Controversy
Lynn Basa
discussions on NEA funding, What Is Art?, current politics, etc. while the
textiles groups talk only about materials and techniques?
Is there another group for fiber artists (or craft artists, in
general) that is more issues-oriented that I don't know about?
Petraglyph
My name is Rebecca Roush. You may remember me. I asked you to take a
look at a show I had at the Phinney Center Gallery a few years ago.
When I first got on the internet and saw that there were thousands of mail
lists and news groups available, I assumed that there would be something
for women textile artists. I was surprised to find that there was not.
Perhaps the textile lists reflect the general attitude toward the medium,
not the attitude of the artists.
On the bead lists, there is little political discussion other than "arts
vs. crafts".
And on the more generic arts lists, the volume of mail can be overwhelming
and not specific to artists who don't do 2-D work.
Rebecca Roush
Petra...@aol.com
Roz Cawley
discussions - why don't you START one and post something interesting TO
discuss?
--
Roz Cawley
r...@cawley.demon.co.uk
Newbury, Berks, UK
Petraglyph
Lynn Basa
was none on this group. I got several thoughtful, intelligent responses,
mostly centered around the speculation that since textiles is a field
predominated by women that there is something in our nature that prevents
us from being confrontive.
I can see that you may be an exception to this stereotype and will try to
be more in-your-face in the future.
Roz Cawley
lynn...@u.washington.edu "Lynn Basa" writes:
Sorry, Lynn, for the slightly sardonic reply that I first gave - no offence
was meant, but I do find the comments about ONLY discussing materials and
techniques mildly patronising. Are discussion and development
of these two areas not fundamental to any art or craft? I have also seen it
stated many times in the last few months that the textiles newsgroups and
maillists offer a welcome haven from the "flame wars" that controversy generates
in some of the other groups - perhaps that is why contributors are reluctant
to diversify away from the immediate practical topics that are routinely
discussed here.
(Mother in Law, by the way, is both magnificent and absoloutely terrifying!
Six foot tall and the type that the Empire was built upon, imagine her as
a cross between Boadicea and the thick skirted female explorers of the 19th
century.(!!) Now if you really want a controversial discussion.......)
Lynn Basa
where to start.
How can any art form be taken seriously unless it is
about ideas as well as material and technique? Is this, perhaps, why
fiber art is so marginalized in the sense that there aren't as many
curators, collectors, critics, etc. around it as glass, clay, painting,
sculpture, because we don't have anything to say? Because we don't take
ourselves seriously enough?
Is it because our art form is associated historically with women and the
domestic? Every other field predominated by women is devalued. How is
fiber art's status affected by its connection to the feminine? Because
the majority of fiber artists are women, have we been conditioned to
think that engaging in controversy makes us not nice? How does that
reticence affect our work, our careers?
I've been wondering why I chose fiber as a form of self-expression, and
not any of the other more male-dominated mediums. My answer isn't
finished yet, but I suspect that part of it has to do with being good and
staying in my place. I think the women that take up glass and sculpture
or make big art or art that has something to say are really brave because
our culture is not kind to women who don't stay in their places.
What does your mother-in-law have to say about that? (I loved your
description of her.)
Ruth Scheuing
helpful
information on more technical questions as well as contributions to my
project
'to spin a tale' which was about story telling and weaving. I am also
interested in developing more issue oriented discussions here. So here a
few
ideas into the pot:
Textiles as a field is increasingly becoming more politically oriented as
feminist work and I use textiles,*because* of the stereotypes associated
and
therefore I am quite interested to build bridges between the varied camps
of
those interested in 'content' or 'issue' based work and those more
interested
in keeping traditions alive (because I am interested in some of these
traditions). The more contentious bone I have to pick, is about work that
is
neither: non-functional work that is simply experimental, but without an
idea
or concept and which rejects association to any textiles tradition, i.e.
the
term 'fiberarts' ;-)
Given the fact that textile artists so often complain about not been taken
seriously by critics and curators, one needs to question if we are not to
blame
for this ourselves. The Chicago conference in 1993, laid some good
groundwork
for discussion, but it was only a beginning one I would like to continue
here.
I think textiles has great potential in todays art world, because of the
close
association of textiles with the body, among many things, and because of
its
whole history differes quite distincly from other art forms. But we need to
verbalize the ideas and also criticize some of the more superficial
generalizations; a healthy critical debate is definitly needed.
I draw most of my ideas from traditional sources, from Arachne who
challenged
Athena and defied the laws of the Gods, (anyone interested in the story of
Arachne), to Penelope who stalled the suitors through her weaving and
subsequent unweaving, to the quilters who expressed their political
affiliations through their quilts prior to getting the vote.
For this years women's day I prepared a lecture of what I considered some
of
the important women artists who worked in textiles in the earlier part of
this
century, and who had each very different ideas: Sonya Delauney, Anni
Albers,
Mary Meigs Atwater, Leonore Tawney, Magdalena Abacanowicz and Judy Chicago.
It
was quite fascinated to research the lives of these women about whom I had
previously a general, but not specific knowledge.
I also just read a newspaper article in our alternate newspaper here in
Vancouver, Canada, about the home-workers in the 'sweatshop trades'. It
sounds
just like 1907 and the Triangle Fire to me. Mostly emigrant women are being
exploited for less than minimum wages; free trade forces down prices and
threatens unionized workshops. In 1907 the unionizing of garment trades was
supported by the suffragette movement. Are we not also textile workers.
What
can we do about this?
Ruth
Roxane Johnson
>
> You brought up so many good points in your posting that I hardly know
> where to start.
>
> How can any art form be taken seriously unless it is
> about ideas as well as material and technique? Is this, perhaps, why
> fiber art is so marginalized in the sense that there aren't as many
> curators, collectors, critics, etc. around it as glass, clay, painting,
> sculpture, because we don't have anything to say? Because we don't take
> ourselves seriously enough?
Could it be that the nature of this art was considered transitory since in
the past it would have lasted only three generations at most. It is only in more
recent times that fabrics, colours and more impotantly designs have remained.
While many traditional designs may have been passed on through the family there
must inevitably have been either losses or developments, not to say fashions
along the way. Surely it is only since the invention of the camera last
century that more permanent records were possible.
Books I know were expensive in the early days, but they quickly got cheaper with
printing. I have seen many Victorian and Edwardian designs in museums. However
there are far fewer samples of work. Perhaps due to the habit of reusing
material. To keep it would have had to be highly prized by its owner as well
as lucky. With Victoriana in fashion here in England I've seen so many
examples of needlework fetching what I consider high prices. A leading aution
house in London have even been holding sales of nothing else!
>
>
--
--------------------------+----------------------------------------------------
Roxane Johnson | When I am an old woman I shall wear purple,
Rox...@treetop.demon.co.uk| With a red hat that doesn't go, and doesn't suit me
--------------------------+---- Warning, by Jenny Joseph ----------------------
Lynn Basa
relating to textiles: The domestic and historic associations,
mythological connection, and feminist commentary. I'd love to get a
discussion going on all of those areas. For starters, I want to address
what I feel is a basic issue: How do we get more exposure? We could be
making some of the most interesting work on the market today, but if
there's nowhere to show it and no one to write about it.... I'm
exaggerating -- of course there are writers and collectors of fiber, but
their numbers are very small.
For an article I wrote
on this subject for Shuttle Spindle and Dyepot, I interviewed many people
about how fiber's association with the feminine affects
its status in the market. To make a long story short, sexism is alive
and well in our field but so is passivity among fiber artists. Whether
that is an outcome of years discrimination or because of the type person
who chooses textiles as a medium in the first place, I don't know.
Lynn Basa
mass production has made printed, fancy textiles more accessible and
affordable. Your comment about how collectible needlework is becoming is
interesting. You'd think with our increasingly technological
environment, there will be more of a craving for handmade things. In
fact, I've heard that trend forecasters are predciting this. But what of
fiber art; i.e., art that is not functional, but is purely expresssive.
Painting and sculpture fetch high prices and serve only an aesthetic
purpose. Can contemporary fiber art ever achieve that on the scale that
these other disciplines have?
Marian Crane
to textile art and beadwork because it was a new field,
undocumented and unconsidered by the mainstream. I was
bored to tears by the art-for-therapy's sake movement,
which like political art has always insisted that Art Must
Have A Message. All too often, IMHO, that message overrode
considerations of style and skill. I'm rather disappointed
that that controversy has surfaced here.
Yes, I do weave political themes into my work, just as I
sneak in bits of ancient cultural symbolisms and scientific
equations. But first and foremost, I want to make things
that are so damned beautiful they make me high while I'm
creating them...and even higher when Joe -- or Josephine --
Public sees them in a gallery or a local art show.
It's a lot harder to learn the skills and styles of any
basic craft, than to just glue random threads on a canvas
and call it politically-correct art. But consider,
gentlefolk, that it is much easier to seduce your audience
than hitting it over the head. Views forced on people may
linger brutally -- but they almost always seem to be
recalled as _other people's views_. Messages insinuated
into a piece of really good art speak to nearly everyone
on a uniquely personal level.
As artists, I think we're obligated to reveal the world
around us, in all its stains and glories. But why not
focus the debate on drawing-boards and canvases, instead
of emptying its force here?
Marian (Unrepentant at the long post)
Lynn Basa
Your comments were very timely to me and helped me realize that there are
two main branches to this Controversy controversy.
One is, controversial content in the work, the second is the issue of
making a living in a world that doesn't value women's work, in general,
as much as that of men.
I, too, want to make beautiful objects (besides, the personal and
political creeps in anyway, like you said), but I want to sell them,
too.
I really need to make a living and I want to do it with my art
work. And, I don't want to just lie down and say: Well, I knew going
into it that most artists can't make a living. I'll just have to get a
day job and make do. Nope, I want to figure out how we can change things
so that there are more collectors, sellers, and critics of fiber art.
Look what happened with glass. It was nowhere before Harvey Littleton
and Dale Chihuly came along.
Maybe it's happening and I'm just way out of step. If so, I'd be
thrilled to be enlightened by hearing success stories.
On 21 Apr
E.G. Cross
lynn...@u.washington.edu wrote:
> how fiber's association with the feminine affects
> its status in the market. To make a long story short, sexism is alive
> and well in our field but so is passivity among fiber artists. Whether
> that is an outcome of years discrimination or because of the type person
> who chooses textiles as a medium in the first place, I don't know.
I've been lurking about here for a short time and I'm thrilled to see
this kind of discussion emerge. I've been doing batik for quite a
while now, but my real background is in clay -- been a potter for about
10 years, currently focusing on raku. Polymer clays have sparked
an interest as well, but I seem to have developed this overwhelming
fascination with what I term to be "political quilts" ("crazy" quilts?),
for lack of a better term (excuse my ignorance; I'm not so familiar
with the terminology)...
Art for the sake of beauty is great; I've been in that mode from day
one. I've enjoyed learning and exploring new techniques and different
art forms. But it wasn't until I went to a local Jesuit university
last year and took a couple of religion classes (Women and Spirituality,
Adult spiritual Growth, Native American Religion) that I became aware
of the meanings and statements behind many works of art; it was then
that I felt this great sensitivity awakening in me -- to women, to
Gaia, to different cultures, to things spiritual in nature, to people
and their struggles and joys.... things of which I'd been completely
unaware.
I came upon a book recently (can't recall the title right now) full of
pix of quilts by women making "statements" -- each was more powerful
than the next, not to mention aesthetically beautiful. My tastes (in
decor, fashion, and all of life, I suppose) can best be described as
eclectic, so these types of work tend to appeal to me visually. I
just didn't expect to feel so impacted.... emotionally.
Just to respond as "Josephine Public", perhaps... I wandered into this
newsgroup to gather up some tips on silk painting, batik, paper, etc...
and it's a great place for that (thanx). But this kind of discussion
is not only an added bonus but I think it truly is important to everyone
who considers themselves an artist/artisan -- are we trying to say
anything? Not that we have to, but we *can*. Many of us are unaware of
that -- after churning out utilitarian and artistic clayware for a
decade, I am only now discovering what can be "said" via our art -- if
we so desire.
And I'd love a forum to explore views, issues, and concerns as well as
a place to enlighten and question. Is it here? Should it be elsewhere?
Is there enough of an audience to warrant a new arena for something
like a rec.crafts.textiles.d? Is there a mailing list?
Hoping so,
Ellen
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ellen Cross O our Mother the Earth, O our Father the Sky,
AT&T Bell Labs Your children are we, and with tired backs
Westminster, CO We bring you gifts.
ell...@attmail.att.com -- (Tewa) Song of the Sky Loom
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jude Sirota
Cross) wrote:
> Art for the sake of beauty is great; I've been in that mode from day
> one. I've enjoyed learning and exploring new techniques and different
> art forms. But it wasn't until I went to a local Jesuit university
> last year and took a couple of religion classes (Women and Spirituality,
> Adult spiritual Growth, Native American Religion) that I became aware
> of the meanings and statements behind many works of art; it was then
> that I felt this great sensitivity awakening in me -- to women, to
> Gaia, to different cultures, to things spiritual in nature, to people
> and their struggles and joys.... things of which I'd been completely
> unaware.
I use a Navajo loom and techniques in my weaving and always feel like I am
"stealing" from their culture. I always make it very plain that I use
their techniques, but I am _not_ a Navajo. I use things in nature to make
my designs (like patterns on the backs of beetles!) instead of copying
other patterns from a culture and religion that I am not a part of. My
inspiration comes from nature and my scientific training. What kind of
things inspire you?
> Just to respond as "Josephine Public", perhaps... I wandered into this
> newsgroup to gather up some tips on silk painting, batik, paper, etc...
> and it's a great place for that (thanx). But this kind of discussion
> is not only an added bonus but I think it truly is important to everyone
> who considers themselves an artist/artisan -- are we trying to say
> anything? Not that we have to, but we *can*. Many of us are unaware of
> that -- after churning out utilitarian and artistic clayware for a
> decade, I am only now discovering what can be "said" via our art -- if
> we so desire.
The Navajo's purpose in life is to "walk in beauty". What a great focus
for one's life.
> And I'd love a forum to explore views, issues, and concerns as well as
> a place to enlighten and question. Is it here? Should it be elsewhere?
> Is there enough of an audience to warrant a new arena for something
> like a rec.crafts.textiles.d? Is there a mailing list?
We can keep this thread going, for now and see who responds! I think a
discussion group would be great. I don't know how to go about getting one.
Having been trained as a scientist I tend to want to analyze, discuss,
educate, so a discussion group would be a good place for me!
Keep posting!
