Art vs. Craft
daniel
from a pair of very active quilting teachers in Texas, partly in reaction to
discussions they hear in stores and quilt guilds in the state.
dbo...@nol.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is time to take some of the myth and mystery out of quilting. The
arguments about whether quilting is a craft or an art are specious and
time-consuming. The
argument about hand- versus machine-made is equally silly. The arguments
provide a springboard for
the noisy and silly--but they aren't really arguments at all.
Putting together a quilt is a craft. Anyone with the time and energy
to devote can make a quilt. It requires a minimum amount of skill--the
ability to sew a reasonably
straight and even seam will do it. Piecing can be learned. Putting the quilt
top, batting and
backing together may be an exercise in patience, but almost anyone who
wishes to do so can learn
the skills required. Quilting can be learned--whether by hand or machine is
irrelevant. The
artistic merits of the finished quilt may be debatable, but the product is a
quilt--good, bad,
or indifferent!
Any craft can be done once someone applies time and patience. It can be
a line-for-line copy, or a variation, but it is a copy. Quilting, the basics
of quilting,
are no exception. If this were not so, very few people would be making
quilts.
Whether one makes a quilt entirely "by hand" or uses a sewing machine,
it is still "a quilt." Our ancestors made quilts by hand because they no
other option. They also
plowed their fields using animals to pull the plow. Does wheat planted,
tended & harvested by
gas-powered machines make poorer bread? Why should the means of production
matter so much to
quilters? The finished product, whether made by hand or machine, should be
what
matters. Or the making matters. Or it is the patient sewing that matters. It
depends on why
you make quilts. Comparing one sort of quilting to another is a waste of
time. None is
better; all are "real".
The "Art" of quilting is another matter entirely. As with any art, what
is required is an eye for color, pattern, light, shadow, and composition.
Reproducing a classic
quilt pattern, whether it be a log cabin, a star, or a complicated double
wedding ring, is an
exercise in patience. The finished result will be a duplicate of something
many others have done.
Any art will be in the color choices and placement. And yes, it can be very
artistic. But
"artistic" isn't a synonym for "art".
It is argued that a beautifully-made, hand-quilted, Ocean Waves quilt is
"art". Unfortunately,
even though it is made with an artist's eye for color and composition, it
will be, simply, another
copy. Appreciated by those who understand the craft, perhaps, but a copy. A
perfect copy of
the Mona Lisa, using historically correct paints and technically perfect
paints, is a still a copy!
The artist who did the original is still the artist--the copier is a
craftsman.
Which brings us to the next problem with most "quilts as art". The
classic quilt patterns were developed for many reasons--but most (and I
stress most, there were
always exceptions) were designed to put on beds--displayed horizontally in
other words. A
repetitive pattern seen horizontally can be very pleasing to the eye. The
same pattern, hung on
the wall, is simply confusing and busy. Art quilts, like any of the visual
arts, should
have something for the eye--a focal point, pleasing colors which lead the
eye, use of light and shadow
to tease the eye---any art book will give you thousands of other "rules". A
simple
repetitive pattern can be art-- witness the Moorish designs of southern
Spain--but generally speaking,
it takes more than repetition to produce art.
<br><br>
The making of a quilt is the craft--a skill that can be learned and
improved with practice. For the quilt to be art, the eye that designs the
quilt top must be that of
an artist. The difference is simple. If , given the pattern, any reasonably
skilled quilter can
reproduce what the maker did-- it is probably craft. If only one person can
produce that particular
vision, the art is in the original. "But my colors are different than those
in the
illustration." simply isn't an answer! Was this quilt something no one else
could possibly do? Or was it simply
one more variation on a theme?
Does it matter? Not really. The arguments in the quilt world are simply
noise--something to do
with one's time. Those who make quilts one way argue that theirs is the only
way. Those who
do another use the same arguments. It is as though the only way to prove
worth is to denigrate
another.
The answer to the question "Why do you make quilts" is the only thing
that should matter to any quilter. If you make quilts because you love to
see the results, that
is one reason for quilting. Whether the results could be considered art or
craft are irrelevant. If
you make quilts to give as gifts, the answer is still the only thing that
matters. If, on the
other hand, you are making quilts to sell--you must stop and do some
questioning.
There are two categories of quilts for sale--art quilts and craft
quilts. They have entirely different markets, and entirely different sale
price differentials.
Craft quilts (quilts anyone with sufficient time, energy, and skill can
make) can be made entirely by hand or on a machine. They can be made by a
dedicated Guild member
or a sweatshop employee in the third world. The bottom line is that they are
reproducible quilts and the price will be dictated by a set of market
forces. The person who is happy to
put a third-world sweatshop Double Wedding Ring (purchased for $39.95) on a
bed is
probably not going to be willing to pay hundreds of dollars for a seemingly
similar quilt made by
a local Guild member. There are a few buyers out there willing to pay for
the locally-made
version, but not many. The skill of the maker is recognized by the peers of
the maker. A buyer,
however, may not care.
"We must educate the public" sounds good, but generations of visual
artists have attempted to "educate the public" and people still buy
mass-produced sad-eyed
children painted on black velvet or cheaply produced prints in preference to
one-of-a kind
works. Guild members often decry the low selling price of their works, but
they fail completely to
realize that non-quilters may or may not care. Raffle quilts raise money,
partly because of the
quilts themselves, but mostly because a lot of people are willing to part
with a couple of dollars
for the cause involved. The merits of the quilt itself are of true interest
only to the quilters.
In the antique field, all bets are off. There are people willing to pay high
prices for anything that
is "old" A badly made 100-year-old quilt may bring in big bucks to an
antique dealer--but it is
still badly made. A beautifully made antique quilt, preserved because it had
intrinsic as well as
sentimental value to someone, is still a craft quilt--it can be copied--and
probably has been.
One is paying for age, not art, in most cases.
In the "art quilt" market--anything goes. There are people willing to pay a
great deal of money
for a one-of-a-kind quilt. As with the other visual arts, no one is going to
pay top price for a
reproduction or a badly done original. They want the real thing and they
want quality, and
quality can be hand- or machine-made. An art quilt is a one of a kind
production--it can't be
copied. The artist's name and reputation sell the quilt. Bad copies may be
attempted, but the
chances of anyone paying money for them are poor.
The last and worst of the quilting world silliness is beginning to show up
more and more. That is,
more and more people are doing "something" simply because they can. It would
be fine if they'd
be content to do it and let it go at that. But given our world, they must
then attempt to get the
rest of us to "do" whatever.
Our pioneer ancestors didn't have the time or energy to do more than produce
what they
needed. Having acquired the skills to produce a log cabin quilt out of
scraps on hand, they
probably went on producing log cabin quilts out of scraps on hand. That is
all they had time and
resources to do. Our modern quilter can't seem to stop there. Having learned
to make a "real"
log cabin (out of scraps purchased for $9.95 a yard), she decides that it
would be "fun" to try
and make a "different" log cabin--one with logs that finish at 1/8", just to
prove that she can.
And as if that weren't enough, she makes several. Why? Because she can! It
is what Betty
McDonald, the author of "The Egg and I", called "toe covers". Toe covers
were something
people made because they had the time and the materials, and wanted to "do
something." Tatted
bookmarks (when paper ones are far more practical), reproductions of the
White House made
of matchsticks, flowers made from feathers--you name it--are toe covers.
They may have a use,
but another product would probably be more practical.
Many of the quilts now displayed at shows and exhibitions are toe
covers--pure and simple. It isn't that any new ground is being broken--or
that any new technique has
been developed. Known techniques are being carried out to such an extreme
that one can
only sit and wonder why. Or one can understand that the quilt shows rely on
having the
newest to display. Since quilts are quilts--fancy or plain, art or craft,
big or little--"new" is
a big requirement. We've seen a lot of good come from this. Our rotary
cutters and other products
wouldn't be available if people didn't search for new ways to do things.
