Dear All Having strong views on what I think of as excessive reliance on diagrams, I thought it better not to join in this debate, where most views are being aired. The most important ones are of course that we now make lace for pleasure, and even if it's not a totally free world, in this area at least we should all be making lace to enjoy ourselves. However, Adele's posting did bring out what I think are two important points sometimes overlooked. The first is that it is not always appropriate to talk of "right" and "wrong", when we could say "better" or "worse" or even "preferable" or "less preferable". Certainly in floral Bucks and Beds, there can be more than one way of working a pattern - one worker may prefer half stitch to whole stitch, or a denser ground, and so use either a thicker thread or more pairs. I would much prefer to see another person's version of a pattern, try and see what was done, then consider if that's what I want to do, and if not, work out how to change it. I thnk this is the way most textile craftsmen have worked in the past - most free embroideries are worked in this way, with the worker having as much artistic input as the designer (and pattern maker, if a third person). Last year London was treated to an exhibition of tapestries in the V&A made from the designs by Rafael held by the V&A, which showed finished pieces made from the cartoons, some in Mortlake, some in Flanders, and the differences were startling - not just colours, patterns of cloth etc., but even in the placements of figures. Excessive use of diagrams can (though of course with a strong-willed maker won't) inhibit this. Of course, diagrams should be used to illustrate what has been done, and if someone wants to recreate a piece of lace that lends itself to this technique, then that's what should be done. However, this would require the same thread and tension... Certainly with the East Midland florals, I feel a truer result is produced by recreating, not copying - think jazz, or Baroque music - and subtly updating to modern tastes. Recent floral Beds seems to use fewer picots, but more half stitch, than the 19th century originals, and people aim at nicely shaped leaves rather than square tallies, possibly scrunched up at either end in a vain attempt to copy the beautiful petals made by the Maltese!
The second point, also I think one Adele is making, is that you can often do better looking at the lace you are making rather than a diagram, adding pairs or throwing them out to get the effect you want, not following some grid. The recurring problem of when to make a backstitch or how to merge trails in Beds and Bucks, for example, I now find easier to solve by simply trying out different possibilities on the pillow, just moving the worker pair or pairs and sticking in the pins without weaving through the passives - it doesn't take long to do, less time to undo, and gives a much better insight into what's going to happen. Unless the pricking is a very accurate copy of what's on the diagram, one pinhole on one trail can shift below one on the joining trail, so giving a hole. Also, threads do not behave like pencil lines. On the pillow, there may be fewer passives than desirable for a section of cloth. This can amazingly often be corrected simply by putting in more rather than fewer back stitches, where the extra wefts make up for the deficiencies of the warps. A diagram of this is unlikely to look right, and may rely on the lines going a little offgrain, which can look well enough in ink, but does not work in threads. Oddly enough, this also happened in the tapestries; the process of weaving meant that a straight line on the horizontal, vertical, true bias or at some other angle would have a totally different emphasis, and the weavers made the necessary adjustments! (What does this person, Rafael know?!!) Incidentally, some of the workers' changes were not necessarily for the better; figures were put together it is thought to allow the skilled weaver to do all the faces together, leaving the easier background in one section for a less skilled worker to complete, when the artist's version would not allow this convenient division of labour. I was lucky enough to go on a guided tour of the Gobelins factory in Paris in the Summer, which also now houses the Beavais and Aubusson looms. In addition to reproducing historic tapestries and carpets for French stately homes etc. they also produce tapestries to designs by modern artists, and the tour explained the process. The first design is given to the weavers, who will produce samples which influence the artist to change his design, often radically, to take advantage of the effects that can be produced. We were shown the series of samples and designs leading up to the final piece, and here it was clear that there was as much artistic input from the weavers as from the designer. They even showed how the same thread would work up totally differently using Gobelins techniques from Aubusson ones. Obviously, we don't all want to do this with all laces all the time, but if we do want to consider ourselves craftsmen/artists, I think we should try the lace equivalent, when appropriate. We should certainly try not to condemn things as "wrong" and insist on one way being the only "right" one. Think of those pianists who refused retakes when they may have played the wrong notes, if they were played beautifully enough! [email protected] Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 19:17:58 -0700 From: Adele Shaak <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [lace] Diagrams > >Hi Everybody: > >I often wonder about the patterns we have that are reconstructions of old lace >pieces. Did the lacemaker who examined the old piece and made the modern >pattern: > >- - draw the overall design and then make it herself and diagram what she did, >or >- - examine the threads paths in one repeat of the pattern and diagram that, >repeating that diagram for the length of the modern pattern > >Because either way it is not an exact replication of the old lace, is it? The >original lace would have had differences from repeat to repeat. > >Now, I am not suggesting that it would be a good idea to make some unfortunate >lacemaker go through every single twist and cross of an old piece of lace to >make us an exact pattern. What I'm saying is that I think we need to develop >our own skills and *own* the lace - do what looks right to us and not >slavishly follow diagrams. That's what the old lacemakers did and that's why >their work varies from repeat to repeat. > >I'm not quite good enough to do this all the time and do it competently, but >when I can do it I feel very powerful and confident in my lacemaking and it >becomes a lot more fun and a lot less frustrating. > >Sometimes I make bad decisions and lace myself into a really bad situation, >but I'm sure if I made more lace those situations wouldn't happen as much. > >Plus, look to the future of lacemaking. If we didn't obsess so much about >correctness, what fun we could have making our own designs! > >Adele >North Vancouver, BC >(west coast of Canada) > > >> Gunvor would state "you understand the >> lace - it needs to be your decision if an extra twist is needed there or >even >> fits in that space with the tightness of all the threads. As long as you >are >> consistent throughout the pattern it will be fine". She told me our thread >> was different (thicker) than the antique laces so we might need to make >some >> adjustments for it to look nice. She also showed me on her antique pieces >> where the lacer of the piece made changes in different motifs. Did the >lacer >> forgot to be consistent or just changed her mind based on what the lacer >> preferred? > > - To unsubscribe send email to [email protected] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [email protected]. For help, write to [email protected]. Photo site: http://community.webshots.com/user/arachne2003