Jude
Redhairgal
<<my designs (like patterns on the backs of beetles!)>>
now why doesn't that suprise me considering your love of bugs.
<VBG>
Jo
Lynn Basa
(even though I started it!) but I'm glad to see where it's going. It's
such a rich vein that you all are mining.
I, too, borrow images from different traditions and blend them into my
own symbolism. If you think how we're all interlinked -- culturally,
genetically, electronically -- why not artistically? It's okay to do
that. The Navajo borrowed from their ancestors, traders who passed
through, and other tribes to make their images. Nothing comes from
nothing in life.
Jude Sirota
(Petraglyph) wrote:
> Speaking of borrowing from other cultures -
> I was a member of a forum of Indians and non-Indians last fall, whose
> purpose was to discuss the reproduction of Indian images for any reason by
> any one. It was in Moses Lake, Washington.
>
> I have used images from petroglyphs and pictographs in my art, though I am
> no longer doing this.
I have used these images for greeting cards (personal use only). I have
felt awkward doing this, but I always include in the card some information
about the design, it's symbolism and where it came from (tribe and
locality). I think of them as educational art!
> This forum was intense. The Indians (Wanapums and Colvilles) were
> adamantly opposed to the reproduction of what their ancestors had created,
> either by Indians or non.
There are Navajo weavers who will do workshops and teach non-Navajos, but I
wonder what the concensus is: are these few women "renegades" or in the
minority, or do they just want the traditions passed on to *someone*. I
have read that there are few young Navajo women who want to learn weaving.
It's too bad because here I am, a non-Native, wanting to learn their
incredibly beautiful art and feeling that I am not "entitled" to it.
> I took some of my work to this forum, it was propped up in front of us. I
> was the only artist there, and certainly the only one blatantly showing
> what I had done with what I had seen on rocks.
>
> It was intense, to say the least, but I figured I needed to take
> responsiblity for what I had done, and to try to explain where I had gone
> with it. I also wanted to see if I could separate out the white guilt
> from what I had created. I was unsuccessful with the latter.
My heritage is Czech and Slovak, but I was born in the US, as were my
parents. Do I therefore have the "right" to use Czech and Slovak designs
in my work? I wonder how the people from the "old country" would feel
about an American using "their" traditional designs?? In the US there are
really no cutural traditions to lay claim to!!
> This forum was educational, and I was glad to have the opportunity to go.
> But there was a lot of emotional fallout afterwards.
Was the fallout directed at you, personally? What kind of things were said
or implied?
> I am now designing my own pieces, though I often get comments on how
> "Native American" they look, which pisses me off.
>
> Rebecca Roush
Many artists have a particular "style" that they have developed from
"things" that they like and are pleasing to them or that convey a
particular message or feeling. You are attracted to the designs and
patterns from Native art and it is reflected in your work. I don't think
there is anything wrong with that. Does it piss you off because the people
who make the comments are implying that you are copying Native work? Tell
them (adamantly!) that these are *your* **original** designs!
Jude Sirota
st...@nando.net
In article <3p9eh9$5...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, <petra...@aol.com> writes:
> This forum was intense. The Indians (Wanapums and Colvilles) were
> adamantly opposed to the reproduction of what their ancestors had created,
> either by Indians or non.
<><><><><>
I've just started reading this newsgroup so I may sound a little naive, but,
why?
<><><><><>
> I took some of my work to this forum, it was propped up in front of us. I
> was the only artist there, and certainly the only one blatantly showing
> what I had done with what I had seen on rocks.
>
> It was intense, to say the least, but I figured I needed to take
> responsiblity for what I had done, and to try to explain where I had gone
> with it.
<><><><><>
What have you done? Did you mock the Indian designs/history/race/ect.?
If not, why the guilt?
<><><><><>
> I am now designing my own pieces, though I often get comments on how
> "Native American" they look, which pisses me off.
>
<><><><><>
Again, why? As far as I understand, Native American can be considered a style,
like Southwestern or Egyptian or Oriental.
Just curious.
Wendy L. Mitchell
st...@nando.net
Lynn Basa
themselves use their art work not exclusively within a ceremonial, sacred
context, but as an income-producing product. T
All artistic traditions evolve from the ones before it -- even the
Indians. We all borrow. It's how humans work. I find it really
frustrating as an artist to try to get over this brainwashing that I have
to come up with something new that has never existed on the planet
before. That standard for validating art is relatively new with
Modernism and I don't believe it's possible.
I'm not talking about copying other people's work, but using the world
around you -- which includes designs of various cultures -- as
inspiration and influence. I mean, how can we help but do that?
Roz Cawley
lynn...@u.washington.edu "Lynn Basa" writes:
I was screaming AARGH reading the first five posts, then read Lynnes
reasoned response as the sixth and can only say "couldn't have put it better
myself". Surely it amounts to cultural dictatorship to appropriate any
theme or design to oneself and become offended if anyone else dare use it.
All I can think of is that certain people are acutely sensitive of the real
hurts done to their peoples in the past and identify closely with the symbolic
work produced by their people - and like an over protective parent, can't
release their "children" to be "used" by an unworthy world.
We all know blatant plagiarism when we see it - but as time goes by, the
cultural traditions af forefathers can be treasured along with creation of
new traditions founded upon eclectic sources and producing something
unique and of the culture of your day and your time. (Phew - didn't mean
to go on for so long!)
My husband has just peered over my shoulder and commented "America- what
about "E Pluribus Unum?"" - in the States of all places, take advantage of
your glorious diversity and use everything - something original WILL result!
(Of course, the hurts done to races need to be resolved - but that needs a
meeting half way.)
Lynn Basa
survival, just as it is to creative growth. So, fellow artists, don't
feel guilty for being human and being influenced by the world around you.
On 20 May 1995, Roz Cawley wrote:
> In article <Pine.A32.3.91j.95052...@homer22.u.washington.edu>
> lynn...@u.washington.edu "Lynn Basa" writes:
>
> > Petraglyph's villification by the Indians is a little ironic since they
> > themselves use their art work not exclusively within a ceremonial, sacred
> > context, but as an income-producing product.
> >
Petraglyph
************
Petraglyph's villification by the Indians is a little ironic since they
themselves use their art work not exclusively within a ceremonial, sacred
context, but as an income-producing product . . .
. . . I'm not talking about copying other people's work, but using the
world around you -- which includes designs of various cultures -- as
inspiration and influence. I mean, how can we help but do that?
***********
The Indians that were at this forum, which was part of Washington State's
Archaeology Week, in a nutshell, consider what was done on the rocks as
"Medicine", both good and bad Medicine, some of them so sacred that the
Indians themselves have never been allowed to look at them. Their
culture and race have been virtually destroyed, certainly irrevocably
altered forever. I believe it is not an issue of one culture borrowing or
being inspired by another. I believe their view is that their culture has
been run over (as we all know) without anyone asking them what they want.
And now people all over the world are continuing to treat their cultural
artifacts as trinkets, sacrilegiously, taking away the Medicine's power
and their importance.
They were not talking about non-Indians being *influenced* by their sacred
images. They were talking about the direct use of them. And these
Wanapums and the Okanogan were not using their ancestry for commercial
reasons, as Lynn has pointed out that some do. These gentlemen were
passionately against it.
Certainly, in my mind, as an artist who has used these images in the past,
I have had to grapple with this, to listen to what these Indians said, and
decide for myself what to do with it. While I struggle with the "white
guilt", I want to separate it out from who I am as an artist, and where my
designs come from. These Indians deserve to be heard by me because I have
used what their ancestors created for very sacred reasons. While I
consider my art sacred, I DO NOT have a clue what their concept of
sacredness is, what it means to be Indian, and what it really means for
something to be Medicine.
One ironic note on all this: I have a piece in a show in Bellingham right
now. It's one that I'm particularly proud of, my own design, using some
techniques and colors I've never tried before. As I delivered it, one of
the museum staff asked me if I had other works that were "Northwest Indian
style". I could have screamed. Using beads and a nonhuman image
apparently makes people think "Oh! Indian!"
Maybe I never can be original.
Jude Sirota
(Petraglyph) wrote:
> The Indians that were at this forum, which was part of Washington State's
> Archaeology Week, in a nutshell, consider what was done on the rocks as
> "Medicine", both good and bad Medicine, some of them so sacred that the
> Indians themselves have never been allowed to look at them.
It's the religous nature of Native American (what *we* call) "art" that I
assume most tribes are concerned with.
> And now people all over the world are continuing to treat their cultural
> artifacts as trinkets, sacrilegiously, taking away the Medicine's power
> and their importance.
Trinkets of "Kokopelli" -- a fertility icon -- are being sold as lamp
bases, earrings, etc. with no explanation of it's origin or significance.
At least if people would use these designs/icons in an educational way,
maybe it wouldn't be so repugnant to Natives. Maybe they need to get
copyrights! If Kokopelli has any influence on non-Native people, we are in
for a population explosion! :) I wonder how Jewish people would feel about
Menorahs being mass produced as earrings or ash trays! How about Jesus as
a lamp base?
I think non-Natives tend to "glamorize" Natives and not take their culture
seriously. I've seen it and heard it. A woman from New jersey visited me
in western CO and wanted to know where she could "go see the Indians." It
sounded condescending to me.
My 2 cents.
Jude
Jude Sirota
religions is that the tribes do not recruit others into their religion as
do Christians. You have to be born to the tribe. Hence their opposition
to the use of their religious icons as "art" (i.e. out of the context of
religion). Christians are probably more used to the idea of their religous
icons being mass produced and sold in copiuos quantities than are Natives.
Whatcha think?
Judee
Lynn Basa
each artist using her own conscience, the people to whom the work is
sacred educating others, and us all accepting the fact that there is no such
thing as totally original.
On 23 May 1995, Petraglyph wrote:
> A few days ago, Lynn Basa wrote:
>
> ************
> Petraglyph's villification by the Indians is a little ironic since they
> themselves use their art work not exclusively within a ceremonial, sacred
> context, but as an income-producing product . . .
>
> . . . I'm not talking about copying other people's work, but using the
> world around you -- which includes designs of various cultures -- as
> inspiration and influence. I mean, how can we help but do that?
> ***********
>
>
> The Indians that were at this forum, which was part of Washington State's
> Archaeology Week, in a nutshell, consider what was done on the rocks as
> "Medicine", both good and bad Medicine, some of them so sacred that the
> Indians themselves have never been allowed to look at them. Their
> culture and race have been virtually destroyed, certainly irrevocably
> altered forever. I believe it is not an issue of one culture borrowing or
> being inspired by another. I believe their view is that their culture has
> been run over (as we all know) without anyone asking them what they want.
> And now people all over the world are continuing to treat their cultural
> artifacts as trinkets, sacrilegiously, taking away the Medicine's power
> and their importance.
>
Jenny Kosarew
> The Indians that were at this forum, which was part of Washington State's
> Archaeology Week, in a nutshell, consider what was done on the rocks as
> "Medicine", both good and bad Medicine, some of them so sacred that the
> Indians themselves have never been allowed to look at them. Their
> culture and race have been virtually destroyed, certainly irrevocably
> altered forever. I believe it is not an issue of one culture borrowing or
> being inspired by another. I believe their view is that their culture has
> been run over (as we all know) without anyone asking them what they want.
> And now people all over the world are continuing to treat their cultural
> artifacts as trinkets, sacrilegiously, taking away the Medicine's power
> and their importance.
>
> They were not talking about non-Indians being *influenced* by their sacred
> images. They were talking about the direct use of them. And these
> Wanapums and the Okanogan were not using their ancestry for commercial
> reasons, as Lynn has pointed out that some do. These gentlemen were
> passionately against it.
As someone from the UK who does not know as much about Indian (shouldn't
that be Native American?) art as I would like, I'd like to ask some
(possibly naive) questions.
Petraglyph points out that some of the 'art as medicine' is so sacred that
most of their own people are not allowed to see it, but I assume some of
it is 'public'. Do the Indians who object to their art being used make
any distinction about the original purpose of a design, such as 'medicine'
versus decoration. Do they feel that *all* their art should be equally
out of bounds to non-Indian artists? It seems to me that there would be
a difference between paintings done at a sacred site for use in religious
rituals and a rug made for everyday use, even if the process of creating
the rug was still felt to have a spiritual element.
--
Jenny Kosarew jk...@escher.demon.co.uk
from Reading, England
Petraglyph
*************
Trinkets of "Kokopelli" -- a fertility icon -- are being sold as lamp
bases, earrings, etc. with no explanation of it's origin or significance.
At least if people would use these designs/icons in an educational way,
maybe it wouldn't be so repugnant to Natives. Maybe they need to get
copyrights!
*************
According to one of the Indians at this forum, and I have not verified
this, there is a clause or paragraph in U.S. copyright law that looked out
for Indians. Specifically, it states that anything in the U.S. prior to
the inception of the copyright laws that was Native American in origin is
automatically copyrighted to the Indians. When asked why this was not
enforced, this same Indian stated that the Federal government was not
enforcing this copyright law, and thus the move on the Indians' part to
litigate against infringements on duplicating what's on the rocks. He
stated something along the lines of "The only thing you guys listen to is
the law, so we're going to get the law enforced!" This statement was in
the spirit of a heated discussion, and was not as threatening as it sounds
out of context here.
If you folks want to move on to discussing something else, that's fine by
me. I guess the main thing I want to get across is awareness of the fact
that some Indians are upset/concerned about the duplication of their
sacred symbols, and that perhaps those of us who are non-Indian artists
can consider their concerns.
Rebecca Roush
Petra...@aol.com
David19XIX
I read your comments in the Newsgroups BB. I applaud the honesty with
which you approach your work. Honesty will prove to be the salvation of
all artists who strive to be original.
Those who seek to define and thus destroy the living quality of our work
cannot SEE beyond their definitions.
As a quilt artist, I was made aware of this crippling need to define a
work of art and to place it into a "style" category when I approach a
gallery owner who responded to my portfolio with the words, "I really like
your work. I will keep it in mind. Sometimes we have CRAFT shows."
Please understand that I have the highest respect for craft---where would
any of us be without it? It's not what he said that bothered me, it was
how he said it, the implied meaning behind the judgment.
By the way, I am working on a series of shadow masks (with beads and
sequins) based on Northwest Indian totem images that I found in a book
from the library. So I guess I am working in "Northwest Indian style"
also. Maybe we can start a new movement! I do not experience any "white
guilt" as a result of my inspiration. I always give credit regarding my
creative sources, that is, whenever I am privileged to such knowledge.
I hope that you continue to be moved by images that you do not fully
understand, and that you continue trust the sacred power they add to your
work.
