent in the conventional definition of what a watch is. While it certainly fulfils this specific criteria of being art, it doesn’t necessarily fulfil all of the necessary parts of the definition of what is art (which I’ll detail below).

This relates to some art jewellery which cannot be worn, and to some examples of the conceptual art movement in the 1960’s to ’70’s which valued concepts over the aesthetic and commercial properties of artworks, sometimes going as far as creating a poster for an art exhibition which would never exist . . . the abstract concept of the possibility of an exhibition itself being the work of art.

Collaborations between artists and watchmakers typically result in a part of the watch, often the dial, having some obviously artistic properties while still having a function, usually inside an entirely conventional watch-case that doesn’t relate to the art.

A few watches have significant parts which have no functional purpose, such as the “khumeia” by Simon Pierre Delord, which has Art Nouveau metalwork with small, straight conventional watch hands that don’t relate to the curves of Art Nouveau.

Our Fractal Emergence watch has a strong focus on the 3D fractal, which has no practical function at all, and is there to be enjoyed for its own sake:

Art Is Focused More On Aesthetics Than On Functionality.

Another difference between art and design is whether the main focus is on aesthetics (art) or functionality (design). This is related to the previous part of the definition of art, but is somewhat different, since aesthetics is not necessarily the same as enjoyment, and can even be the opposite. For more on the meaning of aesthetics and how it relates to watches, see my blog post on aesthetic watches.

While this focus on aesthetics often means beauty, this is not always the case, with artistic movements like Dadaism and Punk Rock deliberately choosing aesthetics which are not beautiful. Dadaism’s most famous artwork is “Fountain” by Marcel Duchamp, which is a standard urinal exhibited in an art gallery. Punk Rock also knowingly chooses to be the opposite of beautiful.

Art, like beauty, is, to some degree at least, in the eye of the beholder. Or to put it another way, while there are some generally agreed differences between beauty and ugliness, aesthetics also includes a significant degree of personal taste (as well as cultural influences).

Art is said to be about the experience of the mysterious (as noted in the Wikipedia article on art), which also relates to it not being about functionality, since functionality is designed using knowledge about how things work, which is the opposite of mystery.

Watches have mostly been based on functionality until recently, with the evolution of society now focusing more on uniqueness, emotional expression, personal exploration and other qualities of art, along with everyone now having the exact time on their smartphone. Less than a century ago, the question about watches being art would not occur, because watches were, although often decorated (see below), very much focused on their timekeeping functionality. But a lot has changed since then.

Watchmakers have, for most of their history, seen themselves as mechanical engineers, rooted in functionality, unlike the craftspeople (now called “artisans”) who made fine jewellery (although there is some crossover).

In horology, there are watches considered by some writers to be “anti-aesthetic”, like the Ochs Und Junior watches with surfaces that celebrate the marks made by the machining process. Holthinrichs watches have made a similar choice, proudly showing their 3D printed textures on some parts of their watches (as most of our own UnconstrainedTime watches will):

To me (although no-one else seems to have noticed it), these are examples of watches with an art jewellery influence, because, unlike the fine jewellery focus on smooth polished surfaces, these timepieces align with art jewellery which often uses rough, complex, organic, fractal, or broken surfaces (as well as similarly complex forms).

A watch can be art even if it has a function, if most of the focus is on the aesthetic. The converse is also relevant . . . some watches now have no timekeeping function, like the Haldimann H9 (below), but that doesn’t automatically make them art.

There are a lot of watches these days, especially those which might be seen as unusual or creative, which use engineering with varying degrees of aesthetic focus. Some are designed primarily for function but are also undeniably beautiful. Others involve designing functional components in ways which are not based on what is most practical, but instead focus, to a significant degree, on what looks interesting (as well as being impressive accomplishments), while still maintaining functionality.

Other watches go further in terms of adding decorative elements which have no time-related functionality at all.

One exceptional example of this is the Jacob and Co. Bugatti Chiron Tourbillon (detail above), which includes a moving model engine inside the watch . . . “push the right-hand crown of the timepiece and the engine comes to life – the crankshaft turns and the 16 pistons pump up and down, just like a true internal combustion engine. Two “turbochargers” (down from four in the actual Chiron engine) on the side of the engine block spin while the engine runs, adding to the visual impact.”