Unfortunately the last couple of years seems to have produced an awful
lot of "because I can" quilting--miniatures with pieces so tiny one needs
forceps and
magnifying glasses to work. It is "new" only in that it is tiny. The actual
designs are what the art world
calls "calendar art"--banal and predictable. It isn't adding anything new to
the quilting world.
Somehow the idea is proliferating that it must be tiny to be good. Why? If
working in
miniature is your thing--great! But are you doing it because you love it,
or because it is the newest
thing and all of the books and articles are raving about it?
Once again, we are back to the question, "Why make a quilt?" Most of us will
never sell a one-
of-a-kind quilted production for thousands of dollars. We will go on making
quilts because we
want to, because we enjoy the process, because we like doing the work. We
will copy patterns
and change color, perspective, and fabrics. But let's be honest and stop the
silliness of arguing
over what we are doing. We are pleasing something in ourselves by producing
a quilt. If we are
being manipulated into trying something, we should be aware of the
manipulation. Is it a truly
new process or technique, or is it a toe cover?
We listened to a speaker at a guild meeting once--a national award winner
for her quilts. And
were appalled at what she said. She described carefully figuring out "what
the show wants" and
what the judges known to be working the show "want" and then makes a quilt
to please those
people. She often hates the colors, the patterns, and the quilt--but she
wins prizes!! This is a
reason to make a quilt--but not one we would ever want to use. The quilts
were stunning--but
they were also cold and impersonal. We would so much rather see the "made at
home by loving
hands" quilts of non-prize winners--they are a lot more interesting than
cold technical perfection.
"Made by hand" they may be--but cold technical perfection can be done by
machines, and
making something by hand should not be a copy of what a machine can do, why
do it
otherwise?
Why do you make quilts? We have no idea. We make them because we enjoy it.
If others like
what we've done, that's nice--but we make them for ourselves. If we want to
use clashing
colors and weird patterns, so be it. We are not going to sell them, so can
do as we please.
And so can you! Don't worry about doing it "the right way" or in the "right
color". Please
yourself!! You'll enjoy quilting a lot more, and the Quilt Police will never
bother you! They only
bother people without the self-confidence to say "This is what I want to do,
so I am doing it."
Make quilts because you want to--and enjoy it!!!!
2 S.A. Broads--Peggy & Pat
http://www.2sabroads.com/
Nbhilyard
somewhat difficult to read at the end. (I
downloaded the file so I can insert some
paragraphs and read it offline.)
Nann in Lindenhurst, Illinois
"you never know what you can do until you try to undo what you did"
Zawilski
a lot of things to agree with, mainly the idea that you should please
yourself in making quilts. However, I found the "toe cover" stuff sort of
snooty. There are only so many new things under the sun, and if we confined
quilt shows to displaying things that are "new ground...being broken" or
"new technique" we'd have pretty skimpy shows, I think. And if I've seen a
particular technique and you haven't, it's not new, so tough luck, you DON'T
get to see it (at least not if I'm in charge of the quilt show - heaven
forbid, I don't want to be in charge of anything!!)
Thanks for posting the commentary. It was very interesting.
Iris
daniel wrote in message <1EEI2.1022$Ee4....@news15.ispnews.com>...
>This is a commentary posted on a web site that I want to pass along. It's
>from a pair of very active quilting teachers in Texas, partly in reaction
to
>discussions they hear in stores and quilt guilds in the state.
>
>dbo...@nol.net
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>
snip--
>The last and worst of the quilting world silliness is beginning to show up
>more and more. That is,
>more and more people are doing "something" simply because they can. It
would
>be fine if they'd
>be content to do it and let it go at that. But given our world, they must
>then attempt to get the
>rest of us to "do" whatever.
snip
>And as if that weren't enough, she makes several. Why? Because she can! It
>is what Betty
>McDonald, the author of "The Egg and I", called "toe covers". Toe covers
>were something
>people made because they had the time and the materials, and wanted to "do
>something." Tatted
>bookmarks (when paper ones are far more practical), reproductions of the
>White House made
>of matchsticks, flowers made from feathers--you name it--are toe covers.
>They may have a use,
>but another product would probably be more practical.
>
>Many of the quilts now displayed at shows and exhibitions are toe
>covers--pure and simple. It isn't that any new ground is being broken--or
>that any new technique has
>been developed. Known techniques are being carried out to such an extreme
>that one can
>only sit and wonder why.
snip
>
>>
>Once again, we are back to the question, "Why make a quilt?" Most of us
will
>never sell a one-
>of-a-kind quilted production for thousands of dollars. We will go on making
>quilts because we
>want to, because we enjoy the process, because we like doing the work. We
>will copy patterns
>and change color, perspective, and fabrics. But let's be honest and stop
the
>silliness of arguing
>over what we are doing. We are pleasing something in ourselves by producing
>a quilt. If we are
>being manipulated into trying something, we should be aware of the
>manipulation. Is it a truly
>new process or technique, or is it a toe cover?
>
>snip
G. Ann Sitch
I read this article and got quite annoyed: art is only what is
"unreproducible" and "uncopiable"? I think not! Under their
definition, no one produces art because it can all be copied!
That's ridiculous.
Carolyn Lanzkron
I would argue with the part of the article implied that "art" can be
measured by the reaction of the marketplace. Pet Rocks were once sold, and
great ideas are free. Some art has only come to be appreciated with the
perspective of much time. Don't get me wrong - I am a devout capitalist. I
would nonetheless suggest that art transcends the market. Art is what moves
people. Great art is unforgettable.
I also take issue with the article's disdain for miniature quiltists and
toothpick-building sculptors. I don't understand how the author can judge a
whole class of work based on the medium. Perhaps the motivation isn't (as
the article suggested) "because I can" but, "to prove it can be done." (I
have a vague memory of a 60 Minutes piece about a man who made incredible
"paintings" out of sugar crystals, tomato sauce and the like. He had to
photograph them because they wouldn't "keep".) My 7-year-old son and I were
in the Museum of Fine Art on Wednesday (teacher conference day, so no
school) and I could barely tear him away from an English replica of the
H.M.S. Victory made out of bone. Part of the wonder at this piece was its
craftsmanship; part was its art.
>>Make quilts because you want to--and enjoy it!!!!
Here, here! This part I liked!
Whether "art" or "craft", quilting appeals to me because it is a way of
demonstrating love for someone. The value of the quilts I have made is in
the recipient's knowledge that the gift was stitched "with love" just for
him/her -- certainly not in the workmanship <g>.
CLKL
--
remove "doubt" to reply
AmyGaley
fine arts, but I think the point is well made. I am fussing around with a mini
basket quilt now, and there is definitely the element of "because I can" in my
motivation. Is it a "toe cover" -- sure. Do I care? -- no, not one bit. I
am trying to learn something new and challenge myself in my craft. I like the
way it looks as I work on it. It gives me something to do with my hands while
my dd is playing in the bathtub!
I don't think there is anything elitist or stuffy about asking why someone
spent the time and money to create something, or in pointing out that we can be
slave to fashion in quilting as in anything else.
AmyG
></PRE></HTML>
Lynne
wandering...and a bit superior. This whole argument about what is or is
not art is tiresome, and I don't want to get too bent out of shape about
it.
However, I don't think there is any need for anyone to insult quilters
who do marvellous work by calling their quilts "toe covers". And
whether quilting is an art or a craft....I certainly consider quilting a
loooong way up the "crafts" ladder from making napkin rings out of
toilet paper rolls, or decoupaging your telephone with pictures of roses
from a seed catalogue. (No flames from crafters, please. You do what
you do...and good for you!)
And, the writers of the article must remember that all artists
copy...that is the way they learn. 500 years ago, beginning artists
apprenticed with a great master and copied his style to the finest
detail. Artists copy everything, to start with. They sketch buildings,
trees, animals...things which already exist. The thing they are
creating is a copy of an original. Does that mean it is not art? I
think not. They are beginning artists and their works are "beginner"
works of art. Heaven forbid that a Rembrandt or Picasso should be
denied his "copying" phase...to learn his own unique style.
Artists (painters) work with basic shapes which already exist, paints
which are mass produced, canvases which are already stretched, crayons,
pencils and charcoals designed specifically for their use...