David Walker
lhe...@interaccess.com
>
> <><><><><>
> Again, why? As far as I understand, Native American can be considered a style,
> like Southwestern or Egyptian or Oriental.
>
> Just curious.
> Wendy L. Mitchell
> st...@nando.net
>
Friends of mine - Lakota, Anishinabe (Ojibway) and Cherokee among them - hae explained to me that a lot
of what we Non-Indians view as art has a spiritual significance. Reducing spiritual things to "art" is disrespectful.
Another objection to non-Indians using Native American imagery is that it furthers the beliefs that the Non-Indians
take whatever they want from Indians, whether it's land, minerals, spirituality or art. Finally, a very practical objection
that Indian imagery used by Non-Indians in art basically takes an opportunity away from an Indian artist. Even if
the artist is scrupulous about not representing herself as an Indian, there's the possibility - and a fairly good one -
that their art will be mis-represented by the retailer. (I've seen this happen here in Northern Illinois.)
The above is meant to cover specific images - Kachinas, Medicine Wheels, Sacred Pipes, etc. It's still possible to
be inspired by Indian art and imagery and create your own vision. I don't know of anyone who objects to that.
As for Navajo weaving, yes, there are Navajo women who teach non-Navajos to weave. They aren't "renegades"
passing on secrets. As they teach, they will tell you whether there are specific designs that should only be woven
by Navajos, and just not teach those designs. Again, being inspired by a Navajo design, creating your own design and
weaving it on a Navajo loom is okay - it's the imagery that has meaning, not the technique itself.
Just my $.02!
Lisa Hellwig
lhe...@interaccess.com
> Petra wrote:
> One ironic note on all this: I have a piece in a show in Bellingham right
> now. It's one that I'm particularly proud of, my own design, using some
> techniques and colors I've never tried before. As I delivered it, one of
> the museum staff asked me if I had other works that were "Northwest Indian
> style". I could have screamed. Using beads and a nonhuman image
> apparently makes people think "Oh! Indian!"
>
> Maybe I never can be original.
And additional irony here is that Northwest Indians probably would view your piece as an original design
by you. According to some friends of mine - Indians of various nations - it's not the technique, the colors
or those components that they view as theft. It's very specific images, each nation having its own sacred
images. There are six sacred colors, representing the 6 sacred directions according to the Lakota (red, yellow, blue,
green,white and black.) No one is saying you can't use those six colors together in a piece of art, but please don't draw a
circle, place those 6 colors on it and call the piece "Medicine Wheel" and claim that you're not ripping off a culture.
If you're a potter, don't use traditional Hopi pottery designs. Be inspired by the designs - they're very beautiful - but
create your own!
Petra, I sympathise with your struggle to maintain your artisitic integrity, and I admire your decision to no longer
use the petraglyphs in your art.
Just my $.02...
Lisa Hellwig
Jude Sirota
(Petraglyph) wrote:
> If you folks want to move on to discussing something else, that's fine by
> me. I guess the main thing I want to get across is awareness of the fact
> that some Indians are upset/concerned about the duplication of their
> sacred symbols, and that perhaps those of us who are non-Indian artists
> can consider their concerns.
>
> Rebecca Roush
> Petra...@aol.com
Does anybody have any ideas for additional controversial topics in fiber
arts?? I think we may have run the gauntlet with the Native/Non-native
issue. It seems to me that there aren't very many
problems/controversies/disagreements as concerns fiber arts, which is nice
in comparison to some other newsgroups. :)
One topic I can think of is art vs. craft, although it seems pretty clear
cut to me.
Looking for suggestions and always willing to put in my $0.04 (it's my
scientific training, I can't help it!)
Jude
REDHA...@delphi.com
Quoting SunSpun101 from a message in rec.crafts.textiles.misc
>.
Jude:
I was thinking about this. I am adopted. The way in which it was
handled I have zero idea of my ancestry -- long irrelevant story. So does
that mean I am not entitled to produce any type of heritage art? I mean if
that is what the indians are saying you shouldn't produce their art work
unless you are of their heritage. I don't know this thread was confusing to
me.I am not sure what our birthrights have to do with license for our
creativity. I'll have to think of this some more.
Jo
Rainbow V 1.17.4 for Delphi - Test Drive
BEKKI LYN
>I was thinking about this. I am adopted. The way in which it was
>handled I have zero idea of my ancestry -- long irrelevant story. So does
>that mean I am not entitled to produce any type of heritage art? I mean if
>that is what the indians are saying you shouldn't produce their art work
>unless you are of their heritage. I don't know this thread was confusing to
>me.I am not sure what our birthrights have to do with license for our
>creativity. I'll have to think of this some more.
And those of us with a large mixture of ancestry can get into
a mess of confusion as well. I know I have English, Choctaw,
Cherokee, and Pennsyvania Dutch in my ancestry. However,
neither of my parents "practiced" much of any of it so
it is almost as if I have no real ancestry whatsoever.
I suppose that what I would have to do if I were interested
in selling crafts as authentic ___________ (fill in the blank
with specific ancestry), I would have to somehow become
accepted by those people who were brought up with that
heritage as one of them. Since I don't sell any kind of
art/craft whatsoever and only make things for my own
personal use and as gifts, I don't particularly feel too
bad when I borrow from various cultures for ideas.
However, I would not try to convice people that my creations
were authentic from any particular heritage though I would
try to explain what I know about the ideas that inspired]
my creations.
--
Bekki Lyn
********************************************************
_Raving Dionysian_ & Representative of the Air Element
of NCSU's
SOCIETY OF PAGANISM & MAGICK
********************************************************
"Drums, guitars, and death. They finally got it right."
-- BH --
********************************************************
D Yedinak
the stand taken by the NA's as far as thier art and culture go I do
understand it. There is still, to this day a great deal of
discrimination and inequity as far as the NA peoples are concerned.
Broken treaties still have not been put in place and their rights are
still being trampled on by the courts. I see there needs to be more
dialog back and forth since obviously none of us are going back to where
our ancestors came from. More needs to be understood and more
communication, sharing of culture and understanding and acceptance of
both cultures ways needs to come about. This cannot be done when an
arbitray and dogmatic stand is taken by either the NA or the other
Americans. Understanding won't come about by saying, "hand off our stuff
" but by sharing why this stance is taken so that understanding and
compassion can be reached. I understand where they are coming from and
why.
If you once stand on some of their sacred ground and feel the presence of
the Great Spirit there, and understand the sorrow that has gone before
and is still causing a great deal of grief, then a big step is taken. If
you are not allowed to understand, share in that grief and ask for the
healing, nothing but discord will continue . Dee
Lynn Basa
> Does anybody have any ideas for additional controversial topics in fiber
> arts?? I think we may have run the gauntlet with the Native/Non-native
>
> One topic I can think of is art vs. craft, although it seems pretty clear
> cut to me.
>
> Jude
>
Actually, I tried to get the ball rolling under this same heading with a
topic that consumes me: The effect of being in female dominated medium
has on our success in the market. Not only are we in a field that is
traditionally associated with the feminine and the domestic, but most of
the practitioners of fiber art are women. Any other field dominated
by women is lower paid, lower status, undervalued by our culture.
Problem is, nobody seems to want to talk about it. Are we just sick of
the topic or too beaten down or too unambitious or what? 'Seems like
we're ignoring the elephant in the living room.
I, for one, want to succeed as a fiber artist and, for me, that means
understanding how the market works, not just financially but
sociologically, as well.
Petraglyph
focused on gender in the textile arts. In fact, that may have been the
issue that had the article about you, too! At any rate, if I remember
correctly, one of the points that the magazine was trying to make was that
now that men are entering the textile movement, it is being taken more
seriously. This fact is astounding. Women have been working with
textiles as long as they've been around, and have been the primary players
in the textile art movement, and now that male artists are active in the
medium, the medium is being taken more seriously. Other art forms were
originally acknowledged as male (i.e. paintings, sculpture, glass), and
have been difficult arenas for women to be taken seriously in. And the
one art form that is practically inherently female has been discovered by
men, and therefore has been transformed from homemaker's craft to serious
art. Thank you, male artists! Where would we be without you!
Another point- The issue of women artists being paid less for their work
than men, isn't part of that a function of the fact that 2-D work has
always been more highly prized than "crafts"?
Rebecca Roush
Petra...@aol.com
Scott
: > Does anybody have any ideas for additional controversial topics in fiber
: > arts?? I think we may have run the gauntlet with the Native/Non-native
: >
: >Not only are we in a field that is
: traditionally associated with the feminine and the domestic, but most of
: the practitioners of fiber art are women. Any other field dominated
: by women is lower paid, lower status, undervalued by our culture.
:
: I, for one, want to succeed as a fiber artist and, for me, that means
: understanding how the market works, not just financially but
: sociologically, as well.
Lynn
In my experience Fine Art and Textile courses at degree level are very
split in the UK. Generally only through textiles courses do you come
into contact with what we call textile art.
These course are predominantly female attended. I feel that to my
experience textiles are associated with CDT (craft, design and technology)
and are at degree level consist of fashion, constructed and print, very
rarely (except in tapestry) art or sculpture based. They are always
linked with design hardly ever art.
I also would like to succeed as a fibre/textile artist, but it is very
difficult especially when I try to show my work in textile shows and
they refuse to accept it because they class it as fine art, then when
I try to show my work in mixed art shows and they it is classed as
textiles. As I was once told "We don't show craft".
I got around this problem by saying my work was mixed media, but it's
very annoying
Deb
===
Hi everyone I'm Scott, Debbies boyfriend and an interested observer!
Debbie suggested that I add my tuppence worth so here goes. As I see
it one of the biggest stumbling blocks to becoming a financially
self supporting fibre artist is that in the Fine Art world fiber is
not seen as a valid media to use. Until fiber becomes accepted then
work that is constructed using it will not be.
A recent show here in Liverpool showed this problem, it consisted of
a number of contemporary Fine Artists who were experimenting with
creating art from traditional craft materials. Fine Artists are
"allowed" to create art with craft materials but not vice versa.
Another problem that I see is the insistence on using the term "Fibre
Artist". This immediately puts a label on the piece of work and
creates preconceptions in the mind of the viewer. Debbie and I
disagree on this but I think it is important to be defined as an
artist not by the media that you use.
Scott
Lynn Basa
of my research, developed this obsession for trying to understand why
fiber art is relatively invisible in the market when, get this, more
people are working in fiber than any other craft medium. According to an
HGA survey, we're not talking about a few thousand more, but tens of
thousands more. Yet, where are the galleries devoted to fiber art (there
are a lot of glass galleries), where is the serious writing, where are
the avid collectors?
Part of the answer I'm reluctantly coming to is that the fiber artists
themselves don't get out there. For myself, I know a lot of that
reticence comes from my upbringing as a woman: Stay in the background,
be nice, don't be pushy, etc. I fight to overcome that brainwashing all
that time. Of course, we all know women who have been blessed with a
ballsy nature from birth, but this culture sure doesn't do much to
encourage that in women.
As for women being paid less than men: I recently read an excellent
two-volume history of women call "A History of Their Own" and, guess
what, throughout all of recorded history in all fields, women have always
been paid 25 - 50% less than men for the same job -- the exact same
number as today.
You'd think there'd be some solidarity or at least some discussion among
fiber artists about how to raise the status of our female-dominated
medium out of its ghetto. It really mystifies me that there's such
apathy about it.
Lynn Basa
On 30 May 1995, Scott wrote:
> Lynn Basa (lynn...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
> : >Not only are we in a field that is
> : traditionally associated with the feminine and the domestic, but most of
> : the practitioners of fiber art are women. Any other field dominated
> : by women is lower paid, lower status, undervalued by our culture.
> : I, for one, want to succeed as a fiber artist and, for me, that means
> : understanding how the market works, not just financially but
> : sociologically, as well.
>
> Lynn
> ===
>
>
> Hi everyone I'm Scott, Debbies boyfriend and an interested observer!
>
> Debbie suggested that I add my tuppence worth so here goes. As I see
> it one of the biggest stumbling blocks to becoming a financially
> self supporting fibre artist is that in the Fine Art world fiber is
> not seen as a valid media to use. Until fiber becomes accepted then
> work that is constructed using it will not be.
>
> Another problem that I see is the insistence on using the term "Fibre
> Artist". This immediately puts a label on the piece of work and
> creates preconceptions in the mind of the viewer. Debbie and I
> disagree on this but I think it is important to be defined as an
> artist not by the media that you use.
>
>
> Scott
Hi, Scott and Debbie, it's Lynn, again.
Your comments illustrate exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. We
talk about how fiber doesn't get taken serious, has labels that "create
preconceptions in the mind of the viewers," etc. I believe this is
because of fiber's association with the domestic and the feminine.
Glass, as a craft, sure doesn't have any trouble being taken seriously.
How can we make fiber art a desirable collectible and overcome it's lower
status?
So far, what I know is this: For an art form to be taken seriously there
has to be these components:
1) A body of serious scholarship
2) Collections in respected museums
3) Serious collectors
4) Galleries to promote and sell the work
I believe we're held back on a couple of fronts: There is prejudice
against female-dominated disciplines and; a general reticence and low
self-esteem instilled in women by our culture that keeps us from getting
out there and taking our careers as seriously as men are encouraged to do.
I'm probably going to get lambasted for this POV, but at least we'll be
talking about it. Please, somebody convince me that I've got it all
wrong. I'd be thrilled.
Lynn Basa
Petraglyph
"Does anyone else
besides Valerie and Bekki think about these things?"
I use a needle and thread every time I sit down to work on my art. I'm
glad I use this medium, because it is so old and feminine. I feel
intensely in touch with my grandmother, who taught me to crochet, and with
women in general. When I frame, I connect with the men in my family who
are virtually all carpenters. I am a much better stitcher than framer.
I think about women while I work, especially when I am working on a female
figure. There's great disparity between the outside world's treatment of
women, and the world inside of me where women rule.
One thing I've noticed recently in my work is the following. Each piece
takes between 100 - 200 hours to finish. Thus, working full time, it
takes a few months to complete each one. I have just started another
female figure. Prior to this one, I did a "Ribbed Figure", a derivation
of sorts, ungendered. More and more I fluctuate between the two, first
making one and then the other. My female figures have breasts and
uteruses and are dynamic. The ribbed figures are not human, but have
limbs and spines/ribs, and are also dynamic. When I finish a female
figure, I am compelled to do one that is not human, not gender-specific.
Then when I finish that one, I feel ready to take on one of the female
figures again. It's as if my art gives me an opportunity to say something
loud about being a woman, and then I say something loud about everything
else.
