[lace] Re: IOLI competition rules revisited
On Aug 26, 2005, at 3:11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jacquie) wrote: I wrote to Debra to ask how strictly the 2D aspect of it will be enforced [...] She confirmed that 3D will be disqualified. Bear this in mind if you do Point de Gaze as those flowers often/usually have an extra 3D part. I can't imagine that the anti-3D restriction would go as far as *that*... It would disqualify not only Rosalibre, but pretty much every *bobbin* lace, as well as Point de Gaze :) "Proper" gimp in PG should be 6-8 times as thick as the "basic" thread (I still take Ulrike Loehr-Voelcker as my "guru" on that ) - that's a 3rd dimension right there, and that's without considering laces like Polychrome, where even the *worker* is far thicker than the basic thread... All PG laces removed from the roster? Piece laces, like Honiton and Duchesse (esp Withof) love their rolled edges (and Sandi Woods has been introducing those into Milanese, to an excellent effect). All of those are "taboo"? Can't imagine Russian tape (and similiar) with *nothing but* tape; it would be deadly boring... Yet, the tallies and "gimp in relief" add a 3rd dimension to the lace. Tallies, "verbotten"? Not to mention the guipure laces like Beds - the tallies there are often not only a big part of the lace, but they like to be "laid on top" (raised), and even rolled, as an integral part of the lace. Out, out, the damned spot? For that matter, some of the cords in Rumanian Point lace are 3-D, as are some elements of tatting. And the best examples of crocheted lace - Irish and Koniakow - are 3-D here and there. *Hedebo* (suggested by someone, and more embroidery than lace) is not dead-flat, either... All of those, banned? I don't think so. At least, I don't want to think so :) I think (and hope) that the "no-no, 3-D" applies to pieces which are made to be 3-D by *post-process* (construction/assembly), not to the pieces where the 3-D aspect is an integral part of a technique... That is, I *assume* that that's what *is* meant by the "no 3-D" rule... You can have a table runner which is 5mm in places and and 2mm in places, *if that's an integral part of the technique*. What you *can't* have is a "table structure", which is 2mm in one place and 50mm in another, because you'd sewn a beginning of a repeat to its end to make it bulge. Or have taken the thing off the pillow and made it into a flower, by coiling a length of lace. By the same token, Rosalibre which is 3-D *by nature* (not by after-contrivance), and which is very colourful, should not be excluded, either... Not that I'm likely to make a piece that big (and that useless *to me*) in RL, even if it is allowed :) We spend an inordinate amount of time to give our lace *texture*, which always makes the lace look *almost* 3-dimensional; if we were asked to go back to the uniform flatness of the very earliest laces (plaited and very early, gimpless, Torchon), it would be a form of rape and gag combined... :) I just can't believe that that's what the Montreal group had in mind (especially since there's no earthly reason for it; as several people have said, the narrowness of the "table ribbon" means that whatever else is placed on the table, is placed *around* it, not *on* it). The rules would still be still extremely restrictive, but, *that* restrictive??? It wouldn't make sense at all, unless the results were *really* "fixed" already, and they were positively discouraging interesting entries (which I don't really believe, since Canada ain't US, and lace ain't politics ) I'd appreciate a clarification - from those who'd set the rules - about this 2-D/3-D issue; if it were given soon, it could, perhaps, be included in the next IOLI Bulletin, with the contest rules that Debra intends to print there... Yours, safely back from a trip to Charlottesville, where I attended a "hen party" (lots of fun) last night, and met Leona Farrell (Yvonne's daughter, at the U for the year from OZ. Lovely girl) for lunch today. The trip itself was the pits (intermittent rain on the way up, and unceasing rain as well as fog on the way back down. And a tank of gas - bought at the same place as always - is now a third up from what it used to be a couple of months ago), but such is life - a mixture of thick and thin... :) -- Tamara P Duvallhttp://t-n-lace.net/ Lexington, Virginia, USA (Formerly of Warsaw, Poland) - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[lace] Re: IOLI competition rules revisited
> "Proper" gimp in PG should be 6-8 times as thick as the "basic" thread > (I still take Ulrike Loehr-Voelcker as my "guru" on that ) - that's > a 3rd dimension right there, and that's without considering laces like > Polychrome, where even the *worker* is far thicker than the basic > thread... All PG laces removed from the roster? Oh, come on, T, those are still flat laces! Of course, all thread is 3- D technically. There's no such thing as a truly-2D thing in real life. Even the finest paper is 3D. They said beads were OK but to keep in mind the lace was 2D. Rolled edged and rolled tallies are, I'm sure, within that restriction. Just don't go making Rosemary Shepherd/Jana Novak flowers and calling them a table ribbon. As for Rosa Libra, you'd have to contact the committee about that. Robin P. Los Angeles, California, USA - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [lace] Re: IOLI competition rules revisited
Hello Tamara, Haven't you read this: Beads, wire and raised tallies are permitted, Greetings Ilske - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [lace] Re: IOLI competition rules revisited
In a message dated 8/28/2005 12:44:17 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I just can't believe that that's what the Montreal group had in mind (especially since there's no earthly reason for it; as several people have said, the narrowness of the "table ribbon" means that whatever else is placed on the table, is placed *around* it, not *on* it). The rules would still be still extremely restrictive, but, *that* restrictive??? It wouldn't make sense at all, unless the results were *really* "fixed" already, and they were positively discouraging interesting entries (which I don't really believe, since Canada ain't US, and lace ain't politics ) I think it is more a matter that the contest chairman is anticipating having to transport several of the entries in her suitcase and would prefer not to have long narrow three dimensional structures which would be very difficult to transport. Devon - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [lace] Re: IOLI competition rules revisited
I think it is more a matter that the contest chairman is anticipating having to transport several of the entries in her suitcase and would prefer not to have long narrow three dimensional structures which would be very difficult to transport. Surely entries which are mailed in would be sent direct to someone who lives locally in Canada, not someone who would need to fly there (contest chair or otherwise) Sue - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[lace] Re: IOLI competition rules revisited - 3D
On Aug 28, 2005, at 8:10, Ilske Thomsen wrote: Haven't you read this: Beads, wire and raised tallies are permitted, I *have* :) Which is why, in response to Jacqui's warning about being careful with Gros Point (NL), I created a whole series of *rhetorical* situations where "natural bumps", integral to the technique (BL, Crochet, Tatting), would disqualify those laces also, if one were to stick to the "no 3-D" rule too literally... I still think that what's meant by "2-D only" is pieces which had been constructed into pyramids and other such *afterwards* (once the basic lacemaking process is over). And I still think that the whole issue could be settled - easily - by including the third dimension in the description, *as usual*... :) Just make it "35-45 inch, by 3.5-5 inch, by no more than an eighth of an inch" (or whatever's the pleasure)... What's difficult about that? It would spare the organisers having to deal with - individual - panicked questions from potential entrants who're seeking to clarify the extent of the rules (truly, the organisers of the nearest event would as soon be spared the effort of replying to multiples of those questions at this point, since they'll be having other problems ) It would also stop turning off potential entrants who think "dead-flat's not what I'm interested in" and won't even ask. Again: what's so difficult about that? *Add* the third dimension to the rules... Just make it *small*. IM - NH -O -- Tamara P Duvallhttp://t-n-lace.net/ Lexington, Virginia, USA (Formerly of Warsaw, Poland) - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