.as quilters use their palette of fabrics, needles, scissors and so on.
Who can decide that one set of tools is somehow artful, the other
ordinary?
As quilters, we all start at the beginning...we learn to sew straight,
make patches fit together, match corners, points and angles... we learn
to use colour and textures and shapes and designs better and better all
the time. We study with quilt teachers and innovators. We learn to hand
quilt or machine quilt, using increasingly innovative designs, and
developing new techniques. Every quilt we ever make has something
original in it. Some quilters are content to stay at a beginner level
of quilting, but most quilters I know are in the "continuous
improvement" mode...and ultimately develop an eye for colour and design
which is uniquely their own...and so, by the writers' own definition,
become ARTISTS.
Whatever we call ourselves...and I refer to myself as a "quiltmaker",
not crafter OR artist.... we have not arrived...but are in the process
of becoming. Just like every other artist, musician...and of course,
writer.
That's my $1.98 worth,
Cheers,
Lynne in Toronto
daniel wrote:
>
> This is a commentary posted on a web site that I want to pass along. It's
> from a pair of very active quilting teachers in Texas, partly in reaction to
> discussions they hear in stores and quilt guilds in the state.
>
> dbo...@nol.net
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> It is time to take some of the myth and mystery out of quilting. The
> arguments about whether quilting is a craft or an art are specious and
> time-consuming. The
> argument about hand- versus machine-made is equally silly. The an the antique field, all bets are off. There are people willing to pay high
Deborah
vs craft question is a sticky one...I have been trying to figure it out a
bit myself...made myself really confused by going to my first big Quilt
show on the same day as I go my first issue of "Art Quilt" magazine!!!
Which is which, and why does it matter what we call it? Everythin I saw
that day, in person or in print impressed the heck out of me! :)
But, this culture really likes labels...we do things like ask each other
"What do you do..." and expect a one or two word answer...
So, I spent a little time with my favorite antique dictionary- It is a
battered copy of Webster's Collegiate, a war-time thin paper edition. I
decided to look up "artisan" which thought might fit between artist and
craftsperson ( I wince at the term crafter, sorry, don't know why) The
definition I found was "One trained in some mechanical art or trade; a
handicraftsman"
then I looked in "artist"- and found - "An artisan" and "One specially
skilled iin the practice of a manual art, as cooking (!!!*") and "One who
professes and practices an art in which conception and execution are
governed by imagination and taste..."
then I wandered over to "craftsman"...which said "An artisan"
So, I chuckled, and went to make a cup of tea....
Have fun;
Deborah, who has decided to call herself an artisan...for this week at least
--
to really reach me, you have to move a mountain...<remove: mt_ >
I was just getting waaaaay to much Beanie Baby Spam!!!!!!
D. A. Reimer
I've been wrestling with this issue for some time. And trying to stay
out of the discussion. Because I'll really get going and I'm not sure it
is valuable to everyone. I really think, like censorship, it is an
argument no one can win. I've had to deal with this issue in another
part of my life. I am also a writer and was on the executive board of a
writers guild for some time. We had this issue on the table constantly
but more of a vocational vs avocational argument. My only disclaimer is
that this quick response is generalized.
I think that a lot of problems in the original article could have been
cleared up with proper definitions of the words 'craft'. Craft as in
something an artisan practices and produces has no offense for me.
Craft as in 'hobbyist' can offend.
What is the motivation for quilting? Artists create art because they
have too. They are obsessed with their inspiration and muses and cannot
help themselves. Writers write because they have too. Quilters quilt
for the same reason. Inspiration, the muses, a calling, what ever.
Fine craftsmanship, no matter what medium, material, wood, paint, pen
etc. has artistic merit. There is no point in denigrating someone's
efforts and creations because you have a narrow minded vision of what is
art.
You see now I'm rambling.
I am an apprentice. I am learning my crafts, as in something I
practice, as in something I take seriously and use as an expression of
my personality and my point of view, and my environment - where I am on
this earth. It will be different than one in New Zealand or South
Africa. It is not a passing fancy, or something 'the little woman does
to keep herself busy when she is out of the kitchen' (sorry if I've
stepped on toes.)
I also have a problem, as did Lynne, with the point of view that if it
is copied it is not art. There is a fine tradition of imitation in the
art world, this is how they learned what they were doing. Lynne
expressed this very well. Taken to extremes, this would mean that a
writer who wrote a sonnet ( a pattern) would not have created a work of
art. etc.
Miniatures. this one really gets my goat. Again, there is a fine
tradition in the world of art in the creation of miniatures. cameo
portraits and the like. You can't tell me that some poor woman wanting
to brighten up the walls of her house/sod hut didn't work a miniature
quilt with the tiny scraps and hung them on the walls to brighten her on
the dreariest of days. Perhaps not all did, but I guarantee someone
did. Such is the nature of human beings. You bet they put full length
quilts on the walls. Winter can be cold and a blanket hanging in front
of the door or cutting the drafts on the north side sure made the
insides warmer and cozier.
Quilters may have begun quilting out of necessity and economy, but human
nature being what it is, pride soon turned it into a self expression.
What person doesn't do their best to decorate their living space? What
person creating something doesn't take pride in their workmanship. You
can make argument about decoration etc., but is not all fine art
purchased because someone wants to decorate their living space/office?
The quilters I know strive for perfection on many levels. Their
motivation is not because they can do it, but some unknown muse in the
centre of their being that makes them want to express themselves in this
manner. This is where their talent is, the medium of fabric, not
canvas, or wood or clay. With each medium there is a certain way of
thinking. An artist working with wood sees the object in the 'raw'
block of wood, the painter sees the image on the canvas before he/she
paints, ditto the potter and the lump of clay, ditto too the quilter and
a piece of fabric. All learn to use the tools of the trade to form
their vision.
I personally think quilting is a craft. The kind of craft the medieval
guilds promoted. We are artisans, apprentices, mentors and artists. I
place craft on the same level as art. Whether it is toe cover,
miniature, wall hanging, bed cover.
Why worry about whether there are hobbyists, apprentices, mentors etc.
Those who are not serious about creating quilts will not stay around to
practice and become mentors...but they have a right to see if it is
their thing. Addiction. All art is an addiction that the creators
cannot stop doing. Too bad we need day jobs to eat and keep sheltered.
Dolly
getting off the soap box. I promise I won't do this anymore.
Miss Mouse
>
> I personally think quilting is a craft. The kind of craft the medieval
> guilds promoted. We are artisans, apprentices, mentors and artists. I
> place craft on the same level as art. Whether it is toe cover,
> miniature, wall hanging, bed cover.
>
> Why worry about whether there are hobbyists, apprentices, mentors etc.
> Those who are not serious about creating quilts will not stay around to
> practice and become mentors...but they have a right to see if it is
> their thing. Addiction. All art is an addiction that the creators
> cannot stop doing. Too bad we need day jobs to eat and keep sheltered.
>
> Dolly
> getting off the soap box. I promise I won't do this anymore.
Oh, please do Dolly - what you wrote was enjoyable to read and made a lot
of sense. My addiction at the moment (quilting is one of many crafts I
enjoy) is making miniature teddy bears and it's my quest to make one as
small as possible. Don't ask me why!! Now from the original article under
discussion I see that my mini-bears are mere "toe covers" which means I may
as well make full size bears because they're a heck of a lot easier. Or
just not bother at all! Hey, I was hurt!!
Mousey <8__)~
Carolyn Lanzkron
a tiny teddy bear!
The bears are oblivious to whether they are art or craft, they are too busy
enjoying the dance!
(I see one bear in a cowboy hat with her hand in the air riding bronco
style - yee-hah!)
CLKL
--
remove "doubt" to reply
Miss Mouse wrote in message <01be74e3$e6b56b80$2ac8f4cc@default>...
