Millennium men are much interested in wearing jewellery than ever before. They are adorning themselves with attractive jewellery. An extensive variety of men's jewellery is available in the market. Fancy Bracelets, Necklaces, chains, studs, cuffs, rings, cufflinks are becoming a popular among men. Most of the studies in jewellery are done to know the female's perception about it. There is a need to study the male's preferences. Thus the study was conducted to get awareness about the male consumer's perception towards jewellery. The study was conducted in the month of September and October in the Jaipur city. The data collected through a structured questionnaire from 100 respondents was chosen through convenience sampling technique. The study identified the reasons for jewellery purchase by males. The study will be helpful for jewellers as it will provide insights about the preferences of males in relation to jewellery. To achieve success in the market, jeweller has to keep a track of the changing perceptions of new consumers towards jewellery.

A woman has several diamond rings but her most treasured piece of jewelry is a silver bracelet with five hearts on it. Why? The piece was her mother’s, composed of gifts from her father, a heart after each child. It is links like this that make jewelry more valuable than just the sum of its parts. This study contributes not only to design research but also to the small and novel field of jewelry studies. It brings a new approach to seeing personal experiences and memories, important when jewelry is part of women’s social existence. This study provides a deeper understanding of the social reasons why jewelry is possessed and worn. Women’s jewelry often connects past and future generations. Such jewelry not only exists in the present day, but also connects generations. Jewelry also often works as a mediator of memories of possessors’ milestones in life, relationships and family ties. It plays important roles in the rituals that make up the rites of passages throughout a woman’s life. 􀀄􀀇􀀉􀀊􀀅􀀈􀀆􀀂􀀋􀀌􀀍􀀋􀀎􀀏􀀃􀀁

The essay affirms the legitimacy of contemporary jewelry practice as a meaningful form of cultural production that cuts across the fields of design, art, and industrial production. The analysis is double and concerns the meaning of the ornament, and its projection to future scenarios defined by renovated instances and digital technologies. Concerning the ornamentation's debate, it has been at the center of the entire 20th century, from Loos to Morris, Bloch to Maldonado right up to the present day. The question has mainly focused on the usefulness of decoration, the aesthetics and its value. Following the instances of contemporaneity, the objects move now in a multi-faceted direction, aimed at asking questions and expressing concepts, and becoming, in this sense, narrative and relational "subjects". In the jewel object, where uselessness constitutes its immense wealth and uniqueness, the issue becomes complex since its existence is related mainly to a series of functions that are not practical but communicative, and identifiable as intimately useful. Far from a short-term inspiration, the contemporary jewelry designer has necessarily fed on a cultured design study, expressing the vision of the world he wants to communicate. It is not just a matter of embellishing people through an ornament, but of incorporating immaterial values, creating an object- thought capable of stimulating the mind and producing knowledge. Thinking about the future scenario of this design approach, the international debate on jewelry requires new perspectives, focused on deepening the discipline towards the main issues of the current era. In the face of changes such as Industry 4.0 and widespread digitalization, it is no surprise that contemporary jewelry starts to need exploring a broader spectrum of topics, including sustainability, technologies, politics and social issues that most influence today's society.

Archaeologists have traditionally assigned gender to artifacts such as jewelry and weapons. Indeed, examples of sexed burials in Europe and the Mediterranean that locate weapons on male bodies and ornaments on female bodies seem to reinforce those assumptions. But a closer look at burial practices also reveals numerous exceptions to so-called gendered goods paired with either sex (Robb and Harris 2013: 74-82; Ghisleni et al. 2016). And even a cursory reflection about these assumptions reveals fatal flaws: Both men and women in the ancient world wore finger rings, bracelets, clothing fasteners, accents, amulets, and pendants. Even earrings were standard for men and women in Egypt, Cyprus, Asia Minor, and Persia (Hermary and Markou 2003). So the notion that jewelry was not part of male dress cannot be sustained. That recognition leaves us with the more interesting question of how and under what circumstances men in Etruria and Anatolia wore jewelry. In this study, 1 I will examine three instances of male jewelry: the use of ornaments as a royal reward throughout the Achaemenid empire, a small group of Anatolian figurines that show males and females wearing necklaces, and Etruscan bulla necklaces. Neck ornaments are distinctive jewelry types because they highlight the throat and chest of the wearer and thus draw attention to the face. They are not utilitarian, and, unless they hang low, a wearer is unable to see what he is wearing. Necklaces therefore are intended for an audience of onlookers, and they form part of the "social skin" that individuals don to visually describe their position within a community. While the corpus of evidence for bejeweled males is not substantial, I will argue that what does survive testifies to the capacity of jewelry to mark essential social identities of wearers in ways that do more than signal gender. In these examples, men's necklaces denoted their achievements in political, military, and ritual roles as part of their public costume.

Ungerman, Š. 2020: Luxury Finger Rings. In: Poláček, L. et al. 2020, Great Moravian Elites from Mikulčice. Brno: Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology, Brno, 287-293

The debate about the impact of crafts practice and studio jewellery in particular, its relevance and positioning in the wider discourse of contemporary art is interesting, both if considered as a mode of cultural production, but also as subject-specific discipline with its own making histories, parameters and challenges. I am interested in these issues as an educator and theorician, but also as a visual artist who works conceptually through craft.