Does subject matter determine if something is jewellery

I have been reading this thread with great interest, though pondered
as to whether or not to reply. I am a lamp worker (torch worked
glass) with a side interest in metalsmithing, though I have never
replied to the Orchid. This subject reminds me of a lecture I once
attended at the International Society of Glass Beadmakers annual
Gathering. The subject was the distinction between jewelry and
functional objects. The lecturer made the distinction that there are
two categories: one being nonfunctional art, the other having
utility as in functional objects. For example, a painting holds no
functional value other than the intrinsic value (beauty) offered the
observer. Contrast this with the silver (ceramic/glass/stone.) bowl
on your coffee table. This offers some functional value, and while
it may be beautiful, its utility puts it into another category (even
though it may be artistic). This division also holds a third
category. jewelry.which can be artistic, functional, and/or both.
However jewelry is designed as an adornment offering aesthetic
value, while its function is usually secondary to the aesthetic. For
example, I may wear a locket around my neck, whose function is to
serve as an adornment. an object of beauty. Even still, the same
locket has functional value as well, which is to provide as a
keepsake for a photograph or some other personal item. I believe it
is this third category which offers the definition to what is
jewelry. The distinction being not the subject matter, but the
purpose of the piece. Clothing is functional. Its utility being to
cover, to protect, even to meet societal needs or expectations. Even
a lace collar, while not being necessary, is functional if it is
part of a piece of clothing. On the other hand, jewelry is primarily
to adorn, and function is secondary. Jewelry does not have to be
beautiful in order to be considered jewelry. Nor does it need to be
made of any particular material. cotton crocheted “balls” that
resemble pearls are still considered jewelry if their purpose is to
adorn. I have seen lots of jewelry that I consider to be ugly and
would never wear myself (not the least of which include the Elsa
Peretti designs mentioned below). Does that exclude it from the
category? I don’t think so. With this being said, now I am
wondering.

Into what category would you place a belt with a handmade buckle?
lol

if it is stuck in a box for nobody to ever see. then it is not
art. 

Ah, the old “If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there
to hear it, does it make a sound?” question.

There can be no answer, of course.

Noel