<snip>
>of sense. My addiction at the moment (quilting is one of many crafts I
>enjoy) is making miniature teddy bears and it's my quest to make one as
>small as possible. Don't ask me why!! Now from the original article under
<snip>
Lynne
I agree with your definition of "craft", and when the word is used in
that context, with a meaning similar to artisanship, it likely wouldn't
offend anyone. My objection to the use of the word craft is that is
now used to cover anything from working with small children to make
popsicle stick items, all the way up to wood carvings, cowboy art (VBG)
and quilting. I have a friend who makes the most wonderful carvings of
birds...they are exquisite...I consider him an artisan....and his work
is not in the same field as my children's clay ashtrays( although these
have their own beauty.)
One argument along this theme concerns one of our Canadian artists,
Robert Bateman. He, some say, is not a "real" artist because he paints
wildlife. Another artist, (is it Glen Loates,or am I getting confused?)
is not a 'real" artist because he painted that famous picture of a
hockey player. He got so ticked off with the snobbery in the art world
that he essentially built his own gallery...and during the preview week
sold several million dollars worth of "not art" before the show even
opened!
(Of course this brings up the whole argument from the premier of Quebec
that Canada is not a "real" country...but .. that's hardly an argument
worth having...and not one for this group.)
So, we agree that quiltmakers are "real" artisans....craftspeople in
the finest sense of the word, and for the most part are probably not
simply hobbyists....although they CAN be, if they want to! Way cool!
Cheers,
Lynne in Toronto
D. A. Reimer wrote:
>
> Right on Lynne (major snippage)
>
> I've been wrestling with this issue for some time.
>
> I think that a lot of problems in the original article could have been
> cleared up with proper definitions of the words 'craft'. Craft as in
> something an artisan practices and produces has no offense for me.
> Craft as in 'hobbyist' can offend.
> I personally think quilting is a craft. The kind of craft the medieval
> guilds promoted. We are artisans, apprentices, mentors and artists. I
> place craft on the same level as art. Whether it is toe cover,
> miniature, wall hanging, bed cover.
>
Lynne
Of course, when you look these words up in the Oxford Canadian
dictionary, you get a slightly different flavour. "Artisan"..."a
craftsperson specializing in decorative arts (e.g. pottery, weaving,
etc.)"
(sic) quilting......and "craft" is "a trade or an art"!!! (VBG)
Well, now I think I need a cup of coffee, so will go ply my trade (or
is that art) with the coffee cup.
Cheers,
Lynne in Toronto
G. Ann Sitch
I think it was the superior tone of the article that got up my
nose, pontificating about what was art and what wasn't. Which
got me to thinking, what IS art? Is there a definition, or is
it a weasel word that is impossible to define, like so many
others ("law" is another). There was an interesting discussion
in our household about the definition when someone was given a
book for a christmas present on the art of Andy Goldsworthy (I(
think): he's a british artist who uses landscape. He skims
mud onto a branch of a tree and then carves shapes and patterns
on it, he fills rock pools with lime green leaves, he colours
snow blocks and builds patterns, he weaves branches together.
He photographs the result and publishes the books: he was also
the subject of a film I caught on BBC when in England last year
it was fabulous, showed him lying in the rain on a pile of
slate in a disused slate quarry, then photographing the
result (after the rain had stopped - a risky procedure in
England, say it went on for days...). Anyway, what this long
winded introduction leads up to was a discussion: was it art?
Was it the artist's intention that mattered, so that when
he wove those twigs it was art? What happened if it occurred
naturally? Would that be art? Maybe its not the intention
of the artist but the perception of the viewer that makes it
art: the very best art, like Andy Goldsworthy (or whatever his
name is) makes the viewer look at certain things differently.
What does anyone else think?
Imapearl
together, be it a quilt, a painting or a poem. To me craft is the physical
aspect of putting those things together. My DD is a dancer. When I take
her to the ballet, we see art. When she is in her classes, working and
practicing, she is perfecting a craft. When a writer is working, they are
performing their craft, but the outcome may be art. Just some thoughts.
Pearl
G. Ann Sitch wrote in message <7d8j0f$h...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
Robine J. Lewis
that is readily answered. Part of the snobbery is that quilts have
long been considered a "utility item" made by women for household
use. Anything we use on a daily basis can't be art by definition!!!
Of course, I'm not sure whose definition this is.
Anyway, last january, I got an opportunity to see the Visions
exhibit of art quilts in San Diego. It was fascinating that some
of the best quits were made using traditional techniques. One in
particular used red and yellow in small squares to create a three
dimensional effect when viewed through stereo glasses. Even though
I work with software for generating 3-D visions on a daily basis,
I still am in awe and cannot figure out how the woman made that quilt
work.
But most of these "art" quilts relied on non-traditional and
non-quilting effects for thier art. Popular techniques were
hand dying the materials, painting pictures on fabrics, attaching
other objects onto the fabrics (such as creating mosaics using buttons),
extreme amounts of embroidary (mostly using professional machines),
or using "cutesy" shapes to emphasize the art. the embroidared lizard
quilt was stunning.....I loved it, but it was the embroidary that made
it unique. So is that really a quilt or an embroidary that happens
to be on a quilt?
I walked out of the exhibit feeling that many of the quilts were
beautiful but most of them I would not want in my home. I also
felt that I could have made almost any of them if I'd had the vision
to create that. But is my butterfly quilt with lots of embroidared
butterflies on top of a dutch windmill pattern and finished with
large stiches made from embroidary floss any less an artwork.
It too is stunning (although not finished). But it will be used
as a regular quilt and loved by my family. So does that make it a
craft item? Or is it artwork that we are abusing? How about the
crazy quilts, are those craft items? Or some of the small wallhangings
the depict a single flower, bird, or teapot in exquisite detail that are
displayed at the Local quilt shop--are these craft items or artwork?
Don't know what the answers are, but we should all be proud of our
work. After all, would most people prefer to have your handmade
quilt or a badly painted picture you did?
Robine Lewis
rtjl...@pacbell.net
Judy Fearn
>
> Putting together a quilt is a craft. Anyone with the time and energy
<snip>
> the skills required. Quilting can be learned--whether by hand or machine is
My take: I was in a wonderful choir at one time. Like many groups,
we had to take baby steps in learning and practicing the songs.
Eventually, we produced a fine product--technically correct and
pleasing to hear. BUT--on our good days, we made MUSIC, which is a
whole lot better than just singing the score well.
Many pick up brushes and paint. Anyone can be taught to paint. With
practice, some will even make nice paintings. But only a few will
create art.
Finally: What an adult may think is a weed in the garden may, to the
child, be a beautiful flower. So where is the art? To me, it resides
in the mind of the person who encounters is as much as in the mind of
the artist or medium in which it is expressed.
Judy in MN
(YMMV, FWIW)
Lin Gulick
dissolved my resolve! I love your circuit through the well-worn
Webster's (got one just like it!) and your very wise decision to go have
a cup of tea... Just the laugh I needed!
In my families, we get into similar discussions all the time: since
everybody assigns personal definitions and connontations to works like
art, craft, artisan, etc. things have been known to get out of hand. I
mean, we have (among others) teachers, preachers, needleworkers, a
porcelain artist, a tattoo artist, cabinetmakers, authors, a nuclear
engineer, a missile design engineer, a boat builder, a gardener (or two,
depending on who is counting!), a tole painter, a newspaper
journalist/editor, a weaver, a photographer, several musicians, and a
computer wizard (umm, not me). Oh, and me, I quilt and so forth. LOL!
(Come to think of it, there's even a con artist, but we haven't seen
much of her in years!) Can you imagine Happy Hour when the conversation
turns even slightly in the direction of categorizing and defining "art"
or - heaven help us all - putting these beaux arts into a hierarchy of
*any* kind? Holy cow, skip the tea, and pass the scotch!!!!
I'm loving the conversation, but for me it's about the exploration of
ideas more than resolution of an issue. Too early for scotch...where's
my Earl Grey?
Grins!!! Lin
D. A. Reimer
Judy Fearn wrote:
Finally: What an adult may think is a weed in the garden may, to the
> child, be a beautiful flower. So where is the art? To me, it resides
> in the mind of the person who encounters is as much as in the mind of
> the artist or medium in which it is expressed.
