Candace Bahouth
Lula
The title is Flowers, Birds, and Unicorns---Medieval Needlepoint
published by Harry Abrams--1993
ISBN 0-8109-3316-0
A beautiful book with 20 needlepoint designs based on Medieval art--and
some history of the designs and worth every cent.
Many book stores still carry the book--my local Borders still has copies
periodically.
Candace Bahouth is one of my favorite needlepoint artists and I recall
Robert Tusler mentioning he might be attending one of her classes and
lecture in the UK this fall.
Lula from Wooly Dreams Design
(e-mailed and posted)
Karin Langeveld wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> Someone recently told me about a book on Medieval Needlepoint by Candace
> Bahouth. She had a French copy and could not give me the ISBN of the
> English. Our local bookstore cannot find it. I'm not sure I have the
> spelling right, nor do I have an exact title.
> I was hoping you could help me. If any of you have it, could you please
> e-mail me the relevant details?
>
> TIA,
>
> Karin L.
John and Linda Kulpak
Karin Langeveld wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> Someone recently told me about a book on Medieval Needlepoint by Candace
> Bahouth. She had a French copy and could not give me the ISBN of the
> English.
I hope this is the one you are looking for; It is called
"Flowers, Birds, and Unicorns: Medieval Needlepoint" by Candace Bahouth.
The ISBN number is 0-8109-3316-0 (Harry N. Abrams, Inc, Publishers.,
N.Y. 1993). Ms. Bahouth has recently written a new book. I don't have
any information on that one, though.
Linda.
Karin Langeveld
Hello everyone,
Someone recently told me about a book on Medieval Needlepoint by Candace
Bahouth. She had a French copy and could not give me the ISBN of the
ber...@interlog.com
Hi Karin,
It's called "Flowers, Birds and Unicorns: Medieval Needlepoint" by Candace
Bahouth. The ISBN of the English edition is ISBN 0-8109-3316-0.
I hope you find it, It's a gorgeous book. However, in my edition there
were some corrections to a couple of the charts. Make sure you get the
insert that explains these corrections if needed (maybe they corrected
them in a leter edition?).
Leslie
--
"You're wrong" means "I don't understand you"- I'm not seeing what you're seeing. But there is nothing *wrong* with you, you are simply not me and that's not wrong. -Hugh Prather, 1970-
Leslie Bernard Nolan
ber...@interlog.com (Toronto)
Robert Tusler
> Ms. Bahouth has recently written a new book. I don't have
> any information on that one, though.
It's called Romantic Needlepoint, published in 1995 by Conran Octopus
Ltd. ISBN No 1 85029 707 X.
Robert Tusler, Surrey, England
rtu...@cix.compulink.co.uk
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Robert_Tusler
Anita Easton
Lula <wooly...@earthlink.net> writes:
> The title is Flowers, Birds, and Unicorns---Medieval Needlepoint
> published by Harry Abrams--1993
> ISBN 0-8109-3316-0
FWIW the Engish edition of this book's details are:
Title: Candace Bahouth's Medieval Needlepoint
Publisher: Conran Octopus 1993 (I have a 1994 reprint)
ISBN: 1-85029-534-4
I have never been entirely sure why books are published under
different titles in different countries - but it sure confuses me :)
Anita
Karin Langeveld
Hi everyone,
Thanks for all the information on the book. I went too the local
bookstore with it, but so far no results... :^(
Well, if they still haven't called me I'll go back and try again...
(If at first... etc. etc.)
Karin
Robert Tusler
> Candace Bahouth is one of my favorite needlepoint artists and I
> recall
> Robert Tusler mentioning he might be attending one of her classes
> and
> lecture in the UK this fall.
>
> Lula from Wooly Dreams Design
I hoped to go to one of her workshops but had difficulty in making
arrangements for the weekend so dropped the idea. The next time I would
be more aggressive in telling people to manage without me for a weekend.
The workshop was organised through Ehrman, so I'm sure it will be
repeated.
For once I'm in agreement with Melinda - Bahouth is special as an artist
who does needlepoint, as opposed to a needlepoint designer. Funnily
enough, two of the designs in Romantic Needlepoint - I Love You and Icon
of Divine Light, the Altar piece from Chichester Cathedral, are on sale
in the shop at the Royal Academy but don't have her name anywhere near
them. I Love you is attibuted to Peter Blake and IDL to Cecil Collins.
I guess they were the original designers! What we need is to get a
textile artist admitted to the Royal Academy. At the moment the rules
specifically exclude anybody other than, I think, painters, sculptors and
architects.
Lula
Robert Tusler wrote:
>
> > Candace Bahouth is one of my favorite needlepoint artists > >
> > Lula from Wooly Dreams Design
>
>
> For once I'm in agreement with Melinda - Bahouth is special as an artist
> who does needlepoint, as opposed to a needlepoint designer. What we need is to get a
> textile artist admitted to the Royal Academy. At the moment the rules
> specifically exclude anybody other than, I think, painters, sculptors and
> architects.