Our own watches (below) are also examples of timepieces very much more focused on aesthetics than functionality, although their time-telling function does make them part of the evolution of horology . . .

There are many watches with time-displays which are unusual, or of a small footprint compared to the whole watch. UnconstrainedTime watches are very unusual in that they use the fact that our time-display is very simple and small foot-print to allow the main focus of the whole watch to be about the exploration of freely chosen aesthetics which are unrelated to the engineering or fine jewellery influences of conventional watchmaking.

Examples include the techno circle graphic aesthetics of our Techno Circle #1 watch:

. . . and the fascinating organic forms of a poppy seed pod which our Poppy Seed Pod watch are based on:

If you are interested in either of our watches above, don’t miss our launch . . . subscribe for email notifications.

Decorative Arts.

The commonly accepted meaning of decorative arts is where an object is both functional and beautiful, and are usually seen as design rather than art (yes, this does mean that “decorative art” is not art, however much of a contradiction that may seem in terms of the words used), although this has changed to some degree. For example, while most fine jewellery can be correctly seen as design, and jewellery is traditionally seen as a decorative art, and thus design not art, some types of art jewellery are correctly accepted as art rather than design.

Definitions of fine art, design, etc. are continually evolving, as well as being controversial, and I recommend each of us to think for ourselves on these matters rather than following the conventions. Gaining the understanding needed in order to form one’s own opinions, seems, to me, to be a necessary part of being a unique individual, as most people like to see themselves these days.

Looking at the fundamentals . . . the term “decoration” itself usually refers to an addition intended to make something more attractive. Mr Chris Hall, Watches Editor for MrPorter.com says “When a watch is sensationally decorated, artistic skill can be deployed, but this is purely decoration. It is embellishment of an object that has a role to play beyond the art itself.“

Whether an element of a watch is decorative depends on if it’s fundamental to what the watch is, or if it is an additional element, with there being degrees of how decorative an element of a watch is. Of course, a judgment on what a watch really “is” as a whole, is, to some extent at least, a matter of personal opinion.

Early clocks, right from their beginning in the 12^th Century, had significant amounts of decoration. Many watches were decorated until the industrial revolution, when purely functional pocket watches could, for the first time, start being made cheaply enough for ordinary people to own, and their functionality became an important part of the operation of things like railroads.

Wristwatches were originally highly decorated (and highly inaccurate) items for women, and only became significant items in terms of functionality during the first world war, for officers to precisely time military manoeuvres without needing to reach into their pockets. They became popular in general society after the war ended (although pocket watches continued to be used on the railroads).

The quartz crisis further polarized watches into either expensive and beautifully decorated pieces, or relatively cheap functional objects with no interest in beauty, leading the Swiss watchmaking industry to become even more focused on higher priced, beautiful timepieces to distinguish themselves from mass-produced watches.

Collaborations between an artist and a watchmaker don’t really result in something which is, as a whole, a unique new piece of art. Most of them could legitimately be seen as a watch with some art in it or on part of it, i.e. an act of addition, or decoration, such as with the fascinating Swatch artist collaborations:

Art Has Special Focus

. . . it presents something as being worthy of unusual attention, unlike most of the experience of everyday life.

This is one of the criteria of the definition of art, from “The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure, and Human Evolution”, by Denis Dutton. There are various versions of this concept in many definitions of art.

Until recently, a big difference between art and watches is how they are usually seen, with watches being meant to be worn in public, although few of the more pricey ones spend most of their time securely locked in vaults. Most types of art tended to stay in one’s home (or in a gallery), but now we have wearable art. So art is not always defined by where it is displayed, such as being in a gallery, although a special focus can sometimes be significantly conferred by the way something is presented, as with 4’33” by John Cage, where the normally unnoticed sounds of the environment are given special focus by a person walking onto a stage in a concert hall, opening the lid of a piano, then (without having touched any of the notes) closing it again 4’33” later.

Another example of the setting determining perceived value is when world famous violinist Joshua Bell went busking (playing music in the street) in the subway, playing a hugely expensive Stradivarius from 1713, and made only a small sum of money ($52.17 or £42.18), and almost half of that was from someone who recognized him. Which brings up interesting concepts and questions about art, special focus, context, society, etc.