>
> Judy in MN
> (YMMV, FWIW)
This is right Judy.
Art is subjective, beauty is in the eye of the beholder/creator.
And now where are we? Back at the beginning of the question.
Dolly
Deb
directed at Dolly, this is directed at the whole big world-wide Art/Craft
debate: Is it only me who gets annoyed when this question comes up? It's
not that I don't think several folks have made valid points---I've agreed
with a lot that's been said. But I'm annoyed at the idea that we have to
*decide* if what we do is art or craft. What's the deal with humans always
wanting to stick everything in a box and paste a neat little label on
it???? I make quilts. I enjoy making quilts, I love making quilts, I need
to make quilts. You can call them art, you can call them craft, you can
call them George if you want to. I'm just going to enjoy them.
--
Deb, feeling a bit Snarky tonight!!
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Flats/4237/
D. A. Reimer wrote
>(snipped)
D. A. Reimer
Deb wrote:
Exactly! Lets forget about it now that we've discussed it and enjoy making
our quilts.It'll come up soon enough again in our lives. The one thing I
agreed with in the original article, was that the question of art or craft in
relation to quilting took up far too much time.
Dolly
GARZA
Deb wrote:
> I make quilts. I enjoy making quilts, I love making quilts, I need
> to make quilts. You can call them art, you can call them craft, you can
> call them George if you want to.
> (snipped)
How about calling it an obsession?Karen on the Hill getting a bit silly
>
>
Valerie S. Rake
writing my dissertation right now on quiltmaking (only one "real" chapter
left to draft) and while I'm probably not going to get much into the art vs.
craft debate (if I do, it will require another chapter), everyone's comments
have been interesting. I've saved most of them for further reference. If
for some reason I do come back to them in my writing, I'll certainly contact
the author for permission.
Anyway, one of the things that strikes me is the gender dimensions of the
debate. There is a book called _The Subversive Stitch_ by Roszika Parker.
Its about the transition during the medieval, renaissance, and early modern
ages of embroidery from a recognized art form--practiced mostly by men in
organized guilds, who received much money and public recognition for their
work--to a craft--practiced mostly by women, at home, to "productively" fill
time by creating something decorative. While the basic work remained the
same, the scale of the work (sometimes) and the status associated with it
went _way_ down when the main practitioners were women rather than men.
The popular conception of quiltmaking is that it is a craft because it is
done by women, at home, for utilitarian and economic reasons, with the
decorative aspects certainly there but secondary. In fact, the earliest
known quilts in Europe and the US were clearly luxury needleworks. They
were of "lower status" (re Parker's books, above) than, say, ecclesiastical
embroidery because they were done by women for use in the home rather than
by men for use in public space. But they were not economical and
utilitarian. One of the books I have read recently (probably several, now
that I think of it) divided arts and crafts along the lines of art = made
for visual appeal only vs craft= made for use as well as decoration.
According to that definition (which you can agree with or not), those early
quilts were more art than craft.
As industrialization progressed and fabric became cheaper and more
available, women made more clothes, had more scraps, decided to make quilts
out of them. At that point, they started to become, if you will, a bit more
"crafty" because they could be more utilitarian. I would argue, however,
that for many women, the expressive, creative, and artistic aspects of
quilts were at least as important as whatever utilitarian aspects they may
have had (think about it--if all you needed was a warm bedcover [or
wall-cover, as someone pointed out. Keeping out drafts was, after all, one
of the purposes of medieval tapestries], produced as quickly as possible,
you'd trim your fabrics to the largest squares you could, sew them together
in whatever order they ended up, and tie the sucker. Why bother with
patterns, color, light and dark, quilting, etc. unless you had a strong goal
to create something visually appealling?)
For a very long time, in spite of being an artistic avenue for many women,
quilting was perceived of as a craft because it was done by women, at home.
Period. Gender does that. If women do it, society values it less than if
men do it (just compare the wages paid to the cleaning lady compared to the
"sanitation engineer"). And like it or not, "craft" carries less status in
our society than "art."
Beginning in the 1970s, gallery and museum curators noticed how similar
quilts were to some kinds of modern art. At the same time, feminists
started trying to get society to place more value on women and women's
work. At the same time, millions of women and few men (re)discovered the
joy of designing and making quilts. At the same time, some "professional,"
"self-identified" artists--many of them women--started using fiber and
sewing skills and the basic idea of the quilt (fabric sandwich, sewn
together, decorative) as their preferred medium. Quilts were now being
called art and were being valued as something more than a bit of domestic
needlework.
As a result of all this, we--quiltmakers--every now and then wrestle with
this debate. Is what we do a "craft" [traditional, utilitarian, low status]
or an "art" [innovative, visual, high status]. Part of this debate has
ended up making us question what is "art." Does it have to hang in a museum
or gallery and have no other use? Does it have to be created by a
professional artist? Does it have to be made only of certain kinds of
media?
It's all a very interesting debate. It has to do, I think, with more than
just what quiltmakers call what they do. That's why it gets so irritating.
It pushes buttons we haven't realized we have.
Valerie
Bernadette Noujaim Baldwin
Think of the Bayeux Tapestry, made by women but recognised as "art".
This would be a rare example of something made by women that was
transfigured into art rather than craft.
I would agree the craft = women or rather a female dominated activity
carried out in the home and that art = male. It has only been in the
last century that females have written books extensively, painted for
galleries etc.
I tend to think of craft being something ornamented but used in the
home, and art as something created only to be looked at. This theory
doesn't stand up to rigorous scrutiny though.
A friend and I have a frequent arguement on what a sport is. He
maintains that any physical activity that gets marks in a competition
for artistic impression is not a sport, so he rules out skating and
gymnastics. Whereas I believe that anything which takes training,
physical strenght/stamina and is done in a competition for medals, marks
etc whatever is a sport. This in my opinion rules out hill walking but
keeps in speed walking.
Bernadette
Valerie S. Rake wrote:
>
> Anyway, one of the things that strikes me is the gender dimensions of the
> debate. There is a book called _The Subversive Stitch_ by Roszika Parker.
> Its about the transition during the medieval, renaissance, and early modern
> ages of embroidery from a recognized art form--practiced mostly by men in
> organized guilds, who received much money and public recognition for their
> work--to a craft--practiced mostly by women, at home, to "productively" fill
> time by creating something decorative. While the basic work remained the
> same, the scale of the work (sometimes) and the status associated with it
> went _way_ down when the main practitioners were women rather than men.
>
> The popular conception of quiltmaking is that it is a craft because it is
> done by women, at home, for utilitarian and economic reasons, with the
> decorative aspects certainly there but secondary. In fact, the earliest
> known quilts in Europe and the US were clearly luxury needleworks. They
> were of "lower status" (re Parker's books, above) than, say, ecclesiastical
> embroidery because they were done by women for use in the home rather than
> by men for use in public space. But they were not economical and
> utilitarian. One of the books I have read recently (probably several, now
> that I think of it) divided arts and crafts along the lines of art = made
> for visual appeal only vs craft= made for use as well as decoration.
> According to that definition (which you can agree with or not), those early
> quilts were more art than craft.
>
> Valerie
Valerie S. Rake
purpose, _before_ the transition noted by R. Parker. I didn't note in my brief
description of Parker's work that while most of the medieval embroiderers were
men, there were also some professional women embroiderers. They had less status
than the men, but more status than women in some other professions.
Bernadette Noujaim Baldwin wrote:
> Think of the Bayeux Tapestry, made by women but recognised as "art".
> This would be a rare example of something made by women that was
> transfigured into art rather than craft.
>
Actually, FYI, women started writing a lot for publication early in the 19th
century. Of course, what they published was regarded as of lower quality and less
artistic and intrinsic value than what men created.....
> I would agree the craft = women or rather a female dominated activity
> carried out in the home and that art = male. It has only been in the
> last century that females have written books extensively, painted for
> galleries etc.
Sorry for being picky there. My specialty is women's history. I'm always
fascinated by the fact that women were actually a lot more active in the "public"
era than we give them (us?) credit for. It's only recently (100 years or so),
that we've started to demand _recognition_ for what we've been doing all along.