>
Robert--
I was right--Candance is a needlepoint artist as I said rather than a
designer.
Somehow The Royal Academy has always struck me as a place with a nose in
the air attitude towards anything not in the fine arts realm.
The Fine Arts is rather stuck up too---many fine artists will not
recognize illustrators as fine artists in their own right despite the
quality of their works.
Figure we're a bunch of hacks churning out commercial art work and not
fine arts!
It's actually frustrating to feel less of an artist because I've chosen
to be practical to earn a living from my art rather than living for my
art.
We have the same problem for recognization in this country for the
textile arts.
Many textile designers have classic art educations but not considered
real artists.
This debate has continued through the years and only recently have the
textile and needle arts starting to gain some recognization as an art
form in their own right.
It will take more years and more art produced by textile and surface
design artists to gain their rightful recognization and more progressive
judges and policy makers on the arts panels.
ReeReeP
Robert Tusler writes:
>> For once I'm in agreement with Melinda - Bahouth is special as an
artist
>> who does needlepoint, as opposed to a needlepoint designer. What we
>need is to get a
>> textile artist admitted to the Royal Academy. At the moment the rules
>> specifically exclude anybody other than, I think, painters, sculptors
and
>> architects.
Now, this worries me. Robert is agreeing with Melinda!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quick, somebody stop the presses.
-Ree (ree...@aol.com)
Be especially careful in dangerous places
where an Ambush might occur. An Ambush
is a sort of Surprise. Then again, so is a
gorse-bush sometimes.
-Pooh's Little Instruction Book
(inspired by A. A. Milne)
in...@aol.com
try the Strand Bookstore in NYC--they've got a good selection of used
needlework books this is where I got my copy.
in...@aol.com
Robert Tusler
> Somehow The Royal Academy has always struck me as a place with a
> nose in
> the air attitude towards anything not in the fine arts realm.
Lula
It's always a wonderful place to visit. Perhaps I am too hard on them.
After all, there have not been that many great textile artists in recent
years. The recent William Morris exhibition at the V&A suggested to me
that Morris was not a particularly great textile artist. I like doing
his work, but only after it has been filtered by Beth Russell!
As somebody wrote to me, there is no doubt whether an artist is an
artist. Textile art is just painting with a different medium. Having
been to the Summer Exhibition quite a few times in recent years, I'm
convinced that if a good enough artist worked with textiles and offered
for membership of the academy, the fact that fabric is not paint would
not stand in the way. On the other hand, doing needlepoint is rather
too slow, I fear. Who is going to pay thousands of pounds for something
which has taken me months of work?
Melinda Coss
> It's always a wonderful place to visit. Perhaps I am too hard on
> them. After all, there have not been that many great textile artists
> in recent years. The recent William Morris exhibition at the V&A
> suggested to me that Morris was not a particularly great textile
> artist.
Now come ON Robert. You would be perfectly within your rights to say
that William Morris's textiles were not to your personal taste but to
declare that he was 'not a particularly great textile artist' is a little
arrogant to say the least. The influence of his work still lives on to be
interpreted by people like Beth Russell and many, many other crafts
people. That fact on its own establishes him as 'a great textile artist'.
His
concept of colour and pattern and its use in interiors captured the
imagination of a whole generation.
Melinda
Lula
Robert---
Art is a subjective topic---good example is your view about William
Morris---whether or not he is to everyone's taste is not the
point---Morris has left his mark upon the textile and design world for
years to come yet. He has become an icon in the history of textiles and
design.
As far as needlepoint being considered fine art---it's not the time
taken to do it that makes it art but what's in it that creates the art.
I often think of needlepoint in the same way I look at the great
tapestries of the past.
Time and monetary reward has no meaning for an artist working on a
"masterpiece". It's an all consuming passion to create and bring a
personal vision to life.
If artist's sat down and tried to break down their creations into an
hourly wage---there would a lot less artist's in the world today.
It's difficult and almost impossible to judge a piece of art by how many
hours it took to create.
Many people often ask me how many hours it takes for me to paint some of
my needlepoint designs---some take longer and some are shorter--it may
surprise some to hear I don't price my labor by the hour but by the job
and the design value.
And you are right---the "right" textile artist coming along should be
offered membership in the Royal Academy. It's all subjective to the
panel of judges.
What needs to changed is the attitude and the way we look at
needlework/textiles as a fine art medium and not just a craft.
Lula from Wooly Dreams Design
Robert Tusler wrote:
> After all, there have not been that many great textile artists in recent
> years. The recent William Morris exhibition at the V&A suggested to me
Susan Hayes
In article <E0M4w...@cix.compulink.co.uk>,
mc...@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Melinda Coss") wrote:
>
>> It's always a wonderful place to visit. Perhaps I am too hard on
>> suggested to me that Morris was not a particularly great textile
>> artist.