Lately I have been considering taking my work more seriously. I am a
feminist, and have difficulties telling/asking the public to take my work
as seriously as I do. Without thinking about it much, I don't know if
this is a function of my inate personality, or the sexism of the culture I
was raised in. I am intrigued, Lynn, with the concept of telling the
world to take my work seriously. It's so much easier to just work on it
quietly at home, to enter shows, and to act polite and deprecating when
people see my work and say, "Gee, you must have a lot of patience."
Also, my husband and I have recently moved into a one bedroom apt. My
work area is the dining room, divided by a bookshelf. I have laid down
some ground rules: when I'm working, no intrrrupting. No talking to me,
to phone calls, no requests. It's the first time I haven't had a room of
my own, with a door to shut. While I want to work in my home, I have had
to educate myself and my spouse about taking the time and space that I
work seriously.
Rebecca Roush
Petra...@aol.com
REDHA...@delphi.com
Quoting w from a message in rec.crafts.textiles.misc
> Path:
>news1.delphi.com!news.delphi.com!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!gatech!news
>feed.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!msunews!News From: w (J)
>Newsgroups: rec.crafts.textiles.misc Subject: Re: Controversy
> Followup-To: rec.crafts.textiles.misc
> Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 16:58:11 -0500
> Organization: Michigan State University Dept of Entomology
> Lines: 32
> Distribution: world
> Message-ID: <w-30059...@35.8.202.183>
> References: <w-23059...@35.8.202.183> <3q7k5e$1...@news1.delphi.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 35.8.202.183
> Hi Jo!
> I think the problem is viewing Native American works as "art" rather
>than religous icons. Their religion and culture cannot be separated,
>as I think it can be in other cultures. Therefore, if you are not
>born into their tribe, you are not of their religion. I couldn't go
>out and adopt the Navajo religion if I wanted to. Many of the icons
>are not viewed as **art** by Natives, so "heritage art" doesn't exist
>in their minds. It's different, to me, from using Czech embroidery
>designs, for instance. These designs have no religious meaning. It
>sounds like some tribes don't mind "us" using decorative patterns, but
>they want us to leave their religious icons alone. Did I clear this
>up at all???
> Jude
> In article <3q7k5e$1...@news1.delphi.com>, REDHA...@delphi.com wrote:
> > Jude:
> >
> > I was thinking about this. I am adopted. The way in which it was
> > handled I have zero idea of my ancestry -- long irrelevant story.
>So does > that mean I am not entitled to produce any type of heritage
>art? I mean if > that is what the indians are saying you shouldn't
>produce their art work > unless you are of their heritage. I don't
>know this thread was confusing to > me.I am not sure what our
>birthrights have to do with license for our > creativity. I'll have
>to think of this some more. >
> >
> > Rainbow V 1.17.4 for Delphi - Test Drive
Jude:
How do I know that I am not of their religion? If I don't know my heritage,
Jude? If I was descended from them would my use of their religious icons be
ok? So if I understood their religious icons and believed in them and used
them as they do would it be ok if I were of irish heritage? It is more
towards that dichotomy
David19XIX
What if this entire discussion were taking place in another
newsgroup---perhaps, rec.arts.fine?
What would happen?
Just an idea.
David Walker
Sarah C. Swett
weaver who struggles the who am I and how do I take myself seriously and
value these amazing things that I can't help but create. I belong to a
spinning group that meets weekly and while hardly a week goes by when we do
not discuss baby poop, much of our talk revolves around all of these
fascinating and frustrating questions. While most of us are Mums we
struggle with our early training/hormones which tell us to have a baby
whenever things get tough and whatever else happens to keep our spouses
happy. As a group, however, we are the the smallest part of an enormous
subculture that our larger society forgets exists. We support and
encourage each other which helps us as individuals to stick our necks out.
Certainly our early training to be good and quiet and not make spectacles of
ourselves is hard to fight, but as each of us dares to speak out a little
about who we are and what we do and why it is so bloody important its GOT to
make a difference. The trouble occurs if we sit in our little circle and
moan about how hard it is and forget to get out there and encourage other
women to make a little noise, to take this work seriously. There are, after
all, more women than men in the world. If enough of us see each other's
shows and talk about one another's work and show our own whenever possible,
even if it is "only" in the local public library, it has got to make an
impact. Actually I thihk that one of the greatest problems is that women in
our society are not brought up to support one another. I think that
newsgroups like this can help us all. I, for one, have enjoyed all of this
controversy discussion and hope that it continues. And NO it does not
belong in fine arts. It is on these "pages" that textile artists
communicate with one another. Perhaps those in search of a new way to wash
wool will stop and read and listen and think about their own work and how
important it is to share it, in whatever way, with the world at large. Here,
no one will read the word knitter or weaver or spinner and automatically
tune out the conversation.
Sarah Swett
sw...@cobalt.chem.uidaho.edu
Lynn Basa
you think would happen? Anyway, it's trying to take place here. What's
your opinion? What sort of work do you do? Are you a fiber artist? If
so, how does it feel to be a man in a field mostly associated with
women? Why did you choose this medium? Do you think your approach to
making and marketing your art is different than your female colleagues,
that you've noticed? I'd be very interested in your opinions.
David19XIX
discussion. I just don't have a lot of time to be a worthy participant,
however, I have been enjoying the comments of others.
I believe that the topic is an important one in any forum especially in
this day and age. I was just wondering what insights a broader audience
would produce.
However, I'll try to briefly answer the questions you have posed to me.
Perhaps, this can also serve as a personal introduction of sorts.
What do you think would happen? (if this discussion were taking place in
another forum) I don't really know. Greater insight, surely. I believe
we are all 'fine' artists. Our particular medium is a little concern to
me. There are many other mediums that find themselves in the same boat
struggling to stay afloat (excuse the yuky metaphor).
What sort of work do you do? I am a full time artist and quiltmaker. My
work is mainly astract and often highly embellished. I have been teaching
workshops and lecturing nationally since 1990.
How does it feel to be a man in a field mostly associated with women? I
have always felt comfortable working with women and have never felt like
an outsider.
Why did you choose this medium? I really don't know. It was there. I
was there. We met and have stayed together for the past sixteen years.
This is my most often asked question and the one I find hardest to answer.
Interestly enough (or sadly perhaps), I don't find that women in the
fiber arts are asked this same question quite as often.
Do you think your approach to making and marketing your art is different
than your female colleagues, that you've noticed? I make and market my
art just like my female colleagues do, with a lot of hard work and long
hours spent in the studio, with a lot of hours at my desk dealing with the
endless paperwork needed to keep my name 'out there' (scheduling workshops
and exhibitions, dealing with galleries, applying for grants). Honestly,
I find that I have run into the same joys and challenges, problems and
prejudices, as my female colleagues. The medium we love and have chosen
continues to be such a stumbling block in today's art world. We, as fiber
artists, confuse the traditional and conservative notions regarding what
is art? My experience is that what we as fiber artists like most about
our medium is often what formally schooled critics challenge---our medium
is positive, immediate, 'touchable', more vulnerable perhaps, sensitive,
packed with strong, healing, feminine energy. I find that this is also
true for the artists who work with fibers. At least I find this to be
true of my personal fiber artist friends, both men and women alike.
Do I enjoy what I do? (a question I added) You bet! 100%
David Walker:)
Cincinnati, OH
Lynn Basa
being a fiber artist, a woman, a mother and how it all fits together.
I decided at about 14 not to have kids because it seemed really clear to
me that if I wanted to fulfill my artistic ambitions, it wasn't going to
happen if my life was given over to helping someone (or several someones)
grow up -- because that is, and should be, the primary function of anyone
who decides to become a parent. What really amazes me a lot, is how many
women don't think it is going to affect their life that much to have a
kid or two. And, how when we discuss why women's work is undervalued,
the childbearing factor is seldom, if ever, mentioned. It's such a thing
to be proud of, to think of all of the women throughout history who have
made contributions to society while dealing with pregnancy and childrearing.
Of course, they're not mentioned much in the history books (at least the
ones I studied when I was in school. I think things are changing now,
thanks to feminist scholars)
But I digress. You're right, it's easier to go along with our programming
as women to stay behind the scenes, not rock the boat, not risk being
thought of as not nice by rising above our stations. If I sound
aggravated, it's because I despise the brainwashing within myself that I
constantly have to fight.
I'd love to hear from others about the risks they've taken. How they
felt when they took them. What they had to overcome within and outside
themselves to do it. It doesn't have to be an earth-shattering
accomplishment, just something you did that was hard to do, that put you
in a place higher than you thought you could go.
Lynn Basa
On 7 Jun 1995, David19XIX wrote:
> The medium we love and have chosen
> continues to be such a stumbling block in today's art world. We, as fiber
> artists, confuse the traditional and conservative notions regarding what
> is art? My experience is that what we as fiber artists like most about
> our medium is often what formally schooled critics challenge---our medium
> is positive, immediate, 'touchable', more vulnerable perhaps, sensitive,
> packed with strong, healing, feminine energy. I find that this is also
> true for the artists who work with fibers. At least I find this to be
> true of my personal fiber artist friends, both men and women alike.
> David Walker:)
> Cincinnati, OH
You gave me a new insight with this last point you made. I just returned
from NYC where I saw the Bruce Nauman exhibit, the Whitney Bienniel and
the Gramercy Park Hotel art fair -- in other words, I got a good first
hand look at what the art capitol of the world considers important. It
was the opposite of what you so aptly described fiber as standing for.
It was constipated, small ideas that were about putting off the viewer:
don't touch, feel uncomfortable, intentionally bad craftsmanship.
(Forgive my stream-of-consciousness ungrammatical style). It even
smelled bad! Old mattresses with rotting cake smeared on it, axel grease,
etc.
But, you know what? That is such a small audience performing only for
itself. It's so fearful of not being hip. So afraid that if the general
public thinks its work is beautiful, it will have sold out. No one wants
to say that the emperor has no clothes.
The majority of the world wants beauty, is starved for it. Texture, color,
meaning. Look at the way glass has risen as a serious collectors' item.
It didn't happen by accident. Dale Chihuly and others reinvigorated the
ancient craft and promoted the bejeesus out of it.
I'm putting together a collection of utilitarian textiles from around the
world for 650 patient and exam rooms for the hospital collection I
curate. Such variety of expression. Such an exquisite delight not just
for the eyes but for the senses. There's so much wit, design, symbolic
significance in these pieces. Once again it affirms why I chose fiber --
just when I was beginning to think art couldn't make me feel anything again.
You're a quilter. That's one of the most cohesive subcategories of
contemporary fiber arts today. Not only are some of the most interesting
expressions being played out on quilts, but you all seem to have a lot of
opportunities to show and a good collector base.
What I don't get, is why aren't there galleries devoted to contemporary
art quilts just as there are to glass? Are there many quilters who are
earning a living solely from their art? As a quilter, what do you think
the obstacles are to this or am I misinformed? Is there more collector
activity than I think there is? (Because I live in the center of the
universe as far as the studio glass movement goes, I may have a lopsided
idea that glass is getting more attention than the other crafts.)
Lynn Basa
Seattle, WA
Jude Sirota
title of this thread to the relevant topic (for now something like "Textile
Arts Unappreciated" or "Why Textile Arts not recognised") there would be
more response. Maybe some people are put off by the "controversy" title.
I proposed earlier a discussion on art vs. craft and got too busy to follow
up on it. Someone (I think Lynn) sent me an e-mail asking for
clarification, since I mentioned it was pretty clear to me the difference.
After jhaving gone to many "Arts and Crafts Fairs" I have come to think of
"crafts" as being items people make that are generated from patterns found
in "crafts magazines". They are made in vast quantities when being sold,
don't have much imagination or individuality to them, and fall into *my*
category of dust ciollectors! Finely handcrafted pieces that are original,
unique, and have an aesthetic quality *I* would class as art, not crafts.
Many techniques used in art stem from handcrafts such as glass blowing,
quilting and weaving, which in earlier days, perhaps, were primarily
utilitarian.
From many of your (collective) comments, textile work is not always
considered "art", (which is totaly bogus) but perhaps it stems from the
origin of the words artist and artisan. The Random House College
dictionary defines "artisan" as "a person skilled in an applied art" and
artist as "a person who practices one of the fine arts, esp. a painter or
sculptor". The word "applied" seems to be the difference between art and
craft.
This has been a very intelligent discussion and I wish there was more of it
on this newsgroup and others! Keep it up.
Jude
Diane Barlow Close
SunSp...@aol.com (Jude Sirota) wrote:
> Lynn Basa asked if "there is anyone out there". I wonder if we changed
> the title of this thread to the relevant topic (for now something like
> "Textile Arts Unappreciated" or "Why Textile Arts not recognised") there
> would be more response.
I agree. I almost passed up this thread, early on, thinking it was
another spam-for-money ad or some other silly, irrelevant post. I'm glad
I read on, though. Once I "discovered" it, I wasn't able to participate
right away as I was on vacation and reading remotely without posting
capabilities. Now that I'm back, I guess I'll start off my response by
changing the title to something more appropriate!
SunSp...@aol.com (Jude Sirota) continues:
> ... I have come to think of "crafts" as being items people make that are
> generated from patterns found in "crafts magazines". They are made in
> vast quantities when being sold, don't have much imagination or
> individuality to them ...
I think that's part of the reason textile creations aren't readily seen as
art -- they are too easily duplicated by any audience member that simply
follows the rules or pattern. When you produce something that you can
turn around and teach to #N hundred people by giving them a pattern and a
set of instructions, then what you've created ceases to be art (imho).
Think of a great painting. Even today, no one produces a video that says
"put this brush stroke here, and this one there. Switch to this colour
and voila, you have Mona Lisa!" That painting is a unique piece that
stands on its own. Sure, some individuals who study it a great deal can
eventually copy it almost exactly, but the *vast majority of painters*
will never achieve that! You can buy photographs of the Mona Lisa, and
you can by prints of the Mona Lisa, but few can duplicate the Mona Lisa
themselves or afford to pay anyone the money to do so.
Yet most of the quilts I've seen lately can be easily duplicated by anyone
following a set of instructions -- often by using a pattern or video
that's been produced to allow you to copy, exactly, the design! This is
true for soft sculpture, needlework, etc. as well. Very few of the
current designs are unique or stay unique. Often as soon as a fiber
artist has produced a unique quilt/soft sculpture/etc. they'll turn around
and produce a book, pattern or video that will allow anyone with sewing
skill to achieve that same look.
Real artists need to be a bit selfish about their work, imho. I think
that one rule for "textiles as art" has to be: when you produce something
that the vast majority of the sewing world can't duplicate, then you've
produced something that may be classed as art.