Some art and some watches are obviously valuable to anyone seeing them, others are more discrete, with some paintings by old masters having hung on walls for generations with no-one knowing they were important.

The Dadaists said that something is defined as art by the act of the artist defining it so. Which can be seen as a method of conferring special focus.

I recommend distinguishing special focus from unusualness, which have some components in common but some factors which distinguish the two. The way you can stare in wonder at great art for hours is significantly different from the notice something gets from just being different.

Like many aspects of art, what gets special focus is, inevitably, in part, personal. One of my favourite examples of a watch which, for me personally, gets special attention for its beauty, is the Mr. Jones Watches Sun and Moon:

. . . which I find both beautiful and evocative of simpler times, as well as conceptually interesting in terms of using a historical method of displaying the time, from before watches with hands were the norm.

My Fractal Emergence watch, for me personally, attracts my own special interest in the same way that my favourite works of art do, with fractals having long been a profound artistic obsession of mine:

Art Is Unique

A copy of art is not art, although a limited edition of art prints can be art.

While fine art is usually a one-off, limited edition fine art prints are a fully accepted part of the art world, although they are usually limited for the practical reason that the printing surface degrades as it is used. This doesn’t apply to watches which can be made in limited editions for good reasons, or for less good reasons (I have a look at the causes of the love/hate relationship with limited edition watches, here).

A few collaborations between artists and watchmakers produce what can be seen as a series of one-off watches, such as the Bremont Ronnie Wood 1947 Rock On’ Hands Down where each dial is individually hand painted by the artist.

UnconstrainedTime looks forward to collaborating with established creators to produce one-off artworks which tell the time, such as by using art jewellery techniques to create unique individual pieces that work in conjunction with the unique UnconstrainedTime time-display. Some of our collaborations will involve the artist working, by hand, on most of the watch (rather than just one component of it), and even our very simple time-display can be used in significantly different ways as can be seen from my Tropical Crystal watch where the time is displayed via a ring of 12 raw quartz crystals:

Success as an artist comes with a big challenge. I had a friend in university who created a very original piece of music which was much admired. He then spent a lot of time trying to create something similar to that, and didn’t again achieve the fresh creativity he originally showed.

While art is almost always part of a series of works, each one must always be approached as something new, with, as it’s called: “beginner’s mind”. The unique creativity inherent in how each individual artwork is approached and made is an essential part of what makes it successful as art. Each piece of art needs to be created as a new, unique action. The idea from Eastern spiritual perspectives, that action comes “from the void” is part of this concept, and relates specifically to the experience of the fine art process.

If it’s made to try to be like another piece of art, even one of one’s own earlier pieces, it is less likely to be effective. If it’s made to try to be “art”, or to try to be successful, it is less likely to be so . . . “Don’t think about making art, just get it done,” said Andy Warhol. “Let everyone else decide if it’s good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art.” Being honest and authentic to the process itself gets better results . . . for example . . .

While I was beginning my education as an artist (at the very well-regarded Camden Art Centre, London), I was taking a life-drawing class. The teacher watched me create results that other students crowded around and admired, for a few weeks, then told me that if I continued trying to make what other people admired I wouldn’t progress much. He explained that the best way to improve my work was to be completely honest and authentic about the process of what I was doing . . . if a line was not perfect, even slightly, I should erase it and improve it, while really looking at the subject I was drawing. Then I should not even glance at the results, I should put them away and just continue to do more of this process, then after a while I might accidentally glance at my work and notice that my art had genuinely improved. This was challenging to do, to really let go of doing what others admired, but very worthwhile in its results.

It is interesting to note that Picasso, who most people would consider very much an artist, said on his deathbed that nothing he had produced in the last 10 years of his life was really art, since he was just doing what people admired.

Uniqueness and authenticity matters.

Art Is Creativity Relating To Conceptual Ideas Used As A Means To Communicate, Evoke Emotions And Present Challenge Perspectives And Concepts.

I know that’s a bit of a mouthful, but that rather long sentence makes some vital points. Basically, art makes you think, and/or evokes some profound emotional response in you . . . story or concept are an important component of art.

“Art is not what you see, but what you make others see.” – Edgar Degas. Art makes you think conceptually or have some sort of profound reaction. Most impressive engineering creations are not likely to do that for most people, but art should.

