Tricky Terms

It's the designs I'm drawn to. This was (baroque) the age of
needlepainting (Western). I'll get out my book of garments and post
later. This was also the height of music and art. Of course, others
will argue that it was the classic period (1750 to - ). There's not
much NOT to love about all things embroidery. But I think of the
Baroque period as something great happening in all forms of expression.
When I learned to appreciate fugues, I began to look at the period
differently.

Did you see the "Roman/Romanian" page, yet? I'm dying to get your input.

I absolutely love the embroidery of the 19th century. Also another huge
leap.

Presently, we've both had new and glorious products and also lost some
old ones (the fine, sheer muslins). Can't argue about all the new
products that were previously unavailable.

But philosophically, I'm having trouble with our whole "expression" in
the last half of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st. I got
out some old Erika Wilson books, and a few other books of this period.
An awful lot of dumbing down and repeating what went on before. I
realize not "everything" is this way. But we seem to be "lost". I
realize hardly anyone agrees with me - but when I saw a commercial about
"The Doors" (rock band of the 70's), my heart sank. The 60's and 70's
were such an ugly time. One visit to the Hallmark Museum cinched it for
me. grin I know I'm alone on this. :-)

Dianne

Linn Skinner wrote:
Ahhhh. My three golden ages of embroidery are 16th Century, mid to late
19th century and the present. These are the times when trade was expanding
and new and exciting materials were available due to movement of materials
from place to place. When a middle class available to pursue embroidery as
a leisure activity were burgeoning. And when technology took a great leap
making new materials come to market.


And I guarantee you, I disagree with some of the authors' conclusions.
The "Elizabethan era" was not, in my opinion, the height of embroidery.
It came during the Stuart period - and what I prefer to call it, the
"baroque" period. What did come into fruition during Elizabeth's time
was needlelace.


I'm not overly fond of Stuart embroidery but there are some bits I like.

Linn Skinner
Skinner Sisters
www.skinnersisters.com

Dianne:

You are a very Watteau lady indeed.

But philosophically, I'm having trouble with our whole "expression" in
the last half of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st. I got
out some old Erika Wilson books, and a few other books of this period.
An awful lot of dumbing down and repeating what went on before. I
realize not "everything" is this way. But we seem to be "lost". I
realize hardly anyone agrees with me - but when I saw a commercial about
"The Doors" (rock band of the 70's), my heart sank. The 60's and 70's
were such an ugly time. One visit to the Hallmark Museum cinched it for
me. grin I know I'm alone on this. :-)


Out of the 60's came people who made us stretch in embroidery however. You
can't just look at the commercial offerings. Lots was going on in the
background. A lot of one-off marvels. Constance Howard's "Inspiration For
Embroidery" came out in 1966 for instance. I still recommend it for
students. Yes, the applications of theory were very "60s" and that may not
be to our taste today, but the theory is GRAND and timeless. We (or at
least in the UK "we") were awakening to a new era of embroidery. In the US
we did seem to be lost in that we got in the habit of stitching other folks'
designs and completing "projects". I'm much encouraged by the stitchers of
today. They are increasingly amenable to change.

I don't want some archeologist digging up bits of my students' work in a few
thousand years and forming the theory that some commercial concern stitched
it all and sold it to the general populace because it is all alike, stitch
for stitch.

I taught a workshop recently and refused to give students my interpretation
of an outline for producing an Elizabethan style Tudor Rose in blackwork.
They had heaps of materials and plenty of filling patterns and by the end of
the session were figuring out their own designs. I can't wait to see the
results. We will display any of them that travel to Rockhome next year and
have a people's choice prize for the most popular.

Linn Skinner
Skinner Sisters
www.skinnersisters.com

You're more up on this than I am. I will have to look up the Howard
book. I don't have a clue. :-)

Had no idea you were in the UK. That may be making a huge difference in
our perceptions. However, I've seen two UK publications and I'm not
"entranced." BUT! That's just me. I'm stuck somewhere in another
century. g

Wish I could take a class from you.

Now you are gonna make me look up Watteau! g
Dianne

Linn Skinner wrote:

You are a very Watteau lady indeed.

Out of the 60's came people who made us stretch in embroidery however. You
can't just look at the commercial offerings. Lots was going on in the
background. A lot of one-off marvels. Constance Howard's "Inspiration For
Embroidery" came out in 1966 for instance. I still recommend it for
students. Yes, the applications of theory were very "60s" and that may not
be to our taste today, but the theory is GRAND and timeless. We (or at
least in the UK "we") were awakening to a new era of embroidery. In the US
we did seem to be lost in that we got in the habit of stitching other folks'
designs and completing "projects". I'm much encouraged by the stitchers of
today. They are increasingly amenable to change.