> Finely handcrafted pieces that are original, unique, and have an
> aesthetic quality *I* would class as art, not crafts. Many techniques
> used in art stem from handcrafts such as glass blowing, quilting and
> weaving, [snip]
Late in the eighteenth century, the separation between art and artisan (or
craftsman) became "official". This has led to today's (sometimes
snobbish) distinction between "fine" arts (exceptionally creative,
imaginative, gives form and life to an idea) and skilled workers
(craftsmen) or technicians. Craft workshops can become artists' studios.
The key is there's a relationship between "skills" and "ideas" in art
practice. Think of the production of art on the same level as poetry.
Some crafts (glass blowing and woodworking, for example) can cross the
line from craft (utilitarian or mass-producable) into art (unique, focuses
on our senses and helps us to sense the fullness of the world). When what
the craftsman produces contains the "seven substantial parts of art"
(Giovanni Lomazzo, 1538-1600): perspective, light, colour, motion,
proportion, composition and form; when that form can't be readily
mass-produced or duplicated -- that's when you have ART.
Lynn Basa <lynn...@u.washington.edu> writes:
> What I don't get, is why aren't there galleries devoted to contemporary
> art quilts just as there are to glass? Are there many quilters who are
> earning a living solely from their art? As a quilter, what do you think
> the obstacles are to this or am I misinformed?
Part of the problems with galleries devoting themselves to textiles is
that the medium is transitory. Light breaks down textiles; older textiles
shatter, fade, disintegrate, etc. If we want textile works to be accepted
as art, then some study has to be done into either making them permanent
or being able to restore them. That's been done in the painting world,
and even so most paintings have a longer "shelf" life than most textiles.
Photographic artists (who never realized their media was so transitory or
fragile when they started) are now discovering this down side too. That's
one of the reasons photographs haven't been taken seriously as works of
art in many circles -- early on many individuals realized that the medium
had no serious "lifespan" (less than 25 years for colour photographs
stored in complete darkness, for example.)
Lynn Basa <lynn...@u.washington.edu> continues:
> [re: glass as art] Dale Chihuly and others reinvigorated the ancient
> craft and promoted the bejeesus out of it.
When textile artists can solve the transitory, much-care-needed-to-exhibit
nature of their wares, then I believe that dealers and other promoters
will become more seriously interested in textiles-as-art or
textiles-as-collectors-items. People who collect want to see their
collection increase in value AND not disintegrate or wear out in front of
them. They want something they can pass on, preferably in tact, to the
next generation. Textiles don't yet pass this test of time.
> ... a quilter. That's one of the most cohesive subcategories of
> contemporary fiber arts today. Not only are some of the most interesting
> expressions being played out on quilts, but you all seem to have a lot of
> opportunities to show and a good collector base.
Another obstacle to "quilters as artists" is that artists, tradionally,
don't earn very much money. Today the most money to be easily made is in
the books, patterns and videos that you can produce to allow others to
duplicate or explore your "art". Once you succumb to that you've failed
to produce the uniqueness required of real art, imho. So it becomes
somewhat of a catch-22 situation: make art and starve, or make crafts and
reap "riches". :-)
Finally, the last obstacle to textiles as ART is the quilt shows
themselves. Judging is still at the craft, and not the art, level! To
win a quilt show you must have "pretty" stitching -- and often that's more
important that the quilt's design or total form ("form" referring to the
ideas which exist in the mind of the artist and how they become concrete
and exist in real space when applied to the art work, in this case the
quilt.) I think the highest achievement of an artist is the ability to
imagine and conceptualize ideas and then give them form through the
physical work. Quilts are not judged by this in competitions today.
In a quilt show I recently attended as an observer, a very traditional
quilt (one anyone could produce by rote) won over a very creative,
original (and not very easily duplicated) artistic quilt because the
traditional quilt had *perfect stitching*. Until real venues are provided
to showcase the quilt as art, rather than the quilt as craft (emphasis on
perfect piecing, perfect stitching), or until we get new, modern quilt
judges, quilts are doomed to be seen as utilitarian crafting things.
--
Diane Close
cl...@lunch.engr.sgi.com
I'm at lunch all day. :-)
Lynn Basa
"Controversy," is scaring people off, that's pretty revealing -- and
worrisome. To me, anyway. I mean, shouldn't there be some passion,
thought, an engaging with life, an aliveness that artists feel? I see it
in the artists and their work that I collect as a curator, where is it in
my fellow fiber artists? I know several of you have spoken about this.
I'm starved for more.
I try not to get dragged into the Is It Art or Is It Craft debate because
I feel like it's a distraction from underlying issues and the artists who
are my role models either have transcended or ignore the whole morass. I
feel like I need to just try to understand as much about
the world around me,including historical and biological forces while doing
the best I can.
I just finished almost destroying a tapestry that I made for a show by
embellishing it with embroidery. I'm in the process of ripping it out
now (which actually takes longer than putting it in) because it puckered
the weaving so badly. It was for a show about samplers I was invited to
be in.
For the last five years since more people have been collecting my work,
I've found that my tapestries have become more and more vacuous. Even
though I try not to think about the audience I'm making them for, they're
there like ghosts in the back of my mind all of the time. With this last
disastrous piece, I've decided this is the last tapestry I'm going to
make for public consumption. I'm going to rely on my rug design business
and curatorial job for income and liberate my tapestries. I felt so
relieved once I decided that.
Do any of you make art for sale? I do custom rugs for people and get a
lot of good creative energy going doing that, but it doesn't seem to work
the same with my more personal art work, the tapestries. Has anyone else
had this happen to their work? How do you refresh yourselves?
David19XIX
lengthy response about three or four days ago, and it has yet to be
posted---in fact, nothing else has been posted either. Is "controversy"
closed or disbanded? I am leaving to teach for the next two weeks and
hope to find that it has been restored.
I miss the dialogue. I was just getting "into" it.
David Walker
Cincinnati, OH
Noeline McCaughan
: Do you know what has happened to our "controversy" discussion? I posted a
: lengthy response about three or four days ago, and it has yet to be
: posted---in fact, nothing else has been posted either. Is "controversy"
: closed or disbanded? I am leaving to teach for the next two weeks and
: hope to find that it has been restored.
It has been known to happen occasionally for posting to disappear into the
void and never appear again. When it has happened to me I get the feeling
that even though I have reposted the second attempt was a poor shadow of
the first. Try again.
Noeline.
Lynn Basa
thoughtful responses. Even though I'm the one who got this thread
going, the issues are tough and take a lot of thought. I hope the few of
you who have responded already can keep it going while I cogitate.
By the way, is anyone interested in starting a rec.art.textiles group?
(Does anyone know how to start your own group?)
On 17 Jun 1995, David19XIX wrote:
> Do you know what has happened to our "controversy" discussion? I posted a
> lengthy response about three or four days ago, and it has yet to be
> posted---in fact, nothing else has been posted either. Is "controversy"
> closed or disbanded? I am leaving to teach for the next two weeks and
> hope to find that it has been restored.
>
Diane Barlow Close
>By the way, is anyone interested in starting a rec.art.textiles group?
>(Does anyone know how to start your own group?)
Yes, I've started several and I'm a newsgroup mentor (which means I help
others start them too.) Basically you need to have an audience FIRST; you
need to have a lot of traffic discussing your main topic AND you need to
have carried this on for a while (*several months*.) You cannot and
should not expect the newsgroup to come first and the traffic to come
later! If the audience doesn't exist now there's no use wasting system
time and room on an unpopular topic.
You need to encourage open conversation on this topic *here* -- if it isn't
happening then there simply aren't enough people that think along those
lines on-line yet. You might try *cross-posting* to rec.arts.misc, where
the audience is definitely more arts-thinking than crafts-thinking.
BTW, rec.arts.textiles was the first newsgroup Anne Louise Gockel
suggested when creating this hierarchy many years ago. It was rejected
outright and a bunch of us came up with the crafts hierarchy idea.
Rec.crafts.textiles (which has now splintered into _many_ textile
sub-groups) was the first crafts group to be created, along with
rec.crafts.misc!
BTW, Lynn, I just don't get you. First you want to discuss textiles as
art, and then you post saying you always avoid the "arts versus crafts"
arguments and then you turn around saying you want to talk about textiles
as art again! Make up your mind, please. Do you want to discuss why
textiles aren't viewed as art by the general public, or do you simply want
to complain that *your* textile "art" isn't selling and you can't figure
out why. The latter strikes me as a very lame complaint, so I can't
imagine you really wanting only that type of conversation.
There are hundreds of "starving artist" painters whose paintings scream
"technique" all over them and they, too, can't figure out why their stuff
doesn't sell. That seems to me to be part of the reason why many
art-textile products don't sell -- they simply aren't art! They're all
technique. (How's that for "bad attitude"?! :-)
Petraglyph
controversy!
I have a piece of mine in a juried show at the museum in the town I live
in. This juried show alternatives annually between "fine arts" and
"crafts". Both years artists are invited to submit slides. Judging *and*
awarding prizes is based on slides. While I can understand judging two-D
works from slides, it makes no sense at all to judge 3-D works (i.e.
crafts!?!) from slides, because of the awful translation of the original
work into slide format. The jurors are hired from around the country,
flown into town, shown the slides, do the jurying, and flown out of town.
THEY NEVER SEE THE ACTUAL WORK! I know that this is standard procedure,
but it seem it's an insult to the work being juried.
Any thoughts?
Rebecca Roush
Petra...@aol.com
Diane Barlow Close
>... Both years artists are invited to submit slides. Judging *and*
>awarding prizes is based on slides. While I can understand judging two-D
>works from slides, it makes no sense at all to judge 3-D works (i.e.
>crafts!?!) from slides, because of the awful translation of the original
>work into slide format.
Judging any work, 2-d or 3-d, via photos (or slides) takes away (sometimes
greatly) from the actual effect of the work when compared to seeing it in
person. Traditional 2-d works, like oil paintings, can have a very
definite 3-d element to them too -- brush strokes, knife-paint layering,
etc.
IMHO judging _all_ (mixed-media competitions) works via slides puts all of
those mixed-media works on the same level playing field. Now, depending
upon your skill at lighting your work or photographing your work, you can
properly accent your 2- or 3-d work -- or you can destroy whatever effect
it might have by poor lighting and poor photography. At least slides have
more depth and better colour-clarity than regular from-a-negative photos.
One possible reason for judging by slides: since works of art for
contents will eventually, most likely, be photographed for display in the
local paper or in art magazines, you want to display works that _can_ be
photographed and _will_ show up properly when photographed. It'll make
your show look better and more prestigious if the works, themselves, show
up great in photos.
Lynn Basa
chose fiber as a medium, but it opened up so many deep channels, I didn't
know where to start and I felt like I didn't have the time to do the
topic justice. I probably still don't since it involves a lifetime of
discovering why we choose to make the art we do.
On 6 Jun 1995, Petraglyph wrote:
> I think about women while I work, especially when I am working on a female
> figure. There's great disparity between the outside world's treatment of
> women, and the world inside of me where women rule.
Yes, I've noticed that disjunction: In the outside world, we hear all
sorts of things about what women are like--feminists are whiny and
victimy, women are nurturing and gentle, women can't be in combat because
they don't like to get dirty, women don't get the good jobs because they
don't like to work hard, blah blah blah. Yet when I look around me, I see
women in as much variety as I see that there is in men.
> It's as if my art gives me an opportunity to say something
> loud about being a woman, and then I say something loud about everything
> else.
I haven't been able to figure out why I chose fiber. Sometimes I think
it's because I took the path of least resistance, or perhaps because
there's something I need to say with it. Lou Cabeen is an artist who
comes to mind who is doing work making a social statement that can only
be said in fiber. I think about why does what I have to say need to be
said in fiber, or does it? I only have bits and pieces of an answer.
> Lately I have been considering taking my work more seriously. I am a
> feminist, and have difficulties telling/asking the public to take my work
> as seriously as I do. Without thinking about it much, I don't know if
> this is a function of my inate personality, or the sexism of the culture I
> was raised in. I am intrigued, Lynn, with the concept of telling the
> world to take my work seriously. It's so much easier to just work on it
> quietly at home, to enter shows, and to act polite and deprecating when
> people see my work and say, "Gee, you must have a lot of patience."
It's kind of paradoxical, but I've found that I have to be aware that my
work may not be taken seriously because of, I don't know, my gender or
medium or lack of assertiveness or talent or whatever, and then ignore
it, just forge on. And try to support each other.
> Also, my husband and I have recently moved into a one bedroom apt. My
> work area is the dining room, divided by a bookshelf. I have laid down
> some ground rules: when I'm working, no intrrrupting. No talking to me,
> to phone calls, no requests. It's the first time I haven't had a room of
> my own, with a door to shut. While I want to work in my home, I have had
> to educate myself and my spouse about taking the time and space that I
> work seriously.
This is probably the hardest step of all: Not on the theoretical,
pontificating level, but day-to-day. Good for you!
I've found that I can't talk to anyone when I'm designing. I've taken to
shutting off my phone because when I would answer it, people could tell
that I wasn't interested in talking to them. (So, it's like, Lynn, just
don't answer the phone.) My boyfriend, who has a studio down the hall,
will come in to kiss me sometimes and I can barely pull myself away to
turn to him. I think some brain change takes place when you're deep in
that creative groove.
That's probably more than enough, for now!
Lynn Basa
Seattle
Lynn Basa
Actually, most artists would probably say that their work doesn't look
good in slides. But since most artists (and museums) can't afford to
ship work on speculation, it's the best thing we've got.
Speaking from the curator half of my mouth, all I can say is make sure
you have great slides from a lot of different angles.
On 20 Jun 1995, Petraglyph wrote:
> Okay, here's a complaint from me. Let's see if we can whip it into a
> controversy!
>
> I have a piece of mine in a juried show at the museum in the town I live
> in. This juried show alternatives annually between "fine arts" and
> "crafts". Both years artists are invited to submit slides. Judging *and*
> awarding prizes is based on slides. While I can understand judging two-D
> works from slides, it makes no sense at all to judge 3-D works (i.e.
> crafts!?!) from slides, because of the awful translation of the original
Diane Barlow Close
>It's kind of paradoxical, but I've found that I have to be aware that my
>work may not be taken seriously because of, I don't know, my gender or
Considering that there are many prominent female artists, in all choices
of medium, I doubt that you aren't taken seriously because of your
gender. And I doubt that you aren't taken seriously because of your
choice of medium. Textiles have been used as a medium to produce art for
a long time, and there are many, many famous textile "arts" displayed
prominently in galleries and sought out for serious, private collections!