Art points to “higher ideals” beyond the human perspective and deterministic reality. This was expressed by André Malraux, when he said that “Art is an ‘anti-destiny’”

For example, it is almost impossible not to experience “Fountain” by Duchamp (which is a standard urinal, exhibited in an art gallery) as presenting a challenging concept . . . if you disagree that it’s art, that itself is a profound conceptual and/or emotional reaction, which you’d not get from the same object in its natural habitat, thus you are experiencing one of the affects which defines it as art.

Damien Hirst’s “For the Love of God”, created in 2007, which is a platinum cast of a human skull, encrusted with diamonds, is very likely to evoke emotions or to get the observer thinking about things like money, beauty, jewellery, precious metals, etc. Some people love his work, others hate it, but either way, it’s creating a significant impression, which is one of the things that art does.

Another example of an artwork which caused a huge impression by challenging accepted views of reality in its time was “Galloping Horse” by Eadweard Muybridge. People nowadays tend to assume that we’ve always known how horses legs move when they are galloping, but if you look at paintings of horses moving created before this time, you’ll see that the assumption which everyone held before this new artwork, was hugely incorrect, which seems almost impossible to comprehend from our current perspective:

It was only after Eadweard Muybridge took photos of how a horse really moved (below), that people radically changed their assumptions (models of reality, to be precise):

The above example illustrates how people’s ideas of what art is will continue to change and evolve, because the degree to which something will evoke profound emotions or conceptual interest will change according to the inevitable cultural context that one is looking from.

Expensive watches can be more about factors which increase the monetary value than getting people to think conceptually. And, of course, those who benefit most from labelling watches as “art,” whether they fit the definitions or not, are those who are making money from them.

On the other hand, returning once again to the Haldimann H9 (shown above), that piece is likely to get you thinking about what is, or isn’t, a watch, and maybe about what is, or isn’t, art.

Other examples include complications like those showing the exact positions of each planet, which can hardly be described as having a practical use for most of us, and so are likely to place some degree of special focus on the concept as well as the engineering accomplishment.

Art Is Personal

. . . it is, to a significant degree, about the person who created it, and an expression of themselves. Art is a personal exploration beyond one’s current reality and imagination . . . I detail exactly how this is done, and how it is very different from the design process, in my description of the fine art process, although many current definitions of art disagree with that concept.

This is expressed in these quotes: “Ultimately art is trying to see things that other people don’t see” (which points to it being personal exploration), Trevor Paglen. “All art is autobiographical“, Federico Fellini. “Painting is self-discovery. Every good artist paints what he is“, Jackson Pollock

Some might say the word which most encapsulates the essence of art is “personal expression.”

Art, design, and artisan work or craft, all require skills and experience, and can all be creative and beautiful. But design or artisanal work are not about personal expression . . . if someone else designed or made a very similar object with similar quality and functionality, it would be just as good. With art, it matters a lot who created it. A forged artwork, even if it has fooled experts for centuries, has no value once it is proved to be fake.

This factor is stated well in the following quote “The fundamental difference between art and beauty is that art is about who has produced it, whereas beauty depends on who’s looking” from What is Art, on the Philosophy Now website.

Art is personal, as are the very best of creative watches.

Mr. Büsser of MB&F, said (in this article “where art and timekeeping meet”) about the succession of different watches he has created (one of the latest, the HM11 Architect, is shown above), that they is that they celebrate the obsessions of his childhood: “I’m writing my autobiography.”

I’ve had a deep personal fascination with fractals for many years, working with them from a fine art perspective, and also in terms of sonic art, so it is fitting that our first watch is a beautiful fractal:

If you like this watch . . . don’t miss our launch . . . subscribe here for notifications.

Art is personal, but self-indulgence ruins artistic potential. While art is very much an exploration of oneself as an artist, it is essential to let the art be what it is itself, rather than trying to gratify the needs or aims of the artist, or indeed, trying to do anything that comes from one’s own conscious intention. I understand this can be challenging to comprehend (I didn’t understand it at all when someone first correctly aimed this criticism at one of my own works, when I was doing a Foundation Art course), but it is, in my opinion, very well worth understanding.

So . . . Are Watches Art?

