A crafts forum. CraftBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » CraftBanter forum » Textiles newsgroups » Quilting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Rich vs. poor



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 25th 14, 05:13 AM posted to rec.crafts.textiles.quilting
Brian[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 63
Default Rich vs. poor

I have been rereading the book "Quilts/their story and how to make them"
that I talked about in my recent post, or at least the history portion,
as I find that part very interesting.

One thing that it doesn't talk about directly, but is sort of alluded to
in several places is how embroidery/needlework is seen by the rich/
royalty and by lower economic classes.

The rich/royalty often live in opulent mansions that are very ornately
decorated and quite often part of that decoration is exquisite
embroidery, often made with gold or silver thread.

Houses of the lower economic classes are not as opulently decorated, all
the way "down" to those of peasants/surfs that may not be decorated in
any way at all.

The cothing of the very rich/royalty might be very opulent as well, and
could be essentially thrown out when it "wore out."

However, the clothing of the was probably not as opulently decorated, and
in many cases was purely utilitarian.

In many cases, when it "wore out," I imagine it was repurposed. That
repurposing might be cutting off the still usable parts for making
patches to repair those clothes that might not yet be worn out, or that
repurposing might be for bedding, equivalent to what today is considered
"patchwork quilting."

The reason that I put the term "worn out" in quotation marks is that how
the rich/royalty might define "worn out" is very different from how
peasants/serfs would define that term.

Rich/royalty might define "worn out" as having an itty bitty tear in the
sleeve, but the lower economic classes might define it as being no longer
repairable/wearable.

Some of this assessment was addressed directly in the book, and some was
my own interpolation and interpretation, but I think it is pretty clear
that while the uses for textiles/needlework might be similar (clothing,
bedding, stuff like that), the attitudes about it are different.

Brian Christiansen
Ads
  #2  
Old August 25th 14, 09:04 AM posted to rec.crafts.textiles.quilting
Pat on the Green
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 99
Default Rich vs. poor

Interesting, Brian.
After I had read your post, something else occurred to me: the different
attitude between rich and poor regarding something 'home made'. I think
quite a lot of *that difference in attitude might exist today?
..
On 25/08/2014 05:13, Brian wrote:
I have been rereading the book "Quilts/their story and how to make them"
that I talked about in my recent post, or at least the history portion,
as I find that part very interesting.

One thing that it doesn't talk about directly, but is sort of alluded to
in several places is how embroidery/needlework is seen by the rich/
royalty and by lower economic classes.

The rich/royalty often live in opulent mansions that are very ornately
decorated and quite often part of that decoration is exquisite
embroidery, often made with gold or silver thread.

Houses of the lower economic classes are not as opulently decorated, all
the way "down" to those of peasants/surfs that may not be decorated in
any way at all.

The cothing of the very rich/royalty might be very opulent as well, and
could be essentially thrown out when it "wore out."

However, the clothing of the was probably not as opulently decorated, and
in many cases was purely utilitarian.

In many cases, when it "wore out," I imagine it was repurposed. That
repurposing might be cutting off the still usable parts for making
patches to repair those clothes that might not yet be worn out, or that
repurposing might be for bedding, equivalent to what today is considered
"patchwork quilting."

The reason that I put the term "worn out" in quotation marks is that how
the rich/royalty might define "worn out" is very different from how
peasants/serfs would define that term.

Rich/royalty might define "worn out" as having an itty bitty tear in the
sleeve, but the lower economic classes might define it as being no longer
repairable/wearable.

Some of this assessment was addressed directly in the book, and some was
my own interpolation and interpretation, but I think it is pretty clear
that while the uses for textiles/needlework might be similar (clothing,
bedding, stuff like that), the attitudes about it are different.

Brian Christiansen


  #3  
Old August 25th 14, 03:54 PM posted to rec.crafts.textiles.quilting
Taria
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 432
Default Rich vs. poor

Really rich people seem to appreciate finer work that poor folk. You see
some
cultures that have work that is quite crude. They don't even know what fine
work is. 'New rich' folks don't really have a clue sometimes. You don't
see this just in needlework. My dad and bro's used to work on very high
end homes
along the OC beach. There was a variety of 'class' of people with a lot of
money. Some knew and appreciated craftsmanship but many did not. Low
bid, slapdash they had no clue just wanted to look ostentatious. The result
has been
a lot of labor (much illegal here in CA) and little craftsmen left. It is a
sad thing.
I wonder about all the rushing to make quilts. If you are in such a hurry
and don't enjoy the process go buy something at Penney's. My 2c worth.
Taria

"pat on the green" wrote in message
...