Some examples: Josef Beuys "Felt Suit", Alberto Burri "Sacco", Naum Gabo
"Linear Construction in Space No. 2", Javacheff Christo's "environmental
wrappings", and Claes Oldenburg's "Giant Hamburger". The latter is
prominently displaced at the Art Gallery of Ontario, in Toronto, Ontario,
Canada.
Be it created by male or female, textile art is being produced, has been
produced, is being collected and is actively displayed in major
galleries. So perhaps you aren't taken seriously because of what you *do*
with that medium? (I have no idea what it is you do with the textile
medium.) Perhaps what you are really asking is why *traditional textile
creations*, like tablecloths and quilts, aren't taken seriously, displayed
in galleries, collected by serious collectors and considered art?
The answer to that, imho, is that such creations aren't art! They're not
unique, they're all technique and they're too functional to be considered
art. If someone were to create a unique, visionary tablecloth, or display
of a tablecloth, then *that* would become art. It just hasn't been done
yet; that's not to say it can't be done.
Another question that could be asked is why aren't the general public
buying MY textile art? Well, perhaps it's not art? Or perhaps it's not
attractive or commercial enough to sell, as "art"? If *selling* is your
primary goal (as opposed to creating Art), then you have to realize that
very few people have successfully created *both* art *and* commercial
success. Know your audience and your target-market and create what they
want to see, seems to be the key.
So, why aren't the general public buying or collecting textile creations
(as art) en masse the way they are, say, glass? One good reason:
textiles don't last, glass does. Textiles disintegrate and fade with
time. Glass can get brittle, but it'll outlast textile creations just
about every time. You could always try creating textile "art" with
longer-lasting materials (nylon string?), or researching methods to ensure
a long life to your textile art. Collectors want something that'll last.
They don't want to pump $N thousand dollars into a piece of art only to
have it fall apart in a couple years!
That's my 2 cents on the topic! (Or should that be "two threads"? :-)
Lynn Basa
On 21 Jun 1995, Diane Barlow Close wrote:
> Considering that there are many prominent female artists, in all choices
> of medium, I doubt that you aren't taken seriously because of your
> gender. And I doubt that you aren't taken seriously because of your
> choice of medium. Textiles have been used as a medium to produce art for
> a long time, and there are many, many famous textile "arts" displayed
> prominently in galleries and sought out for serious, private collections!
I'm saying that there
doesn't seem to be as many galleries showing contemporary textile art
along with fine art as there are, say, showing glass art. Also, the
collectors and curators I've talked to around the country don't seem to
know who is doing fiber and where to go find it -- although the desire
seems to be there to collect it. I just had an art consultant from
Massachusetts visit my studio yesterday who remembered my work from a
conference 10 years ago. She now wants to educate herself more about
textiles so she can offer them to her clients. I know that this is only
one example, but it's pretty typical, in my experience. My curator and
collector contacts all ask the same question, "Where can one find
contemporary textiles?"
> Be it created by male or female, textile art is being produced, has been
> produced, is being collected and is actively displayed in major
> galleries. So perhaps you aren't taken seriously because of what you *do*
> with that medium? (I have no idea what it is you do with the textile
> medium.) Perhaps what you are really asking is why *traditional textile
> creations*, like tablecloths and quilts, aren't taken seriously, displayed
> in galleries, collected by serious collectors and considered art?
I do two things: Small-scale tapestries that have personal content and
art rugs (i.e., highly decorated, collector-item type rugs in limited
editions.)
> The answer to that, imho, is that such creations aren't art! They're not
> unique, they're all technique and they're too functional to be considered
> art. If someone were to create a unique, visionary tablecloth, or display
> of a tablecloth, then *that* would become art. It just hasn't been done
> yet; that's not to say it can't be done.
What you just wrote describes really well what I believe is the real
dividing line between art and craft. I know this distinction is crude,
but it's the difference between an object that is created with an idea
that comes across in it that is larger than its objectness. Judy
Chicago's Dinner Party, for example, since you mentioned table cloths.
> So, why aren't the general public buying or collecting textile creations
> (as art) en masse the way they are, say, glass? One good reason:
> textiles don't last, glass does.
I used to buy that, until someone snapped me out of it by pointing out
that glass is extremely fragile and must be handled with special care.
All along I was hypnotized by the white-glove, special lighting
treatment that textiles get when I realized that they're pretty tough.
After all, paintings are on cloth and it doesn't stop people from collecting
those by the truckload.
To mark my revelation -- and as a reaction to the "Ohhh, it's so delicate
and made by women" aura surrounding textiles -- I made a piece called
"Endurance Test" where I made six 4" woven squares and did experiments on
them: 'A' got left outside for a month and snowed on, 'E' got burned,
'F' got shot with a .357 Smith and Wesson at close range, etc. I
learned a lot about how tough textiles are. Ever since then I've felt
really unbound from the fragility mindset I'd gotten myself into.
Lynn Basa
On 19 Jun 1995, Diane Barlow Close wrote:
> BTW, Lynn, I just don't get you. First you want to discuss textiles as
> art, and then you post saying you always avoid the "arts versus crafts"
> arguments and then you turn around saying you want to talk about textiles
> as art again! Make up your mind, please. Do you want to discuss why
> textiles aren't viewed as art by the general public, or do you simply want
> to complain that *your* textile "art" isn't selling and you can't figure
> out why. The latter strikes me as a very lame complaint, so I can't
>imagine you really wanting only that type of conversation.
I thought, perhaps erroneously, that we could talk about the lack of
venues for textiles without trying to come up with a definition for what
constitutes Art or Craft, which is where that topic usually heads, in my
experience. I'll admit, I have an intellecutal bias: I think gender is
the underlying issue in contemporary textile's relative invisibility and
that Art vs Craft is a superficial level at which to argue this.
And how's this for "lame:" My work actually does sell well and for most
of my career I've had a pretty easy time get a favorable response to it.
So the answer to your question is, I want to talk about why, when there
are so many people working in fiber (more than in clay or glass), there
are so few collectors, galleries, critics in our field?
Lynn Basa
Seattle, Glass Art Capital of the World
Jane Eisenstein
: collectors and curators I've talked to around the country don't seem to
: know who is doing fiber and where to go find it -- although the desire
: seems to be there to collect it. I just had an art consultant from
: Massachusetts visit my studio yesterday who remembered my work from a
: conference 10 years ago. She now wants to educate herself more about
: textiles so she can offer them to her clients. I know that this is only
: one example, but it's pretty typical, in my experience. My curator and
: collector contacts all ask the same question, "Where can one find
: contemporary textiles?"
Have you considered pointing them to the magazine FiberArts or the
occasional fiber art review in Shuttle, Spindle & Dyepot, Weaver's or
Handwoven? I've weaving for less than a year and have found several
inspiring examples of artful textile work. Is there some higher plane
they're seeking that rules all of these sources out?
: All along I was hypnotized by the white-glove, special lighting
: treatment that textiles get when I realized that they're pretty tough.
: After all, paintings are on cloth and it doesn't stop people from collecting
: those by the truckload.
: To mark my revelation -- and as a reaction to the "Ohhh, it's so delicate
: and made by women" aura surrounding textiles -- I made a piece called
: "Endurance Test" where I made six 4" woven squares and did experiments on
: them: 'A' got left outside for a month and snowed on, 'E' got burned,
: 'F' got shot with a .357 Smith and Wesson at close range, etc. I
: learned a lot about how tough textiles are. Ever since then I've felt
: really unbound from the fragility mindset I'd gotten myself into.
Ah, I saw this tapestry at your Mobilia exhibit and didn't understand.
--
Jane Eisenstein
ja...@world.std.com
Lynn Basa
On Thu, 22 Jun 1995, Jane Eisenstein wrote:
> Have you considered pointing them to the magazine FiberArts or the
> occasional fiber art review in Shuttle, Spindle & Dyepot, Weaver's or
> Handwoven? I've weaving for less than a year and have found several
> inspiring examples of artful textile work. Is there some higher plane
> they're seeking that rules all of these sources out?
Hi, Jane!
Oops. I forgot. That's a great suggestion -- and a really embarassing
oversight on my part since I've written for both of those magazines and
they've shown my work. And, no, the quality of the art in there is
plenty good enough. I really think FiberArts in particular is getting
better and better. Anne Batchelder, the editor, is one of those people
who cares very deeply about her work and is always looking for new
ideas. So, hey gang, pitch some ideas to her. She'd appreciate it.
Just send a letter to her outlining your idea and some photos, if you
have any (or just let her know that you've got good, professional
visuals to go with your proposed article.
> Ah, I saw this tapestry at your Mobilia exhibit and didn't understand.
That brings up another issue: How much should the artist tell what the
piece is about right up front. It'll come out sooner or later, but at
first?
I actually had a potential buyer back out of buying a piece from that same
show when she found out what it was about. Personally, I feel
comfortable with that because every piece (almost) finds someone who
connects with it.
Lynn Basa
Seattle
Petraglyph
that is unnecessary, perhaps it would be the best definition to call
everything art. Rather than determine the "arts vs. crafts" categories,
determine the quality of the art, i.e. good art vs. bad art. The whole
debate over crafts is detracting from the real issue, which is what is
art, and what is not? I see plenty of things that I consider art, and a
lot of work that passes for art that is a joke. Eliminating the category
of craft brings the issue back to whether a person's work is art, period.
Rebecca Roush
Petra...@aol.com
Lynn Basa
it, but my gut feeling is that getting bogged down in the whole arts vs
craft morass keeps us down or is symptomatic of feeling we're second-class
citizens in the fine arts world. The best analogy I can think of is the
way feminism can get sidetracked in measuring women against a male
standard.
Painters don't spend any time (as far as I can tell from the very active
fine arts discussion groups and all of the painters I know through my
job) talking about art vs craft. Just as men don't spend much time,
relatively, talking about how they can be more like women.
I don't have any tidy concluding remarks to this train of thought. I'm
still trying to figure it all out -- in full awareness that it may not
ever be figured out. I'd like to hear other's opinions, though.
BEKKI LYN
...
>Personally, I wouldn't line my bathroom with more than half of what I've
>seen called (by the creators) as "textile art"! A very big number of the
>people I see working with fibers today are producing Really Bad stuff --
>whether termed Art or craft, it's full of shoddy workmanship and not worth
>owning or collecting! Unfortunately for textile art, shoddy textile work
>usually means the thing is both ugly AND it will fall apart.
One of the problems with this whole art debate seems to really be
the definition of what is art. What is art to one person may be
a big piece of crap to someone else. I sometimes get the impression
that some of the art that is displayed in galleries is only
there because 'some big art dude' liked it and a bunch of other
people liked it because the 'big art dude' liked it, and then
more people recognize it as art because they are afraid to
seem art ignorant if they don't pretend to like it. Sort of
like the Emperor's New Clothes story. And something else
comes along that is crafted extremely well, and designed
rather tastefully and creatively gets turned down because,
"that's not what's cool, man. Why don't you come back when
you turn it into a psychadelic headless chicken and then
we can talk."
>And that gets me to the crux of my opinion: IMHO, textile art's biggest
>weaknesses are the lack of education (about the life and care of a piece)
>and the lack of standards (for longevity of materials and for overall
>craftsmanship.) The general public currently has NO WAY to determine what
>materials went in to the creation of a piece of textile art, nor can they
>judge how long the piece will hold together and last.
I agree. There is a conversation currently going on in the needlework
group about unappreciated work. Often, those posting to that discussion
have spent many hours stitching a complex pattern to give to
someone they care very much about only to have that person go,
"Oh. How nice." as they put it aside. Sometimes they really
don't care, but sometimes they do not understand how much
work went into creating the piece. If they did, it could be
that they would appreciate it more.
....
>Pottery and glass (fragments or whole) can be found going back to earliest
>man. Textiles going back to earliest man are extremely rare. Heck
This statement brings up another thing. I'll bet that most of that
pottery and glass from ancient times that we now consider art
was actually made for practical purposes, much as what we
often consider as 'craft' these days. Thus, is how long the
object has been around the only indicator of what is art, or
are we guage what is art by what it currently is? I mean, if
a child long ago scribbled on a piece of paper, and that paper
was miraculously uncovered and framed, is it any more artistic
than a modern child's scribble that s/he made today?
...
>So I believe textile works are relatively unseen today because to the
>known weaknesses of the medium, combined with lack of public education
>about overcoming those weaknesses. That, complicated by the proliferation
>of shoddy work, keeps reinforcing the idea, among the masses, that
>"textiles don't last", therefore they aren't "collectable". That's much
>more likely to keep textiles off the walls and out of the galleries than
>any conspiracy (conscious or unconscious) regarding gender.
I think it also has to do with how interested collectors are
in a particular medium in general. (I think this is where
the education will come in handy.) If I were collecting
pottery only with the idea of having something valuable
from long ago, then I wouldn't care how 'artistic' it
was, I'd just be looking for an artifact. However, if I
were only looking at pottery as art for arts sake, I would
go for the piece of pottery that was both well made and
most beautiful to my eye. It wouldn't matter how long ago
it were constructed. I think many of these 'galleries' and/
or museums are more interested in collecting artifacts than
they are in collecting art.
I also agree with the person who said that many women (and men)
often don't go into textile art, or even any other art,
because it is not a guaranteed money-maker. Most people
go to work in fields which will make them the most money
based on their current abilities, and they are often
willing to sacrifice any artistic talent they might have
to making a good living, especially if they are
responsible for the welfare of any dependents. I have
found a general lack of interest in art from just
about anyone. Sure, they'll go in a museum and "ooh"
and "aah" about how wonderful and item is, but they
won't think of doing anything like that themselves.
They either don't have the time, or more likely
don't want to spend the time doing something they
consider a waste of time. I think if more people
were interested in art in general, and were educated
as to how to create art, then they would not see it
as a waste.
Often, many parents discourage creative children from
pursuing an art career, textile or otherwise, because
they wish them to become doctors, lawyers, engineers...
all the money-making jobs. So, society often
discourages art in the way we teach our children.
It's something to play with, but not something to
take seriously.
--
Bekki Lyn
********************************************************
"And THEY were waiting for me, waiting inside
Hoping that I would come back in
But I just ran away into the woods, as far as I could
I saw THEIR eyes and then I fainted again, going insane
Dreaming that I was one of THEM..."
********************************************************
Lynn Basa
> I sometimes get the impression
> that some of the art that is displayed in galleries is only
> there because 'some big art dude' liked it and a bunch of other
> people liked it because the 'big art dude' liked it, and then
> more people recognize it as art because they are afraid to
> seem art ignorant if they don't pretend to like it. Sort of
> like the Emperor's New Clothes story.