Firstly, thanks to other writers from whom I’ve learned fascinating perspectives on this question in addition to my own observation, knowledge, education and experience.

Most writers seem to like to give a definitive “yes” or “no” answer to the question “are watches art?”, but they also point to the relevant definitions being increasingly controversial, blurred and how art, like beauty, is, at least to some degree, in the eye of the beholder.

One factor adding confusion is marketing’s use of the word “art” to increase the perceived value of objects which are really design. That can be seen as part of the fascinating evolution of watch marketing involving increasing pointers to the characteristics of genuine art, while most watches remain more design than art. I explore elements of this in my article on why art-jewellery-based watches were inevitable.

My answer is that a few watches are art, but where exactly the line is drawn between what is and what is not, art, cannot be defined precisely, and is, at least to some degree, about one’s personal responses to the piece in question.

For watches, since many of the best examples of creative watches are undeniably focused on beauty, are clearly creative, and are worthy of at least some degree of special interest in today’s society, I see the main deciding factors as being:

• Is the piece part of a series of personal explorations?
• Is the watch a clear example of the work of a specific creator?
• Is the piece producing significant responses in those who see it, such as considering relevant concepts, or experiencing profound emotions?
• And is it a watch plus some art, or are the art and the watch inextricably linked?

You could also estimate to what degree the watch is influenced by the unintentional influences of engineering or fine jewellery, and to what degree the watch is influenced by deliberately chosen personal influences.

Another relevant factor is that you can also estimate the degree to which a watch is influenced by fine jewellery or art jewellery. Fine jewellery uses highly polished surfaces and simple geometric forms, art jewellery often uses rough, organic, broken or fractal surfaces and much more complex forms. For example, see how these two watches use their organic influences very differently:

The beautiful and unusual red watch (MB&F Horological Machine 7 (The Aquapod)) is based on the shape of a jellyfish, but see how that shape is fully symbolized using the very simple geometric forms and polished surfaces which are part of the fine jewellery design language, and conceptually different from the subtle and complex organic form and textures of a real jellyfish.

Contrast that with the black watch (UnconstrainedTime Poppy Seed Pod) which uses the fascinatingly complex forms of the poppy seed pod, deliberately retaining their original organic nature, without symbolizing at all, and is available in the rough, grainy blackened-silver surface, defining the result as being very much within the conceptual-art-jewellery field. Fine jewellery is design, and conceptual-art-jewellery fits the definitions of being art.

It is fascinating to see how this relates to the development of a human artist: If you ask a child to draw someone sitting in front of them, they don’t look at the person, they draw symbols of body parts or clothing. If they develop into an artist, they learn to really look at the subject, drawing what is in front of them, in all its organic subtlety and complexity.

I invite you to consider those factors in relation to some of the watches you find most interesting, or ones which you or someone else are seeing as “art”. My aim with this article has been to present some of the main points to consider when looking at the question of whether watches are art . . . I’d much rather encourage you to think for yourself than try to impose a definitive answer on you, especially since doing so would be unrealistic, given the controversial nature of the definitions.

As for our own watches, they are some of the first watches where the whole of the watch is genuinely created by a single artist. My background is fine art and cutting-edge contemporary music . . . I have no training as a watchmaker, so what I am doing is starting from conventional watchmaking and pushing the boundaries from there, I am fundamentally basing the creations on art which fundamentally incorporates the ancient horological idea of a 12-point ring of time indicators.

Our radically simple, small-footprint time-display allows more focus on freely chosen aesthetics than I am aware of in any other watch. Our timepieces are obviously part of the conceptual art jewellery space. As to whether they are art or not . . . that’s not for me to say . . . I’d like to hear your reasons why they are, or are not . . . let us know your views in the comments below or on our social media.

More details on that question, below . . .

Do UnconstrainedTime watches meet the definition of art?

It’s obvious when you look at our watches (above) that what we’re doing is very different from other watch brands.

Almost all other watches are starting from a basis of the watchmaking tradition derived from engineering (whether mechanical engineering or recent digital influences) and fine jewellery. There’s nothing wrong with that, of course: there are some very beautiful and fascinating watches arising from that ongoing development. But . . .