Valerie
Susan Ford
a craft (as opposed to sculpture, which is always art...), and historically, it's
been a male dominated business, though women were also potters here and there.
Other examples of crafts done by men would be furniture and other fine
woodworking, metalsmithing, even jewlery making is considered a craft.
I think the lines are more utility = craft, useless other than decorative = art.
Now, before ya'll roar, I do not consider art useless. I just mean that it's use
is only decorative, as opposed to, for instance, a beautifully decorated tea pot
(or fancy quilt), which can have a secondary use.
As I've said before, I call myself a quilter, a gardener, and a potter, and don't
worry if I'm an artist or a craftsperson. That's up to history to decide after I'm
long gone :)
Bernadette Noujaim Baldwin wrote:
> Hey Valerie
>
> Think of the Bayeux Tapestry, made by women but recognised as "art".
> This would be a rare example of something made by women that was
> transfigured into art rather than craft.
>
> I would agree the craft = women or rather a female dominated activity
> carried out in the home and that art = male. It has only been in the
> last century that females have written books extensively, painted for
> galleries etc.
>
--
***
Susan Ford
Norman, Oklahoma
http://www.clueless.norman.ok.us/sf/rerhome.htm -Roses
http://www.level13.com - Collectables
"Today is not my day for the awesome responsibility of the brain."
D. A. Reimer
of the history of women. thanks
dolly
"Valerie S. Rake" wrote:
> I've appreciated all these comments on the art vs. craft of quilting. I'm
> writing my dissertation right now on quiltmaking (only one "real" chapter
> left to draft) and while I'm probably not going to get much into the art vs.
> craft debate (if I do, it will require another chapter), everyone's comments
> have been interesting. I've saved most of them for further reference. If
> for some reason I do come back to them in my writing, I'll certainly contact
> the author for permission.
>
> Anyway, one of the things that strikes me is the gender dimensions of the
> debate. There is a book called _The Subversive Stitch_ by Roszika Parker.
> Its about the transition during the medieval, renaissance, and early modern
> ages of embroidery from a recognized art form--practiced mostly by men in
> organized guilds, who received much money and public recognition for their
> work--to a craft--practiced mostly by women, at home, to "productively" fill
> time by creating something decorative. While the basic work remained the
> same, the scale of the work (sometimes) and the status associated with it
> went _way_ down when the main practitioners were women rather than men.
>
> The popular conception of quiltmaking is that it is a craft because it is
> done by women, at home, for utilitarian and economic reasons, with the
> decorative aspects certainly there but secondary. In fact, the earliest
> known quilts in Europe and the US were clearly luxury needleworks. They
> were of "lower status" (re Parker's books, above) than, say, ecclesiastical
> embroidery because they were done by women for use in the home rather than
> by men for use in public space. But they were not economical and
> utilitarian. One of the books I have read recently (probably several, now
> that I think of it) divided arts and crafts along the lines of art = made
> for visual appeal only vs craft= made for use as well as decoration.
> According to that definition (which you can agree with or not), those early
> quilts were more art than craft.
>
bogus address
"Valerie S. Rake" <rak...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu> writes:
> Actually, FYI, women started writing a lot for publication early in
> the 19th century. Of course, what they published was regarded as of
> lower quality and less artistic and intrinsic value than what men
> created.....
In the case of the novel, I wouldn't be so sure about that. Women
novelists got pretty good recognition very early on. In Scotland,
Susan Ferrier was second only to Walter Scott in public reputation.
>> I would agree the craft = women or rather a female dominated activity
>> carried out in the home and that art = male. It has only been in the
>> last century that females have written books extensively, painted for
>> galleries etc.
> I'm always fascinated by the fact that women were actually a lot more
> active in the "public" era than we give them (us?) credit for.
My thing is the social history of music. I've seen a lot of the music
produced by women in Scotland in the years 1780-1830. My impression
is that they were producing proportionately more of the nation's total
musical output then they are now anywhere in the developed world. At
some point I am going to try compiling an overview of it, but there are
huge problems locating it all and it's going to take years, in parallel
with other activities. The reason being that it just about never got
printed in book form; sheet music is ephemeral, scattered to hell and
back, and about as well catalogued as the fallen leaves in a forest.
Most of the pieces can (with difficulty) be assigned to a named composer,
but I then have the problem of finding who the name refers to. These
women were mostly from the elite, but standard genealogical references
are almost no help in identifying women unless they married a man who
was born important or subsequently turned out that way. There is no
substitute for gory-details research into family biography here (which
some people enjoy, but I personally don't, preferring to cut as fast as
possible to bigger social and musical issues). So it isn't surprising
that this area of women's creativity is pretty much unknown today.
Tracing the stories of individual quilts is even harder. At least
music sheets usually survive in multiple copies and somebody will
have written something on one of them that gives you a clue to its
history. People don't put pencil notes on quilts.
---> email to "jc" at this site: email to "jack" or "bogus" will bounce <---
Jack Campin: 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU; 0131 6604760
http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/purrhome.html food intolerance data and recipes,
freeware logic fonts for the Macintosh, and Scots traditional music resources
G. Ann Sitch
I enjoyed your post Valerie, and it reminded me of a quilt I saw
in a quilting book I borrowedfrom the library, dated 1860 or 1870,
it was a pictoral representation of a house and a tree (made in
France I think) yet it looked like an impressionist picture -
I wondered whether in fact the french impressionists (mostly
men as you have pointed out - the gender element) started painting
in that style because they had seen quilts made in this style by
their womenfolk. Your thesis sounds fascinating: good luck with
it.
Valerie S. Rake
What I was trying to imply was that, in a "traditional, partriarchal" construction,
while both women and men do crafts, only men do art.
Valerie
Susan Ford wrote:
> Craft = women is too much of a generalization. Pottery is almost always defined as
> a craft (as opposed to sculpture, which is always art...), and historically, it's
> been a male dominated business, though women were also potters here and there.
> Other examples of crafts done by men would be furniture and other fine
> woodworking, metalsmithing, even jewlery making is considered a craft.
>
> I think the lines are more utility = craft, useless other than decorative = art.
>
> Now, before ya'll roar, I do not consider art useless. I just mean that it's use
> is only decorative, as opposed to, for instance, a beautifully decorated tea pot
> (or fancy quilt), which can have a secondary use.
>
> As I've said before, I call myself a quilter, a gardener, and a potter, and don't
> worry if I'm an artist or a craftsperson. That's up to history to decide after I'm
> long gone :)
>
> Bernadette Noujaim Baldwin wrote:
>
> > Hey Valerie
> >
> > Think of the Bayeux Tapestry, made by women but recognised as "art".
> > This would be a rare example of something made by women that was
> > transfigured into art rather than craft.
> >
> > I would agree the craft = women or rather a female dominated activity
> > carried out in the home and that art = male. It has only been in the
> > last century that females have written books extensively, painted for
> > galleries etc.
> >
> > I tend to think of craft being something ornamented but used in the
> > home, and art as something created only to be looked at. This theory
> > doesn't stand up to rigorous scrutiny though.
> >
> > A friend and I have a frequent arguement on what a sport is. He
> > maintains that any physical activity that gets marks in a competition
> > for artistic impression is not a sport, so he rules out skating and
> > gymnastics. Whereas I believe that anything which takes training,
> > physical strenght/stamina and is done in a competition for medals, marks
> > etc whatever is a sport. This in my opinion rules out hill walking but
> > keeps in speed walking.
> >
> > Bernadette
> >
> > Valerie S. Rake wrote:
> > >
> > > Anyway, one of the things that strikes me is the gender dimensions of the
> > > debate. There is a book called _The Subversive Stitch_ by Roszika Parker.
> > > Its about the transition during the medieval, renaissance, and early modern
> > > ages of embroidery from a recognized art form--practiced mostly by men in
> > > organized guilds, who received much money and public recognition for their
> > > work--to a craft--practiced mostly by women, at home, to "productively" fill
> > > time by creating something decorative. While the basic work remained the
> > > same, the scale of the work (sometimes) and the status associated with it
> > > went _way_ down when the main practitioners were women rather than men.