That is soooooo true! The introduction of The Painted Word by Tom Wolfe
sums this up exactly. He talks about how there are really just 50
opinion makers who decide what's cool, 500 collelctors that follow along
with that, a few art magazines that publish those artists and it goes on
from there. I'm embarassed to say that as someone who buys art for a
living, I see this kind of groupthink all of the time in my
profession. It's particularly intense in NYC. In Seattle, we have
fewer pretentions (but terrific artists) and the rest of The Scene
mercifully bypasses us.
> I agree. There is a conversation currently going on in the needlework
> group about unappreciated work. Often, those posting to that discussion
> have spent many hours stitching a complex pattern to give to
> someone they care very much about only to have that person go,
> "Oh. How nice." as they put it aside. Sometimes they really
> don't care, but sometimes they do not understand how much
> work went into creating the piece. If they did, it could be
> that they would appreciate it more.
Of course they can see how much work went into it. That's one of the
outstanding characteristics of crafts such as needlework -- one can
actually count all of those little stitches and know that a human being
made them. I feel like the work is devalued for other reasons: Because
machines can do all that and more? Because the work was made from a kit
and doesn't have the spark of an original idea in it to make it special?
Because needlework has a low status as women's work?
> I also agree with the person who said that many women (and men)
> often don't go into textile art, or even any other art,
> because it is not a guaranteed money-maker.
True, most people don't go into art but most people do have some artistic
hobby. (There was a much-publicized Lou Harris poll about this a few
years ago) And more people go to cultural events than sporting events in
any given city.(This, from a Federal Government study)
That said, getting back to textiles specifically,
why is contemporary textiles still overwhelmingly dominated by women and
why is it under-represented in the fine crafts market (i.e., galleries,
collections, scholarly writing) relative to clay and glass. Just to say
that most people aren't interested in art doesn't get to the crux of the
question. The real question is, of those who are seriously interested in
art, why aren't more of them interested in fiber? And what can those of
us who have chosen to make a living as fiber artists do about it?
********************************************************
> "And THEY were waiting for me, waiting inside
> Hoping that I would come back in
> But I just ran away into the woods, as far as I could
> I saw THEIR eyes and then I fainted again, going insane
> Dreaming that I was one of THEM..."
> ********************************************************
What is this quote from? It's really creepy. Is it from that Christina
Rosetti poem about the fruit people?
Lynn Basa
BEKKI LYN
>On 28 Jun 1995, BEKKI LYN wrote:
...
>> I agree. There is a conversation currently going on in the needlework
>> group about unappreciated work. Often, those posting to that discussion
>> have spent many hours stitching a complex pattern to give to
>> someone they care very much about only to have that person go,
>> "Oh. How nice." as they put it aside. Sometimes they really
>> don't care, but sometimes they do not understand how much
>> work went into creating the piece. If they did, it could be
>> that they would appreciate it more.
>
>Of course they can see how much work went into it. That's one of the
>outstanding characteristics of crafts such as needlework -- one can
>actually count all of those little stitches and know that a human being
>made them.
Believe it or not, some people just do not get it. If they haven't
actually done those stitches themselves, many feel that
such things can be whipped up in no time. A weekend even.
I've been guilty of misjudging the time it takes to do these
things myself, not because I don't appreciate it, but because
I was deciding on something to make for a gift for my mother,
but had a time limit on when I had to have it done by.
I picked out a pattern that I knew wasn't simple enough to
take a weekend, but I never imagined how long it actually
did take me to finish it. I did get it done in time -- about
an hour before it was time to give it and that was after staying
up many late nights squinting to put tiny blended stitches on
dark canvas in the middle of winter.
Fortunately, my work was very appreciated, but I made
a misjudgement based on how long it looked like I would
take as opposed to how long it actually took to complete
the work.
> I feel like the work is devalued for other reasons: Because
>machines can do all that and more?
I can believe that machines play a part in much of it. I mean,
why make something by hand when a machine can do it faster?
In fact, some years ago people scorned handmade things
because that implied that the person who made it was too
poor for the machine-made things. I think we're seeing
a turnaround of that attitude and people are starting to
get tired of all the mass-produced stuff and better
valuing the more precious handmade items. It still seems
to be happening very slowly though.
> Because the work was made from a kit
>and doesn't have the spark of an original idea in it to make it special?
I don't think that's necessarily true or else people wouldn't
run out and buy so much mass-produced items. In fact, many
people wouldn't ever know whether I stitched something from
a kit or from my own design, unless they saw me doing it or
I told them. Many people just want more things or whatever
quality for as inexpensive a price as possible, or they
want something store bought and extremely expensive so that
they can brag about it to their neighbors. I don't think
the concept of orignality has penetrated lots and lots of
people as of yet, unless of course it is being displayed
in a museum where they are expected to appreciate it,
regardless of the quality of the work.
>Because needlework has a low status as women's work?
I think that also plays a part in it. Though more and
more men are doing needlework, many are still for whatever
reason embarassed by it because they don't want to seem
like women, whatever that is.
Basically, when I do needlework I either keep it for myself
or give it away as a gift. I wouldn't imagine trying to
sell it at this point as I woudn't be able to sell it for
the price it is valued. Even for just stitching a mass-
produced design. But I am not convinced that I would have
a hard time selling it just because it was considered
woman's work, but that there are other things people
seem to want more. Most people if given a choice between
buying the latest electronic gadget and
buying a similarly-priced piece of needlework will often
choose the neato electronic gadget. See, the gadget
is 'useful' though it may sit unused in the garage for
years after, while the needlework is a 'frivolous' item.
>> I also agree with the person who said that many women (and men)
>> often don't go into textile art, or even any other art,
>> because it is not a guaranteed money-maker.
>
>True, most people don't go into art but most people do have some artistic
>hobby. (There was a much-publicized Lou Harris poll about this a few
>years ago) And more people go to cultural events than sporting events in
>any given city.(This, from a Federal Government study)
Of course the cultural events tend to be less expensive and easier
to get tickets for (if they even need tickets for that particular
event). I wonder if those factors have any influence in the
study.
It seems like people have a longing for more art and to do more
art themselves, but the biggest excuse I get when they might
see me working on a project is, "I wish I could do that, but
I don't have the time." My philosophy is that one can make
the time to do the things one loves to do. People, according
to many other studies it seems, make lots of time to sit
around watching TV.
I guess I'm just not convinced that our society really puts value
on art, whatever kind of art it is, outside of small exclusive
groups here and there. Most people think it's neat and sometimes
dabble in it, but that's about it. Why else do so many parents
give their kids horrified looks if they say they want to
make a living as an artist.
>That said, getting back to textiles specifically,
>why is contemporary textiles still overwhelmingly dominated by women and
>why is it under-represented in the fine crafts market (i.e., galleries,
>collections, scholarly writing) relative to clay and glass. Just to say
>that most people aren't interested in art doesn't get to the crux of the
>question. The real question is, of those who are seriously interested in
>art, why aren't more of them interested in fiber? And what can those of
>us who have chosen to make a living as fiber artists do about it?
Well, we can make up our own galleries, collections, scholarly
writings, etc. Those in other mediums who are more established
are not going to do it for us. It's like when women not too
long ago demanded and won the vote. If women didn't work
toward getting it, we'd have never gotten it. The people
who already had the vote weren't going to suddenly come up
with the idea to spotaneously give women the vote if
women't voting status was not brought into view as a
problem. Why fix a problem that isn't there?
I think part of the problem might be with who made up our
current galleries and museums. Were they made by men,
who because most were/are not currently involved in textile
art, did not have an interest in textiles and therefore
put the items they were interested in in the museums?
Was the idea of a particular museum originally to show
off pottery and only reluctantly admitted other art forms
when they were requested to do so? Perhaps no textile
artists put in any requests. Perhaps the majority of
women who do textiles don't put artistic value on
their own work and thus don't request it be artistically
recognized.
But the solutions must start at the individual level.
If we as individuals stress the importance of what we
do, and we treat what we do just the same as a
painter or a potter or a stained glass artist, or
whatever is seen as great art, then we will of course
be recognized because we will know its value and
we will find places to allow others to recognize its
value.
Right now, I think people are basically ignorant as to
what textile art is. So even if those people come to have
or already have an appreciation for art in general,
they may not see textile art because they have only
been told the practical uses of textiles.
As with all art forms, education is the key here. Give the
people an appreciation of art in general and then
also include textile art and show them what it is, or
they will just think an original art quilt is no more
than another pretty blanket.
> ********************************************************
>> "And THEY were waiting for me, waiting inside
>> Hoping that I would come back in
>> But I just ran away into the woods, as far as I could
>> I saw THEIR eyes and then I fainted again, going insane
>> Dreaming that I was one of THEM..."
>> ********************************************************
>
>What is this quote from? It's really creepy. Is it from that Christina
>Rosetti poem about the fruit people?
<*grin*>
No, it's actually from a song off of the King Diamond album, "Them".
And if you think that quote is creepy, you should read all the
lyrics in order as they tell a chilling tale....
--
Bekki Lyn
Lynn Basa
On 30 Jun 1995, BEKKI LYN wrote:
Though more and
> more men are doing needlework, many are still for whatever
> reason embarassed by it because they don't want to seem
> like women, whatever that is.
There's such an awful complex about homophobia that our culture puts onto
men, that it takes a really confident guy to take up an art form that is
so associated with women folk. While researching an article once, I
interviewed the head of a very prestigious textiles program. He said
that men are put off by the sorority atmosphere in the fiber studios and
want to be associated with a more serious environment. I've never
observed anything but seriousness in the fiber studios I've been in, so I
don't know what's really behind his observation. One could speculate....
> I guess I'm just not convinced that our society really puts value
> on art, whatever kind of art it is, outside of small exclusive
> groups here and there.
As an artsworker, I can really make myself depressed with that
observation. I'm the curator of a large hospital's art collection.
What could be in more stark contrast than saving lives and putting
pictures on the wall. But, you know, over the nine years I've had this
job so many many people have told me how much the art has meant to them
in their time of crisis. It's just one of those things that can't be
measured in a culture that only judges the worth of what it can measure.
Incidentally, I'm putting together a collection of textiles from around
the world for the patient and exam rooms. People are going apeshit over
them. They're really hitting a responsive cord.
> Well, we can make up our own galleries, collections, scholarly
> writings, etc. Those in other mediums who are more established
> are not going to do it for us. It's like when women not too
> long ago demanded and won the vote. If women didn't work
> toward getting it, we'd have never gotten it.
>
> I think part of the problem might be with who made up our
> current galleries and museums. Were they made by men,
> who because most were/are not currently involved in textile
> art, did not have an interest in textiles and therefore
> put the items they were interested in in the museums?
> Was the idea of a particular museum originally to show
> off pottery and only reluctantly admitted other art forms
> when they were requested to do so? Perhaps no textile
> artists put in any requests Perhaps the majority of
> women who do textiles don't put artistic value on
> their own work and thus don't request it be artistically
> recognized.
(I looked for something to cut in these last two paragraphs to save
space, but it was to good to let go) I agree with the direction your
thinking is heading. People like what they know and, for whatever
reason, men got the ownership of nearly all the institutions and property
so it follows that they'd promote what they felt an affinity for. (This
is not to say that textiles never had male advocates, far from it. There
is a general tendency for men not to be as familiar with textiles because
it has been in the domain of women for so long)
> But the solutions must start at
the individual level.
Well, that's it in a nutshell, isn't it. Let's redouble our efforts! I
believe textiles are going to come on big and strong -- there are many
signs already that they are. We're living in an increasingly
technological society. Rather than wanting homes that look like Star
Trek sets, we're going to long more to be surrounded by the handcrafted,
by objects with meaning.
Lynn Basa
BEKKI LYN
>
>
>On 30 Jun 1995, BEKKI LYN wrote:
> Though more and
>> more men are doing needlework, many are still for whatever
>> reason embarassed by it because they don't want to seem
>> like women, whatever that is.
>
>men, that it takes a really confident guy to take up an art form that is
>so associated with women folk.
And what you said above is another thing that I find interesting.
Why do people believe homosexual men to be like women? Why is
that association there? To me, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
And even so, what is so darn bad about being like a woman? It should
be more of a compliment than a curse in my opinion. (Not that being
like a man is necessarily bad if being like a woman is good.) And
then I'm still not really all that sure what "being like a woman"
actually is. If one goes by the prissy stereotype, most *women* aren't
even like that.
It's a real shame that someone, man or woman, won't go into something
they would ordinarily love, just to try to not be like something they
don't have any real clue about.
...
>> I guess I'm just not convinced that our society really puts value
>> on art, whatever kind of art it is, outside of small exclusive
>> groups here and there.
>
>As an artsworker, I can really make myself depressed with that
>observation. I'm the curator of a large hospital's art collection.
>What could be in more stark contrast than saving lives and putting
>pictures on the wall. But, you know, over the nine years I've had this
>job so many many people have told me how much the art has meant to them
>in their time of crisis. It's just one of those things that can't be
>measured in a culture that only judges the worth of what it can measure.
Yes.
Another thing that contributes to my societal views of art comes
from my own college experience. When I graduate, I will have degrees
in both English Literature and Computer Science. When I was doing
my Literature studies, I was surrounded by people who were more in
tune with artistic endeavors in general as many of those students
were also creative writers of some sort or another. Being on the
staff of the literary magazine also helped encourage more of an
artistic bond. Once I completed that degree and started concentrating
on my computer science studies, I found myself in an entirely
different culture -- the culture that our society expects all adults
to live in once passing out of childhood -- the real world.
While working on my computer science degree, I have often become
depressed because I would feel that I had nothing in common with
anyone with whom I had to associate. I would say something about
some creative endeavor I was involved in and would get either
blank stares or statements like, "Why are you doing *that*?" Basically,
if I wasn't doing anything that would help to get a "real job" on
graduating, it was something totally useless to do. Those who
did have an interest in art more often than not were the ones
who also "didn't have the time."
Maybe by attending an engineering school, I am surrounded by the
extreme in anti-art philosophy, but I have had co-op jobs in
"the real world" as well and I find the same philosophies there.
I know there are people who truly appreciate art, regardless of
what kind, but I am really beginning to think such people are in
the minority. I would love to be convinced otherwise.
>Incidentally, I'm putting together a collection of textiles from around
>the world for the patient and exam rooms. People are going apeshit over
>them. They're really hitting a responsive cord.
A very encouraging statement!
> > But the solutions must start at
>the individual level.