Interesting, Brian.
After I had read your post, something else occurred to me: the different
attitude between rich and poor regarding something 'home made'. I think
quite a lot of *that difference in attitude might exist today?
..
On 25/08/2014 05:13, Brian wrote:
I have been rereading the book "Quilts/their story and how to make them"
that I talked about in my recent post, or at least the history portion,
as I find that part very interesting.

One thing that it doesn't talk about directly, but is sort of alluded to
in several places is how embroidery/needlework is seen by the rich/
royalty and by lower economic classes.

The rich/royalty often live in opulent mansions that are very ornately
decorated and quite often part of that decoration is exquisite
embroidery, often made with gold or silver thread.

Houses of the lower economic classes are not as opulently decorated, all
the way "down" to those of peasants/surfs that may not be decorated in
any way at all.

The cothing of the very rich/royalty might be very opulent as well, and
could be essentially thrown out when it "wore out."

However, the clothing of the was probably not as opulently decorated, and
in many cases was purely utilitarian.

In many cases, when it "wore out," I imagine it was repurposed. That
repurposing might be cutting off the still usable parts for making
patches to repair those clothes that might not yet be worn out, or that
repurposing might be for bedding, equivalent to what today is considered
"patchwork quilting."

The reason that I put the term "worn out" in quotation marks is that how
the rich/royalty might define "worn out" is very different from how
peasants/serfs would define that term.

Rich/royalty might define "worn out" as having an itty bitty tear in the
sleeve, but the lower economic classes might define it as being no longer
repairable/wearable.

Some of this assessment was addressed directly in the book, and some was
my own interpolation and interpretation, but I think it is pretty clear
that while the uses for textiles/needlework might be similar (clothing,
bedding, stuff like that), the attitudes about it are different.

Brian Christiansen


  #4  
Old August 25th 14, 04:04 PM posted to rec.crafts.textiles.quilting
Pat on the Green
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 99
Default Rich vs. poor

Interesting thoughts Taria - and so true.

I have never been a rusher (except for show quilts when the deadline is
approaching!); but now I am slowing right down with everything. As far
as quilts are concerned, I love the designing and the piecing. If I
ever do a show quilt again, it is not going to be entered until it is
finished! A far cry from the day that I finished sewing the binding on
at 10.30am, on the day I had to leave to deliver the quilt at 11am g
..
On 25/08/2014 15:54, Taria wrote:
Really rich people seem to appreciate finer work that poor folk. You
see some
cultures that have work that is quite crude. They don't even know what
fine
work is. 'New rich' folks don't really have a clue sometimes. You don't
see this just in needlework. My dad and bro's used to work on very
high end homes
along the OC beach. There was a variety of 'class' of people with a lot of
money. Some knew and appreciated craftsmanship but many did not. Low
bid, slapdash they had no clue just wanted to look ostentatious. The
result has been
a lot of labor (much illegal here in CA) and little craftsmen left. It
is a sad thing.
I wonder about all the rushing to make quilts. If you are in such a hurry
and don't enjoy the process go buy something at Penney's. My 2c worth.
Taria


Pat on the green

  #5  
Old August 27th 14, 09:47 AM posted to rec.crafts.textiles.quilting
NightMist
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,734
Default Rich vs. poor


You need to look up Sumptuary laws.

While these were primarily found in Europe, the US was certainly not
immune. During colonial times wearing certain laces, jewelry, and
fabrics, were illegal unless you were of a particular income group. Not
that people in lower income brackets could afford such finery.
None the less, in certain places at certain times you could be arrested
if someone felt that something you were wearing was too fine for your
social class. A few centuries of that sort of thing does tend to have a
cultural impact.

Did you not see on the news just a few months ago that some people were
stopped and treated poorly by store security in NYC because they had
bought and were wearing clothes that the security people felt were above
their station? The security people were quite convinced that the poor
souls were shoplifters, to the point of calling the police in at least
one case.

From the plain dress of Spartan women, to the banning of imported lace in
England, to debate about the decency of hem length, and the banning of
ethnic clothing around the world, clothing type, opulence, fabric, and
manufacture has been heavily legislated. Most often according to social
class, even when the primary purpose is economic. (For example the
British "wool cap law"(1) was passed to boost the wool industry, yet
upper classes and economic groups were exempt)

So far as fancywork, back when, the upper classes were the only ones who
had time for it. When you have a pile of socks to darn, fine embroidery
tends to take a backseat. To say nothing of the fact that fine threads
were expensive. There was a great deal of folk embroidery, usually done
with more affordable materials.

So many texts dealing with history (in any form not just textiles) are
quite severely self centric. Often you learn more about the writer's
self perceived social status, religion, moral beliefs, culture, and
probably geographic origin, than you do facts and the underlying causes.

