Just to reassure everyone I'm still alive (if busy), and to vent my
Marplish suspicions... :)
This is, *strictly*, a "mental exercise" response; anything that's 35"
long is, to me, yardage, and, as such, of zero interest. When it's 35'"
by 3.5", it goes from zero to minus ten in no time flat. So I was going
to just pass it up and not participate (the number of contests I have,
quietly, not participated in is legion ), but then I thought some
more and was struck by the requirements...
On Aug 16, 2005, at 15:09, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Debra, the Editor of the
IOLI Bulletin) wrote:
I have received questions regarding the IOLI contest. For
clarification here
are the rules.
[...] the 2006 contest theme will be: Feast for the Eyes.
Flowered or geometric, traditional or modern, colorful or subdued:
[...]
The contest: Table ribbon 35 to 45 inches in length (90-100cm) â
3.5 to 5
inches in width (9-12cm), any technique, any size or type of thread,
at least
two colors. The lace cannot be attached to fabric or framed. All
sides of the
lace should be finished.
OK. I'd have thought that the last requirement was a "given"; I can't
imagine submitting - for a contest - an *un*-finished piece of lace
(with "whiskers" flying all over the place) but, if we need to specify
that, fine.
But the other requirements struck me as "funny", in how narrowly they
were set...
On the one hand, we have the Convention theme (Lace and the Art of the
Table Dressing) and the contest theme (Feast for the Eyes)... Anything
lacy to visually enhance a festive dinner table should be right, no?
No. It has to be a piece 35-45" long, 3.5-5" wide, with no fabric in
the middle (to put a flower arrangement or a candelabra on, for
example, without obscuring or harming the lace).
On the one hand, we're told: "traditional or modern, colorful or
subdued"... On the other hand we're told: "at least two colors". Which,
de facto, *eliminates* the "traditional" bit and puts a big dent into
the "subdued". This is the first time, *ever* that all white (or cream)
lace is actually *forbidden* which, to me, is the weirdest thing. I
work my lace in colour *most of the time* but, when I sit down to a
festive table, with all the dishes in many colours (supplied by both
the china and the food), the *very last* thing I want is a competition
from a piece of cloth. I *do* use lace at the table - inherited from
MIL or bought (cheply ) during my travels abroad, but none of it is
bi-cloured. While I indulge in colour-play elsewhere, at the festive
table I relax in the peace of a single colour...
None of the sizes/combination of sizes complement the size of my
dining-room table, even before it's fully extended to seat 12. The
shortest/widest (35x5") combination would still look like a child's
shoe-lace, and totally out of place; any other combination would only
look worse. I can't think of any reason to *have* such a piece on my
Christmas table, much less think of a reason to *make* one (and I
wouldn't want to make one - as an e-friend suggested - in 1:12 scale
either. Wouldn't fit my dollhouse table any better )
Possibly, I could contemplate making such a piece, according to the
rules (size, and having at least two colours); I could swallow my
preferences for fine and medium-sized threads and use Bockens linen 36
which does come in colours... But, where does the size leave all the
non-BL lacemakers?
I expect the tatters may be able to beef up something sufficiently, so
as not to spend the next 10 yrs at it, as might the crocheters and the
knitters. But, *any* of the needle and "mixed" lacemakers seem to me to
be pretty much barred from participation, which previous IOLI
competitions had never done; a 12" *maximum in any direction* allows
for something small and delicate as well as something large and flashy.
The current "regimen" does not. The specifications are just *too*
restraining, every which way you look...
And, drat it, the size doesn't even "round off" nicely, in *either* the
metric or the inch system... 3.5" is 9cm, barely acceptable. 35" is 89
cm - doesn't make sense whichever way you look at it. 5" (OK, a nice
number) is 12.75cm. 45" (another acceptable number) is 114.25cm (I do
not know where the official 100cm comes from, but not from any book I'm
familiar with 100cm is 39 inches and "change")
Which brings me to my Marplishness... Is it, could it be, possible that
someone in the organising group *already has* a piece made, which
*does* fit the specifications "to a nicety"? And has skewed the
requirements to eliminate as much competition as possible?
Yours, growing super-sized right-hand deltoids while pureing tomatos
via the Folley Food Mill and, as a result, feeling very FMK9-y
--
Tamara P Duvallhttp://t-n-lace.net/
Lexington, Virginia, USA (Formerly of Warsaw, Poland)
-
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line:
uns