>
>Well, that's it in a nutshell, isn't it. Let's redouble our efforts! I
>believe textiles are going to come on big and strong -- there are many
>signs already that they are. We're living in an increasingly
>technological society. Rather than wanting homes that look like Star
>Trek sets, we're going to long more to be surrounded by the handcrafted,
>by objects with meaning.
I believe it also, even with all my above somewhat depressing
statements. People in general seem to be growing much more restless
with this technological age, coming in so soon after the growth
of the industrial. When society wears itself out from all the rush,
pressure, and that which is quantity-driven, it will hopefully
turn back to find that which is beautiful and restful and inspiring.
There is hope yet because as you said, the signs are there.
David19XIX
some reason it did not go through the system when originally sent. I am
posting it again hoping that it still contains some pertinent information
to be added to the dialogue currently in progress.
-------------------------------
This whole discussion is so exciting that it will be difficult for me to
leave it while I am away teaching this summer. I hope that I will be able
to retrieve all the threads of wisdom during my brief visits back here at
home. Time has become an unmerciful taskmaster for me.
My comments are random and have only quickly been thought out. That's the
way I think---that's the way I create. The next day I'll read my posts
and question why I said what I said. Yikes!
Lynn Basa wrote:
((You're a quilter. That's one of the most cohesive subcategories of
contemporary fiber arts today. Not only are some of the most interesting
expressions being played out on quilts, but you all seem to have a lot of
opportunities to show and a good collector base. What I don't get, is why
aren't there galleries devoted to contemporary art quilts just as there
are to glass? Are there many quilters who are earning a living solely
from their art? As a quilter, what do you think the obstacles are to this
or am I misinformed? Is there more collector activity than I think there
is?))
Art quilters are becoming more and more organized and are getting more and
more attention. Networking has been one of my greatest consolations in
recent years. Although I have not yet become rich, I am eeking by on what
I make teaching workshops, lecturing, and selling my work. As a former
school teacher of 22 years in parochial schools, I have learned to live on
little. I have not taken a survey, but there are probably more full time
quilt artists that one might expect. However, it is my experience that
there are not that many full time painters, sculptors, etc., either,
however, I realize that the percentages are no doubt greater for them than
those for quilt artists. Corporate as well and private collections are
beginning to include quilts in their inventories. Major quilt museums
(for both traditional and contemporary quilts) can be found on both
American coasts, as well as the Museum of American Quilters right here in
the Midwest in Paducah, KY.
The prospects are probably not nearly as rosy as I have described above,
but in my opinion healthy progress is being made. In many cases, it is
the artists themselves that have made all of this possible, by banding
together, by networking and discussing the needs of quilt artists as well
as solutions regarding how to meet them.
Diane Close wrote:
((Real artists need to be a bit selfish about their work, imho. I think
that one rule for "textiles as art" has to be: when you produce something
that the vast majority of the sewing world can't duplicate, then you've
produced something that may be classed as art.))
Brava!!! This is why I am a firm believer in long periods of self-imposed
isolation from other artists and their work. Friends will not always
understand, but that's not important.
I have mixed feelings about Diane's next comments:
((If we want textile works to be accepted as art, then some study has to
be done into either making them permanent or being able to restore them.
When textile artists can solve the transitory, much-care-needed-to-exhibit
nature of their wares, then I believe that dealers and other promoters
will become more seriously interested in textiles-as-art or
textiles-as-collectors-items. People who collect want to see their
collection increase in value AND not disintegrate or wear out in front of
them. They want something they can pass on, preferably in tact, to the
next generation. Textiles don't yet pass this test of time.))
This is true if the purpose of our artmaking is to satisfy the buyer, the
dealer, the collector. We live in a new day and age. Textiles can be
protected better than ever before. In the past almost all textiles were
utilitarian by nature, and I suppose it followed that once something got
"used" up, it was then considered to be disposable. Buyers, dealers, and
collectors need to be assured that textiles are not as fragile as
previously thought. Protecting them from light, moisture, and heat is a
good beginning to a long life for most textiles. Put the Mona Lisa
outside in the hot sun during a hurricane that's traveling across some
distant equatorial island and see what happens! (I know that this is a
stupid example, but I couldn't resist sharing the image.)
However, creating the "eternal" quilt is not the purpose of my artmaking.
The following comes from my general artist's statement: "I believe that
the making of art is primarily for the benefit of the artist. If what the
artist has created communicates messages and feeling to others, then it is
because of the universality of the human experience that is speaking
through the work of art. I do not believe that art has to be lasting in
physical terms to be great art, much less good art. If a creative effort
is able to move, change, and teach the human spirit to grow into its full
conscious potential, then I think the purpose of art has been fulfilled."
Lastly, Diane's comments regarding the quilt shows:
((.....the last obstacle to textiles as ART is the quilt shows themselves.
Judging is still at the craft, and not the art, level! ))
I heartily agree, and all I can suggest is LET ALL ARTISTS BEWARE! Avoid
shows that emphasize craft over art if the production of art is your
purpose. There are too many other good exhibition opportunities out there
for us to enter. Thank goodness---because I am not a "pretty" stitcher.
About changing the name of our topic to something other than
"Controversy", I vote to leave the title as is. The new titles seem to be
too restrictive in my mind. "Controversy" can go anywhere, has wings, and
allows for a more organic development of ideas. Controversy can be scary,
and avoiding it is worrisome to me also, but it will continue to attract
adventurous dialog. Keep it!---it's a good thing as Martha Stewart would
say!
Thanks to everyone for helping me to think and rethink ideas. I truly
appreciate the openness I find in this forum.
I'm off to teach---what I have learned here will go with me.
David Walker
Cincinnati, OH
Miriam Maki
>But the solutions must start at the individual level.
>people an appreciation of art in general and then
>also include textile art and show them what it is, or
>they will just think an original art quilt is no more
>than another pretty blanket.
Something else we who are knowledgable about textile art can do is make
sure we spend our money on others' work. Displaying another artist's work
in your home or work area is an obvious way of identifying the value we
put on the field of fiber art.
I've enjoyed reading your posts on this topic.
BEKKI LYN
>
>>But the solutions must start at the individual level.
>>people an appreciation of art in general and then
>>also include textile art and show them what it is, or
>>they will just think an original art quilt is no more
>>than another pretty blanket.
>
>Something else we who are knowledgable about textile art can do is make
>sure we spend our money on others' work. Displaying another artist's work
>in your home or work area is an obvious way of identifying the value we
>put on the field of fiber art.
>I've enjoyed reading your posts on this topic.
Thanks. I've also enjoyed reading the posts on this topic. Yes, I
agree that displaying others' work is very important. Not only
is it pleasurable for us to be able to wake up and see all these
wonderful things in our surrounding environments, but we have also
set up our own personal museum everywhere we've displayed something.
Thus, when friends, family, aquaintences, business associates, etc.
come by and almost inevitablly ask about the items, we have a
good opportunity to educate them as well as helping the artists who
made the items.
PICNICK
I, too, am really enjoying this topic and hope it maintains this title. I
posted to arts vs. crafts and it has left this "thread". I see that this
topic, controversy, CAN go anywhere and I hope to follow it.
Diane Fields
pic...@aol.com
Lynn Basa
> Something else we who are knowledgable about textile art can do is make
> sure we spend our money on others' work. Displaying another artist's work
> in your home or work area is an obvious way of identifying the value we
> put on the field of fiber art.
> I've enjoyed reading your posts on this topic.
>
This is such a simple and terrific idea. It reminded me of a couple of
artists here in Seattle who have traded their work for other artists over
the last 20 years. Now, their house is literally floor to ceiling with
local artists work. Of course, having a tremendous imagination helps,
too -- they put glass block on a suspended floor, made their doorways
arched and tiny, leading to dramatically painted rooms.... Since
they're fairly well-known on the Art Scene, they give lots of parties to
collectors and dealers, so their collection gets good exposure.
I also wanted to comment on what David Walker said about the quilters.
They really interest me. They're such an active, cohesive bunch. I
wonder if that's because they're work is so identifiable a category.
Fiber art encompasses so many different permutations that it's difficult
to really pinpoint where it can be found.
I'm almost completely braindead from designing all day, so I don't have
too many original thoughts of my own right now. However, I'd really be
interested in other ideas on geurilla marketing ways of getting more
exposure for fiber art.
Lynn Basa
Seattle
Diane Barlow Close
>Incidentally, I'm putting together a collection of textiles from around
>the world for the patient and exam rooms. People are going apeshit over
>them. They're really hitting a responsive cord.
You aren't the first to do this, btw. I was wondering if you consulted
with other curators and hospitals that have already put together such a
collection? Oakland-based Kaiser has had a rotating textile and unusual
paper-arts collection decorating their hospitals, clinics and exam rooms
for over ten years now. They have some incredible stuff! Their
collection has prompted many businesses to add a few textile pieces to
their rotating office art displays too.
>> I think part of the problem might be with who made up our
>> current galleries and museums. Were they made by men,
I think part of the problem might be your location. Here in the SF Bay
area we have lots of textile art examples and galleries and shows. Just a
few: the rotating textile and costume exhibits at the Trans America
building in downtown San Francisco has drawn raves for the past couple
years. (Textile art rotates with costume displays from the San Francisco
Opera during various times of the year.) The city of Sunnyvale's gallery
shows several textile art shows during the year. The hit of last year's
season was "Recycled Art Garments", which were fancy ball gowns and other
clothing created for the Palo Alto Black and White Ball (another famous
textile art venue) out of recycled garbage. They had some incredible
stuff! And what about the Fairfield show? Or the American Textile Museum
(downtown SF) or American Quilt Museum (downtown San Jose).
So perhaps it's not that textile art lacks venues, but that it lacks
venues *convenient or close to you*? I've lived near Toronto, New York,
Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco and in all those cities I've
found lots of textile art galleries and venues, and textile art in the
city museums. When you say that textile art has no venues, I really have
to wonder where you're looking?!
Lynn Basa
On 11 Jul 1995, Diane Barlow Close wrote:
>
> So perhaps it's not that textile art lacks venues, but that it lacks
> venues *convenient or close to you*? I've lived near Toronto, New York,
> Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco and in all those cities I've
> found lots of textile art galleries and venues, and textile art in the
> city museums. When you say that textile art has no venues, I really have
> to wonder where you're looking?!
(I responded to this post days ago and it never showed up, so here it is
again)
I'm ecstatic that there are more venues for textiles art than I've heard
of, despite my persistant searching. Maybe it is because we're
geographically isolated in the Pacific Northwest and overshadowed by
glass from the Pilchuck School. In any case, it would really help the
rest of us if you could share the names of all of the galleries you know
of that specialize in fiber art.
Since my focus has been textiles as fine art, I've found three galleries
that have a strong commitment to that area: Mobilia Gallery in Cambridge
Massachusetts, The Hand and the Spirit in Scottsdale, Arizona, and Louise
Allrich Gallery in San Francisco. There was another place in SF, Miller
Brown (?) that I heard of but it closed before I could investigate it.
I'm sure if we all put our lists together, we could come up with a good
resource. Please say what the specialty of the gallery is (traditional
quilts, baskets, etc.), where it is and if the focus of the gallery is
primarily textiles or whatever.
Marian Crane
a great place to drop by for ideas (I live nearby).
But I've noticed both the quality and number of textile art
displays going downhill over the last few years. One of
the salespeople told me that textile art just wasn't
selling as a fine art form in Arizona anymore, and that
they were booked up for that genre for THREE OR FOUR YEARS!
Arizona as a whole isn't a great place to get started in
textile arts. Most of the local galleries want a specific
type of art (closely related to the Southwestern howling
coyote or cowboy bronze motif we've all seen), and if you
aren't doing production art for mass sales, it's hard to
get a venue. Arizona State University recently hosted a
magnificent textile and beaded art show, and we've lots
of "wearable art" places, however, so the trend may be
changing.
I'm interested in hearing from anyone in the Portland to
Seattle area, about textile art venues and support groups.
Anybody out there?
Lynn Basa
On 17 Jul 1995, Marian Crane wrote:
> The Hand and the Spirit gallery in Scottsdale, AZ is
> a great place to drop by for ideas (I live nearby).
> But I've noticed both the quality and number of textile art
> displays going downhill over the last few years. One of
> the salespeople told me that textile art just wasn't
> selling as a fine art form in Arizona anymore, and that
> they were booked up for that genre for THREE OR FOUR YEARS!
In the spirit of the "Controversy" thread, why do you think that textiles
weren't selling anymore? Or did you answer that in the rest of your
post when you talked about the SW only being interested in stuff with a
coyote on it? I'm curious to know why if textiles aren't selling well,
they booked more shows. What's your take on this?
Marian Crane
problem lies with consumer ignorance more than anything
else. As I said before, Phoenix is a hotbed for the arts
-- but only some of the arts. The buying public and the
gallery owners are easily confused by textile art. When
they hear the phrase, many of them think "macrame",
"cross-stitch kits", "basketweaving", or most damning --
"Coomers". Coomers is an artist's mall here, famous for
bad macrame, cute little calico duck potholders, and the
type of "craft" one sees in Woman's Day magazine. If you
are Native American, the picture is a little brighter --
your art is most likely confused with Pima basketry, Navajo
rugs, or Lakota peyote stitch beadwork designs. Textiles
as a pure art form, not as mass-market kits, are rather a
foreign idea down here.
To add to the problem, many local craft guilds are
extremely insular and political. The X-stitchers don't
talk to the quilters, the quilters don't talk to the
tatters, the tatters don't talk to the historical
costumers, and the beaders -- being pariahs, don't get to
talk to anyone. God help you if you want to combine
everything into a pot and stir!
Barbara Nathans
In NYC the primary gallery is, of course, Julie Artisans, mainly clothing
plus jewelery. Gail Wilson's in Southhampton, LI, NY is in many ways
Julies equal. Right now there is a marvelous retrospective of Dianne
Itter's work at the American Craft museum and Laotian textiles at FIT.
Other than Julies there are almost no steady sources of textile
inspiration. I browse the designer departments in the stores, and can
usually find some textile to make my blood race!!
Robin Panza
>
> To add to the problem, many local craft guilds are
> extremely insular and political. The X-stitchers don't
> talk to the quilters, the quilters don't talk to the
> tatters, the tatters don't talk to the historical
> costumers, and the beaders -- being pariahs, don't get to
> talk to anyone. God help you if you want to combine
> everything into a pot and stir!
>
>
>
some communication would start. Surely, there's one quilter who is willing to
talk to one x-stitcher, etc. If one or two friendships can start, other
open-minded people can be brought into the overlap. Who knows how far that
could go?
Robin P.