NightMist


(1) In 1571 in an effort to stimulate domestic wool production Parliament
passed a law decreeing that all males over six years of age had to wear a
woolen cap on Sundays and holidays, excepting the nobility and "persons
of degree"

On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 04:13:21 +0000, Brian wrote:

I have been rereading the book "Quilts/their story and how to make them"
that I talked about in my recent post, or at least the history portion,
as I find that part very interesting.

One thing that it doesn't talk about directly, but is sort of alluded to
in several places is how embroidery/needlework is seen by the rich/
royalty and by lower economic classes.

The rich/royalty often live in opulent mansions that are very ornately
decorated and quite often part of that decoration is exquisite
embroidery, often made with gold or silver thread.

Houses of the lower economic classes are not as opulently decorated, all
the way "down" to those of peasants/surfs that may not be decorated in
any way at all.

The cothing of the very rich/royalty might be very opulent as well, and
could be essentially thrown out when it "wore out."

However, the clothing of the was probably not as opulently decorated,
and in many cases was purely utilitarian.

In many cases, when it "wore out," I imagine it was repurposed. That
repurposing might be cutting off the still usable parts for making
patches to repair those clothes that might not yet be worn out, or that
repurposing might be for bedding, equivalent to what today is considered
"patchwork quilting."

The reason that I put the term "worn out" in quotation marks is that how
the rich/royalty might define "worn out" is very different from how
peasants/serfs would define that term.

Rich/royalty might define "worn out" as having an itty bitty tear in the
sleeve, but the lower economic classes might define it as being no
longer repairable/wearable.

Some of this assessment was addressed directly in the book, and some was
my own interpolation and interpretation, but I think it is pretty clear
that while the uses for textiles/needlework might be similar (clothing,
bedding, stuff like that), the attitudes about it are different.

Brian Christiansen


  #6  
Old August 27th 14, 11:11 AM posted to rec.crafts.textiles.quilting
Pat on the Green
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 99
Default Rich vs. poor

Fascinating post, Nightmist. Thank you for all the details.
I knew that some imported fabrics were banned (or high duty put on
them?), but I confess to being more ignorant than I thought I was (not a
comfortable feeling g). In England, the shortage of imported fabrics,
like chintz, caused the popularity of broderie perse, so that the small
piece of fabric could be made to cover a whole 'dress' by appliqué

Pat on the green
..
On 27/08/2014 09:47, NightMist wrote:

You need to look up Sumptuary laws.

While these were primarily found in Europe, the US was certainly not
immune. During colonial times wearing certain laces, jewelry, and
fabrics, were illegal unless you were of a particular income group. Not
that people in lower income brackets could afford such finery.
None the less, in certain places at certain times you could be arrested
if someone felt that something you were wearing was too fine for your
social class. A few centuries of that sort of thing does tend to have a
cultural impact.

Did you not see on the news just a few months ago that some people were
stopped and treated poorly by store security in NYC because they had
bought and were wearing clothes that the security people felt were above
their station? The security people were quite convinced that the poor
souls were shoplifters, to the point of calling the police in at least
one case.

From the plain dress of Spartan women, to the banning of imported lace in
England, to debate about the decency of hem length, and the banning of
ethnic clothing around the world, clothing type, opulence, fabric, and
manufacture has been heavily legislated. Most often according to social
class, even when the primary purpose is economic. (For example the
British "wool cap law"(1) was passed to boost the wool industry, yet
upper classes and economic groups were exempt)

So far as fancywork, back when, the upper classes were the only ones who
had time for it. When you have a pile of socks to darn, fine embroidery
tends to take a backseat. To say nothing of the fact that fine threads
were expensive. There was a great deal of folk embroidery, usually done
with more affordable materials.

So many texts dealing with history (in any form not just textiles) are
quite severely self centric. Often you learn more about the writer's
self perceived social status, religion, moral beliefs, culture, and
probably geographic origin, than you do facts and the underlying causes.

NightMist



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OT - Poor me Boca Jan Quilting 20 April 29th 08 07:30 PM
Spear-Chuckers, we pull the rich case, Austrian Rich Flowerchild. saur Knots 0 May 4th 06 11:06 AM
Jiggaboos, one more enigmas will be poor glad porters, Rich Asshole. David Formosa (aka ? the Platypussy) Knots 0 May 4th 06 09:48 AM
OT - my poor dog Jan Lennie Needlework 30 February 15th 06 10:39 PM
OT - poor Bob (joke) Kathy Applebaum Quilting 1 October 15th 03 06:00 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CraftBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.