> > >
> > > The popular conception of quiltmaking is that it is a craft because it is
> > > done by women, at home, for utilitarian and economic reasons, with the
> > > decorative aspects certainly there but secondary. In fact, the earliest
> > > known quilts in Europe and the US were clearly luxury needleworks. They
> > > were of "lower status" (re Parker's books, above) than, say, ecclesiastical
> > > embroidery because they were done by women for use in the home rather than
> > > by men for use in public space. But they were not economical and
> > > utilitarian. One of the books I have read recently (probably several, now
> > > that I think of it) divided arts and crafts along the lines of art = made
> > > for visual appeal only vs craft= made for use as well as decoration.
> > > According to that definition (which you can agree with or not), those early
> > > quilts were more art than craft.
> > >
FayeCB1
versus a regular quilt. For me a regular quilt is using an existing pattern
generally of a geometric basis and piecing and stitching it. An art quilt is
taking my art work and translating the images in my head as best i can into a
fabric picture--using thread, fibers, and fabrics instead of painting the
image,then cutting, shaping and stitcing (sometimes gluing in desparation) to
make the image come out. it is also the incorpoation of multiple techniques
from many sources as well as inspired inspiration of--hey let's try that or
maybe this will work or that was a lousy idea so let's try it another way. But
it's from drawing on inner visions for the base and hoping the skills are up to
making the inner vision become realty.
Just my thoughts on the subject.
Vickey
Jane Leffler
I have been reading this thread with great interest and had to jump in with
my $.02 worth!
I am always amused by people who are terribly anxious to put everyone in a
"pigeon hole." I pretty-much don't worry what anyone else thinks of my work.
I do what I like to do and that's it. There will always be someone who feels
compelled to categorize everything, and I have no control over that. I can
only control how I react to that. Do I let myself be influenced by what
someone else thinks I should be doing, or what name they give to what I am
doing? Or do I just continue to do what feels right to me? This is not to
say that I would never listen to anyone's advice, but in the end it has to
FEEL right, or else I will just be pretending to be me! I just do what I do
and I'm happy.
And if someone gets their jollies or feels important by judging or
categorizing, I say: have fun! Just don't expect me to play along!
Jane in Sanborn, NY
FayeCB1 wrote in message <19990327001110...@ng109.aol.com>...
LuEllen
manual craft......a skilled craftsperson with an eye for art.
BTW, went to Wilmington, NC quilt show today with my bestest friend and
quilt buddy, Sylvia.....one quilt was outstanding. A boquet of appliqued
tulips (very realistic) with three dimensional leaves. Wonderful.
That was the one for me.....others were great too. Also got a book (in a
vendor's booth at $25) for $10 in the guild's "used" books. Felt like I
got a real bargain.
AND...da-dah...an RCTQer, Donna from NH, is in the area. We are going to
meet tomorrow eye'ball to eye'ball!!!! Asked her to go to the show today,
but she couldn't make it.
--
LuEllen in coastal NC
AmyGaley <amyg...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990320222522...@ng-fv1.aol.com>...
> I loved this post. I'm the first to admit that I'm not terribly fluent
in the
> fine arts, but I think the point is well made. I am fussing around with
a mini
> basket quilt now, and there is definitely the element of "because I can"
in my
> motivation. Is it a "toe cover" -- sure. Do I care? -- no, not one
bit. I
> am trying to learn something new and challenge myself in my craft. I
like the
> way it looks as I work on it. It gives me something to do with my hands
while
> my dd is playing in the bathtub!
>
> I don't think there is anything elitist or stuffy about asking why
someone
> spent the time and money to create something, or in pointing out that we
can be
> slave to fashion in quilting as in anything else.
>
> AmyG
>
> Daniel wrote:
> >This is a commentary posted on a web site that I want to pass along.
It's
> >from a pair of very active quilting teachers in Texas, partly in
reaction to
> >discussions they hear in stores and quilt guilds in the state.
> >
> >dbo...@nol.net
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> >
> >It is time to take some of the myth and mystery out of quilting. The
> >arguments about whether quilting is a craft or an art are specious and
> >time-consuming. The
> >argument about hand- versus machine-made is equally silly. The arguments
> >provide a springboard for
> >the noisy and silly--but they aren't really arguments at all.
> >
> >Putting together a quilt is a craft. Anyone with the time and energy
> >to devote can make a quilt. It requires a minimum amount of skill--the
> >ability to sew a reasonably
> >straight and even seam will do it. Piecing can be learned. Putting the
quilt
> >top, batting and
> >backing together may be an exercise in patience, but almost anyone who
> >wishes to do so can learn
> >the skills required. Quilting can be learned--whether by hand or machine
is
> >irrelevant. The
> >artistic merits of the finished quilt may be debatable, but the product
is a
> >quilt--good, bad,
> >or indifferent!
> >
> >Any craft can be done once someone applies time and patience. It can be
> >a line-for-line copy, or a variation, but it is a copy. Quilting, the
basics
> >of quilting,
> >are no exception. If this were not so, very few people would be making
> >quilts.
> >
> >Whether one makes a quilt entirely "by hand" or uses a sewing machine,
> >it is still "a quilt." Our ancestors made quilts by hand because they no
> >other option. They also
> >plowed their fields using animals to pull the plow. Does wheat planted,
> >tended & harvested by
> >gas-powered machines make poorer bread? Why should the means of
production
> >matter so much to
> >quilters? The finished product, whether made by hand or machine, should
be
> >what
> >matters. Or the making matters. Or it is the patient sewing that
matters. It
> >depends on why
> >you make quilts. Comparing one sort of quilting to another is a waste
of
> >time. None is
> >better; all are "real".
> >
> >The "Art" of quilting is another matter entirely. As with any art, what
> >is required is an eye for color, pattern, light, shadow, and
composition.
> >Reproducing a classic
> >quilt pattern, whether it be a log cabin, a star, or a complicated
double
> >wedding ring, is an
> >exercise in patience. The finished result will be a duplicate of
something
> >many others have done.
> >Any art will be in the color choices and placement. And yes, it can be
very
> >artistic. But
> >"artistic" isn't a synonym for "art".
> >
> >It is argued that a beautifully-made, hand-quilted, Ocean Waves quilt is
> >"art". Unfortunately,
> >even though it is made with an artist's eye for color and composition,
it
> >will be, simply, another
> >copy. Appreciated by those who understand the craft, perhaps, but a
copy. A
> >perfect copy of
> >the Mona Lisa, using historically correct paints and technically perfect
> >paints, is a still a copy!
> >The artist who did the original is still the artist--the copier is a
> >craftsman.
> >
> >Which brings us to the next problem with most "quilts as art". The
> >classic quilt patterns were developed for many reasons--but most (and I
> >stress most, there were
> >always exceptions) were designed to put on beds--displayed horizontally
in
> >other words. A
> >repetitive pattern seen horizontally can be very pleasing to the eye.
The
> >same pattern, hung on
> >the wall, is simply confusing and busy. Art quilts, like any of the
visual
> >arts, should
> >have something for the eye--a focal point, pleasing colors which lead
the
> >eye, use of light and shadow
> >to tease the eye---any art book will give you thousands of other
"rules". A
> >simple
> >repetitive pattern can be art-- witness the Moorish designs of southern
> >Spain--but generally speaking,
> >it takes more than repetition to produce art.
> >
> >
> >
> >The making of a quilt is the craft--a skill that can be learned and
> >improved with practice. For the quilt to be art, the eye that designs
the
> >quilt top must be that of
> >an artist. The difference is simple. If , given the pattern, any
reasonably
> >skilled quilter can
> >reproduce what the maker did-- it is probably craft. If only one person
can
> >produce that particular
> >vision, the art is in the original. "But my colors are different than
those
> >in the
> >illustration." simply isn't an answer! Was this quilt something no one
else
> >could possibly do? Or was it simply
> >one more variation on a theme?