>that William Morris's textiles were not to your personal taste but to
>declare that he was 'not a particularly great textile artist' is a little
>arrogant to say the least. The influence of his work still lives on to be
>interpreted by people like Beth Russell and many, many other crafts
>people. That fact on its own establishes him as 'a great textile artist'.
>His
>concept of colour and pattern and its use in interiors captured the
>imagination of a whole generation.
>Melinda
I'm wondering by what criteria does Robert qualify a textile artist as good or
bad and why he doesn't think Morris fits. Taking it further, who are great in
his opinion and why?
Would love an answer to this one, Robert.
Susan H.
Robert Tusler
MC says
> You would be perfectly within your rights to say
> that William Morris's textiles were not to your personal taste
> but to declare that he was 'not a particularly great textile
> artist' is a little arrogant to say the least. The influence of
> his work still lives on to be interpreted by people like Beth
> Russell and many, many other crafts people. That fact on its own
> establishes him as 'a great textile artist'.
Yes, that's fair comment. I did not like much of the exhibition, though
I would have given my eye teeth to have been left alone with the
manuscript books. Looking at them through glass with bifocals was so
frustrating you would not believe it. Another factor is that if you are
looking at hundred year old tapestries and embroideries they are rarely
seen at their best, suffering from dust and actinic degradation. Could
this relative short life be another reason why 'great artists' don't use
textile media. Another problem, of course, is the lack of range of
colour available.
Robert Tusler
Susan Hayes asks
> I'm wondering by what criteria does Robert qualify a textile
> artist as good or bad and why he doesn't think Morris fits.
> Taking it further, who are great in his opinion and why?
>
> Would love an answer to this one, Robert.
My goodness, you guys do ask tough questions. Susan - I did not say
good or bad artists. I said great. Another way of expressing it might
have been 'In recent years few if any great artists have worked in
textiles.' Let's pretend for the moment that I'm qualified to answer
Susan's question, then we can go from there if people want to discuss it
further.
So how do we judge a great work of art? Is it a great work of art if it
makes my fingers tingle? No, because there are plenty of great works
which don't do this, but others less great which do. So that's just
brain chemistry. Is it great because I like it? Who am I to judge?
Can we apply Melinda's test that the influence of an artist's work lives
on after him, and that he influences other artists of his own and later
generations? Well, at least it's relatively objective. What about
great artists who do not become fashionable - are they not great, or are
they just rotten at marketing?
So that means that great artists include people like Cezanne, Van Gogh,
Boticelli, Michelangelo, and Picasso. These people are also originals.
Sir Isaac Newton once remarked that if he had achieved great things he
had stood on the shoulders of greater men who had preceded him. These
people do not seem to have done this. A great textile artist was
Raphael - the V&A has just put back on show the cartoons he drew for some
tapestries which, if they were ever made, are no longer in existence.
Does the textile artist have to do all the stitching in person? No, any
more than the wallpaper artist has to print the wallpaper in person.
Kaffe Fassett does not do all his own stitching, and is not the less a
textile artist for it.
Are there any artists around today who have such influence? It's
difficult nowadays, isn't it, because we have to strip out the benefits
of marketing or the media. Two years ago it was impossible to get hold
easily of designs by textile artists, but they are getting much more
accessible through the web. Of the artists and designers known here in
this country, very few are really original, though Kaffe is one of them.
Jill Gordon is a very original artist in wool on canvas, as is Elian
McCreedy, On the other hand, I doubt whether either woman would
compare herself with Michelangeol or Picasso. There is a wonderful
tapestry in Coventry Cathedral which I believe was probably by John
Piper, who may well be a great artist, but is somewhat neglected today.
Does that neglect make him not a great artist?
Does anybody else know of any great artists working with textiles? Am I
wrong to set the bar too high? Can people whose work is derivative be
great artists?
While I have been writing this I've been listening to a CD of Jacques
Loussier, the French pianist, playing the music of JS Bach in a jazz
idiom. The conjunction of two of my great loves - Bach and jazz. How
can I type so well with tingling fingers? Put it all down to the spell
checker.
Lula
Robert--
You and I seem to me you are saying the same thing---art is very
subjective--either you like it or you don't.
It doesn't mean it's bad because you don't like it or good because you
do like it. It's a personal feeling.
However--I don't agree with Kaffe Fassett being an original textile
artist---I think of him as more of an adapter than an original artist.
I would consider Jill Gordon more of an artist in her designing than
Kaffe.
Jill Gordon and other needlework artists have no reason to compare
themselves to Michangelo or Picasso---it's like comparing apples to
oranges--different standards--different periods of time.
