You begin with the phrase “As with all art forms..”. Undoubtedly, there is an artistic dimension of one sort or another to most, or all, of these little machines. There is a whole thread – a whole website! – in the question of ‘watches as art’. You will get no argument on that score here!
Here, though, we might try first to separate out the ‘artistic’ components from the ‘utilitarian’ components of the design and manufacture process. Whether they are art or not, which are the watches – which are the components of watches – that shout ‘this is a machine for telling time’?
The watches you mention as art each seem to have that sense of purpose which we have been dissecting. The case of the Antiqua echoes the riveted steel plates of a ship’s bulkhead; the portholes can be seen as an industrial metaphor for looking within from without. Its very shape defies the popular convention and facilitates its utility. The Observatoire is less obviously ‘industrial’, but with a ‘time only’ function, and minimum flourish (together with its blued elements) it is veering toward ‘sparse’ and ‘purposeful’. (Disclaimer: these are the views of a fortunate custodian). The Opus 3? See comments on ‘Antiqua’ above. Finally, Marc Brogsitter: thank you for reminding us of his work, most notably the newer pieces, which seem to share a niche with the watches of Christian Klings, whose watches feature in a number of the images in the original post. For the benefit of others, here is a Brogsitter image – it doesn’t get much more purposeful than this, does it?
So it seems that we are in furious agreement, and can add a line to the maxim we are seeking to uncover: “the fact that a watch is a piece of art does not exclude it from being a purposeful time machine”. Now, can we go the other way and declare “the fact that a watch is a purposeful time machine does not exclude it from being art”? Ah, now that’s another question…
Thanks for your very valuable thoughts.
Cheers,
pplater.