Imagery plays a huge role in most of society today.  Jean Baudrillard wrote about the image as a signifier, where the representation of an event or object has replaced direct experience and knowledge of its referent or signified.  Our western societies are built on “image,” so much so that images continuously defer objects and experiences.  The imagery of the diamond is especially poignant, as it is becoming clear that the diamond’s worth is hinged more on its role in society rather than its actual rareness or beauty (as there are rarer and more colorful stones to choose from).  Yet, our society is still entrenched in the idea of the diamond of a symbol for wealth and affection.

It is this value attached to the image of the diamond in our culture that I am exploring in my work.  I believe there is a tremendous instability between the signifier and the signified, as there are many variables included in this relationship.  Among these variables are time, location, cultural anomalies, and language.  In the case of diamonds, the language about the object continuously expands (conversations of size, clarity, and color, for instance), and the object itself is continuously deferred, so that the understanding of diamond is isolated to the imagery surrounding it (wealth and affection).  I am thus asking the questions: If the image of a diamond is as powerful as the diamond itself, then is any image of a diamond valuable?  Additionally, if the image is incomplete, is the value diminished?