I don't want some archeologist digging up bits of my students' work in a few
thousand years and forming the theory that some commercial concern stitched
it all and sold it to the general populace because it is all alike, stitch
for stitch.

I taught a workshop recently and refused to give students my interpretation
of an outline for producing an Elizabethan style Tudor Rose in blackwork.
They had heaps of materials and plenty of filling patterns and by the end of
the session were figuring out their own designs. I can't wait to see the
results. We will display any of them that travel to Rockhome next year and
have a people's choice prize for the most popular.

Linn Skinner
Skinner Sisters
www.skinnersisters.com

Darla wrote:

It's fuchsia. Named for Fuchs.
Hmmm. I guess I never noticed that and I'm a stickler for spelling,
too! Never knew about the origins. I guess I assumed (yeah, yeah, I
know! ) by the way it's pronounced, it would be sch! Thanks for
teaching me something new today, Darla!

--
Joan

See my first-ever design he
http://www.HeritageShoppe.com/heritage/temp/joan1.jpg

"Stitch when you are young and poor, frame when you are old and rich."
- Elizabeth's (rctn'r) sister's MIL (Barbara Marr)

Dianne:

Nope not in the UK - I live right in Hollyweird, CAG But I am in England
a lot and although I'm basically a 16th century person - I have gotten out a
bit. Constance Howard was a wonderful embroiderer. She taught in the US
from time to time and headed the embroidery dept. at Goldsmith's College.
Google her and you'll probably learn a lot.

Linn

Thanks, Anne. This gets so very difficult when defining embroidery.
Dianne

FKBABB wrote:
Linn Skinner opined thusly:


Short answer "double-running" . For my take
on this very fuzzy sort of term you might want
to check out:


Then Anne said:

Chipping in here.


"Spanish work" seems to be what was used in
the vernacular after the style was widely
popularized in England during the reign of
Catharine of Aragon.



I go with Linn on "double-running stitch" as the generic term for the
technique. If you mean to evoke the kind of double-running stitch patterns
which were popular in England during the reign of Elizabeth I, I like "Holbein
style" -- evoking the Dutchman (?) whose portraits are the main documentation
of an English needlework fashion said to have been introduced from Spain (is
that multi-cultural or what?).

Anyway, the Spanish didn't invent the stitch; it's one of the earliest known,
predating the cross stitch. And, it's practiced elegantly in many cultures, by
people who knew nothing of Spain when they worked out their own virtuoso
patterns in the technique.

Annie

FKBABB opined thusly:

Anyway, the Spanish didn't invent the stitch; it's one of the
earliest known, predating the cross stitch. And, it's practiced
elegantly in many cultures, by people who knew nothing of Spain when
they worked out their own virtuoso patterns in the technique.


Not only did the Spanish not invent the stitch, they didn't even invent
the style. The style is documented as being extant in England during
Chaucerian times. It was also extant in the Middle East - which is
probably where the Spanish learned of it in the first place, via the
Moors. However, since it was a Spaniard that popularized the style in
England to a wide degree, and global information exchange being on a
slightly more hindered scale than it is today, people just called it
Spanish Work in England because that's all they knew.

Holbein certainly gets a huge gold star from me for documenting the art
of the needle.

Personally, I call it blackwork because that's the name that is most
easily recognizable.

Regards
--Anne

Sorceress wrote:
Personally, I call it blackwork because that's the name that is most
easily recognizable.

But if I do a sunbonnet Sue design on muslin, and use black thread, does
that make it blackwork?

There was a mid 1990's "McCall's Needlework" that focused on "redwork"
and contained several projects, including a voided swan pattern (really
Assisi) in red cross stitch, along with several other projects.

I don't know the actual history of redwork, but it is my superfluous
understanding that it mainly came about through pioneers, lack of
quality materials, the red dye being easy, the quilting that went on.
The patterns were simple, and the stitch used was stem stitch and
little, if anything, else.

The same problem comes up with raised embroidery. What to call it and
where is the dividing line. Getting mental images of embroidery genres
is a slippery mess. The more you learn, the steeper the slope. It
makes one wonder if there might not have been simultaeous "learning"
(i.e. Mayan pyramids vs Egyptian pyramids), trade having little to do
with some of it. I know that "trade" had a lot to do with it . . . but
maybe not everything.

Similar modern happening with "Madeira" work. It's not indicative of
the Island at all. It was brought there as a source of income. But we
treat it as if it "began" there. Pin-stitched appliqued works are known
as "Madeira applique". It's not from Madeira at all. But doesn't
"Madeira applique" sound so much more fetching than just saying "pin
stitched applique?" I mean, which would you be more tempted to try?

How many of us are sucked into something by name or standing in a
culture? (I don't leave myself out of this equation . . . just
postulating).

Dianne