Needlework should be judged on its own merits and standards.
I admire Kaffe's work greatly and feel he has revolutionized the
needlework world with his use of color. Just like William Morris in his
time---Kaffe will go down in history as a great innovator in the
textile/needlework world---but part of this as you say Robert is due to
mass media and clever marketing on Kaffe's, Rowan's and even Erhman's
sponsorship.
In reality--all art is basically derivative---the difference is how much
inspiration is used in the finished art.
An artist can look and absorb ideas from many sources--some will adapt
the ideas literally into their designs like Kaffe does and others will
create a whole new design from all the ideas absorbed.
And true---there are many worthy textile/needlework artist's out there
no one knows much about because of lack of publicity and not because
they lack talent.The ones with publicity are not always the best.
Melinda Coss
Can I add another point here? Through my work I meet many,many talented
designers and craftspeople. Usually they are unaware of the value of
their work in terms of quality but are simply driven to continue it.
Call it a love of the great British understatement but my one major gripe
is towards those who introduce themselves as 'artists'.
Whilst many of these people may well be artists, the fact that they
bestow that title on themselves makes my stomach turn. In my book,there
is a huge difference between being a talented commercial designer and
being an
'artist'. The latter is for other people to determine. Morris has
certainly
achieved this status.
Those who call themselves 'Queen'on the other hand, are obviously beyond
judgement.:)
Melinda
Robert Tusler
> As far as needlepoint being considered fine art---it's not the
> time
> taken to do it that makes it art but what's in it that creates
> the art.
> I often think of needlepoint in the same way I look at the great
> tapestries of the past.
Lula
My point was not so much that it is not fine art because it takes so long
to do. More that an artist who has to earn a living can't afford to
take too long to stitch one object. For instance, Melinda's Lady with
the Lute took me months to do - if I were doing it for money I would
expect to earn a huge sum for it.
When people say on the newsgroup 'What's the going rate for doing a piece
of stitching for somebody?' I always reply 'Decide what you want to be
paid for doing it, and this becomes the going rate.' If somebody is
happy to stitch for a penny a stitch because she gets paid for doing
something she enjoys that's fine.
Susan Hayes
In article <E0t19...@cix.compulink.co.uk>,
I think you bring up a good point. Those of us who merely duplicate someone
else's design in needlework are certainly not artists no matter how neat and
tidy our stitching. Craftspeople, perhaps, if the quality warrants the title.
Some of the designers are not artists either, but as you say commercial
designers or illustrators. There are artists out there whose work is far too
complex or individual. Some of those have been featured in Classic Stitches
and other magazines. But they are truly unique and have far more to say in
their art than a mere love for needlework. I met a woman this week who uses
berries, fruits, seeds, etc. to create beaded sculptures. I'm dying to see
her artwork, but would never dream of duplicating it.
Susan H.
Cameron Parish
rtu...@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Robert Tusler") writes:
>Susan Hayes asks
>Can we apply Melinda's test that the influence of an artist's work lives
>on after him, and that he influences other artists of his own and later
>generations? Well, at least it's relatively objective.
[...]
>Does anybody else know of any great artists working with textiles? Am I
>wrong to set the bar too high? Can people whose work is derivative be
>great artists?
Heck if I know, but I'll propose a case study: Judy Chicago's (in)famous
"Dinner Party", first exhibited in 1979 or so. It was a multimedia
feminist installation that involved highly embroidered table runners and
other textiles. About a million people visited the piece, and there are
many stories about the Dinner Party's emotional impact. Though it's still
making waves and inspiring derivatives almost 20 years after its first
exhibition, I don't think it's been formally canonized as a Great Work.
Magdalena Abramowicz (sp?) might have a run at being a great textile
artist, with those big pendulous fabric-sculptures she's known for.
(She's certainly an *expensive* artist -- my alma mater just bought an
impressively ugly sculpture of hers, for a heck of a lot of money.)
I don't know if she's left any kind of a lineage, though.
cheers,
Cam "not an art historian" Parish
--
Cameron Parish
cam...@serv.net
Melinda Coss
> Heck if I know, but I'll propose a case study: Judy Chicago's (in)famous
> "Dinner Party", first exhibited in 1979 or so. It was a multimedia
> feminist installation that involved highly embroidered table runners and
> other textiles. About a million people visited the piece, and there are
> many stories about the Dinner Party's emotional impact. Though it's
> still making waves and inspiring derivatives almost 20 years after its
> first
> exhibition, I don't think it's been formally canonized as a Great Work.
If that is the case then an 'artist' should perhaps be defined as someone
who provokes controversy and constructive debate. There was, amongst the
praise, enormous indignation over 'Dinner Party' because all the plates
were painted with vaginas and at a time of high feminism there were
questions as to whether the theme and the link to homespun embroidery
epitomised women in a politically correct way.
Melinda