> >
> >Does it matter? Not really. The arguments in the quilt world are simply
> >noise--something to do
> >with one's time. Those who make quilts one way argue that theirs is the
only
> >way. Those who
> >do another use the same arguments. It is as though the only way to prove
> >worth is to denigrate
> >another.
> >
> >The answer to the question "Why do you make quilts" is the only thing
> >that should matter to any quilter. If you make quilts because you love
to
> >see the results, that
> >is one reason for quilting. Whether the results could be considered art
or
> >craft are irrelevant. If
> >you make quilts to give as gifts, the answer is still the only thing
that
> >matters. If, on the
> >other hand, you are making quilts to sell--you must stop and do some
> >questioning.
> >
> >There are two categories of quilts for sale--art quilts and craft
> >quilts. They have entirely different markets, and entirely different
sale
> >price differentials.
> >Craft quilts (quilts anyone with sufficient time, energy, and skill can
> >make) can be made entirely by hand or on a machine. They can be made by
a
> >dedicated Guild member
> >or a sweatshop employee in the third world. The bottom line is that they
are
> >reproducible quilts and the price will be dictated by a set of market
> >forces. The person who is happy to
> >put a third-world sweatshop Double Wedding Ring (purchased for $39.95)
on a
> >bed is
> >probably not going to be willing to pay hundreds of dollars for a
seemingly
> >similar quilt made by
> >a local Guild member. There are a few buyers out there willing to pay
for
> >the locally-made
> >version, but not many. The skill of the maker is recognized by the peers
of
> >the maker. A buyer,
> >however, may not care.
> >
> >"We must educate the public" sounds good, but generations of visual
> >artists have attempted to "educate the public" and people still buy
> >mass-produced sad-eyed
> >children painted on black velvet or cheaply produced prints in
preference to
> >one-of-a kind
> >works. Guild members often decry the low selling price of their works,
but
> >they fail completely to
> >realize that non-quilters may or may not care. Raffle quilts raise
money,
> >partly because of the
> >quilts themselves, but mostly because a lot of people are willing to
part
> >with a couple of dollars
> >for the cause involved. The merits of the quilt itself are of true
interest
> >only to the quilters.
> >
> >In the antique field, all bets are off. There are people willing to pay
high
> >prices for anything that
> >is "old" A badly made 100-year-old quilt may bring in big bucks to an
> >antique dealer--but it is
> >still badly made. A beautifully made antique quilt, preserved because it
had
> >intrinsic as well as
> >sentimental value to someone, is still a craft quilt--it can be
copied--and
> >probably has been.
> >One is paying for age, not art, in most cases.
> >
> >In the "art quilt" market--anything goes. There are people willing to
pay a
> >great deal of money
> >for a one-of-a-kind quilt. As with the other visual arts, no one is
going to
> >pay top price for a
> >reproduction or a badly done original. They want the real thing and they
> >want quality, and
> >quality can be hand- or machine-made. An art quilt is a one of a kind
> >production--it can't be
> >copied. The artist's name and reputation sell the quilt. Bad copies may
be
> >attempted, but the
> >chances of anyone paying money for them are poor.
> >
> >The last and worst of the quilting world silliness is beginning to show
up
> >more and more. That is,
> >more and more people are doing "something" simply because they can. It
would
> >be fine if they'd
> >be content to do it and let it go at that. But given our world, they
must
> >then attempt to get the
> >rest of us to "do" whatever.
> >
> >Our pioneer ancestors didn't have the time or energy to do more than
produce
> >what they
> >needed. Having acquired the skills to produce a log cabin quilt out of
> >scraps on hand, they
> >probably went on producing log cabin quilts out of scraps on hand. That
is
> >all they had time and
> >resources to do. Our modern quilter can't seem to stop there. Having
learned
> >to make a "real"
> >log cabin (out of scraps purchased for $9.95 a yard), she decides that
it
> >would be "fun" to try
> >and make a "different" log cabin--one with logs that finish at 1/8",
just to
> >prove that she can.
> >And as if that weren't enough, she makes several. Why? Because she can!
It
> >is what Betty
> >McDonald, the author of "The Egg and I", called "toe covers". Toe covers
> >were something
> >people made because they had the time and the materials, and wanted to
"do
> >something." Tatted
> >bookmarks (when paper ones are far more practical), reproductions of the
> >White House made
> >of matchsticks, flowers made from feathers--you name it--are toe covers.
> >They may have a use,
> >but another product would probably be more practical.
> >
> >Many of the quilts now displayed at shows and exhibitions are toe
> >covers--pure and simple. It isn't that any new ground is being
broken--or
> >that any new technique has
> >been developed. Known techniques are being carried out to such an
extreme
> >that one can
> >only sit and wonder why. Or one can understand that the quilt shows rely
on
> >having the
> >newest to display. Since quilts are quilts--fancy or plain, art or
craft,
> >big or little--"new" is
> >a big requirement. We've seen a lot of good come from this. Our rotary
> >cutters and other products
> >wouldn't be available if people didn't search for new ways to do things.
> >
> >Unfortunately the last couple of years seems to have produced an awful
> >lot of "because I can" quilting--miniatures with pieces so tiny one
needs
> >forceps and
> >magnifying glasses to work. It is "new" only in that it is tiny. The
actual
> >designs are what the art world
> >calls "calendar art"--banal and predictable. It isn't adding anything
new to
> >the quilting world.
> >Somehow the idea is proliferating that it must be tiny to be good. Why?
If
> >working in
> >miniature is your thing--great! But are you doing it because you love
it,
> >or because it is the newest
> >thing and all of the books and articles are raving about it?
> >
> >Once again, we are back to the question, "Why make a quilt?" Most of us
will
> >never sell a one-
> >of-a-kind quilted production for thousands of dollars. We will go on
making
> >quilts because we
> >want to, because we enjoy the process, because we like doing the work.
We
> >will copy patterns
> >and change color, perspective, and fabrics. But let's be honest and stop
the
> >silliness of arguing
> >over what we are doing. We are pleasing something in ourselves by
producing
> >a quilt. If we are
> >being manipulated into trying something, we should be aware of the
> >manipulation. Is it a truly
> >new process or technique, or is it a toe cover?
> >
> >We listened to a speaker at a guild meeting once--a national award
winner
> >for her quilts. And
> >were appalled at what she said. She described carefully figuring out
"what
> >the show wants" and
> >what the judges known to be working the show "want" and then makes a
quilt
> >to please those
> >people. She often hates the colors, the patterns, and the quilt--but she
> >wins prizes!! This is a
> >reason to make a quilt--but not one we would ever want to use. The
quilts
> >were stunning--but
> >they were also cold and impersonal. We would so much rather see the
"made at
> >home by loving
> >hands" quilts of non-prize winners--they are a lot more interesting than
> >cold technical perfection.
> >"Made by hand" they may be--but cold technical perfection can be done by
> >machines, and
> >making something by hand should not be a copy of what a machine can do,
why
> >do it
> >otherwise?
> >
> >Why do you make quilts? We have no idea. We make them because we enjoy
it.
> >If others like
> >what we've done, that's nice--but we make them for ourselves. If we want
to
> >use clashing
> >colors and weird patterns, so be it. We are not going to sell them, so
can
> >do as we please.
> >And so can you! Don't worry about doing it "the right way" or in the
"right
> >color". Please
> >yourself!! You'll enjoy quilting a lot more, and the Quilt Police will
never
> >bother you! They only
> >bother people without the self-confidence to say "This is what I want to
do,
> >so I am doing it."
> >Make quilts because you want to--and enjoy it!!!!
> >
> >2 S.A. Broads--Peggy & Pat
> >http://www.2sabroads.com/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ></PRE></HTML>
>
>
>
LuEllen
my ISP has been doing very strange things with the newsgroups this week.
sorry gals.....Had a wonderful time with Donna from NH, BTW.
--
LuEllen in coastal NC
LuEllen <lupet...@mail.clis.com> wrote in article
<01be73f4$123f37e0$4854...@lupetebowl.clis.com>...