As you can see, we’re doing something significantly different. Our watches are not starting from a basis in either the engineering or the fine jewellery aspect of the watchmaking tradition, while our timepieces are fundamentally part of the earlier roots of the horological tradition because they use a 12-point ring time display which dates back to ancient Near Eastern timekeeping concepts.

We’re not a conventional watch with something added to the dial . . . the whole of our watches focus on freely chosen creativity, personal exploration, and aesthetics as the fundamental starting-point . . . and there’s a word for that . . .

. . . “Art.“

As you have read above, while marketing often labels design as “art” to increase its prestige and to fit with the uniqueness and sophisticated conceptual basis that some enthusiasts are hungry for, objects must fulfil a set of accepted definitions to be genuinely classified as art. Some of those definitions are:

Art has special focus . . . it presents something as being worthy of unusual attention. Special focus is more than just being uncommon, and evokes a different response. What is your response to an UnconstrainedTime watch?

Art is unique . . . a copy of art is not art. Many people choose to knowingly purchase fake watches or handbags because other people don’t see them much differently from originals (even friends who know they are fake). But, a forgery of an artwork is no longer of value once it has been shown to be a mere copy, even if it would still be indistinguishable from the original to most people.

Many highly regarded watches are sold in unlimited numbers. Original artworks like our watches are always one-offs or small, numbered quantities. Our small curated releases exist as artistic necessities rather than marketing strategies—each numbered piece representing a moment in the evolution of horological art.

Art is creativity relating to conceptual ideas used as a means to communicate, evoke emotions and present challenging perspectives and concepts. Other notably unusual watches are typically more about factors designed to increase the monetary value, such as showcasing impressive mechanical design or being able to be marketed as a “world’s first” by utilizing a minor variation on existing engineering. By contrast, UnconstrainedTme watches are much more likely to evoke emotions and to inspire people to think conceptually . . . they obviously challenge conventions, making them a natural conversation starter.

Art is personal. Very few watches are clearly the creative expression of a single person (even when they’re marketed as such). Art is very much about the individual who created it, and what they are expressing, unlike design where a similarly functioning object by a different designer would be just as good. Each UnconstrainedTime limited edition or one-off watch is the creative expression of an individual, which is likely to be obvious when you look at them. Brian Madigan, who knew my creative work from when we were colleagues at University, commented when he saw the initial range of UnconstrainedTime watches, that “only you could have created these.“

UnconstrainedTime is clearly based on the art jewellery concept (which uses complex forms and textures, and is defined as art). Most watches, in addition to their obvious engineering influence, are very much part of the fine jewellery space (which is design rather than art) being based on simple symbolic forms (such as perfect circles) and having highly polished surfaces, although there are a few recent examples of watches with some degree of an art jewellery influence added to their fine jewellery basis. See my infographic for comparison and examples of fine jewellery vs art jewellery.

Some watch collaborations add art on the dial. An otherwise conventional watch plus some unrelated art added to the dial fits the definition of decorative art (which experts agree is design, rather than art). Unlike watches that simply incorporate artistic elements into conventional watch designs, each UnconstrainedTime piece is conceived and executed as a unified artistic vision.

UnconstrainedTime watches don’t use the engineering or fine jewellery aspects of conventional watch design as a starting point . . . our simple, small foot-print time-display with neutral styling allows us to focus primarily on freely chosen aesthetics (art focuses on aesthetics, compared to design which focuses on functionality), exploring in conceptual spaces unrelated to the engineering and fine jewellery basis of almost all conventional watchmaking. Our watches are part of horology in a more fundamental way, using the concept of 12-hours-a-day from the ancient Near East.

For the background and concepts behind our unique focus on art, see “Our Story” page.

Art inspires and challenges others to explore new possibilities . . .

Aspects of fine art include inspiring others and reaching towards higher ideals . . .

. . . so we chose to do the opposite of other watch brands who patent everything they can in order to prevent others competing with them . . . we make our time-display functionality easy for anyone else to use in their projects, so they can benefit from our unique innovation based on the 12-hours-a-day concept from the ancient Near East, and the investment we put into developing our radically simple time-display.

We choose win/win philosophy, facilitating creativity and artistic exploration for the ongoing benefit of all. That’s fundamentally a higher ideal than trying to win by limiting others.

If you find our watches interesting, make sure you don’t miss our launch . . . subscribe for email notifications.