Embroidery and Why Men Are Happier Than Women!

And along these lines: what would be more correct (does anyone think)
when relating to "peculiar" types of embroideries that arise in certain
areas of the globe. I was given the word "ethnic", which I used, but
today an idea struck me that perhaps a better word would be "regional".
So, I looked them both up. However, like the words
"premier/premiere", I'm having trouble discerning which is a better fit.
another grin

Dianne


I've been puzzling over this question myself in trying to get down on paper the
results of some research I've been doing on a unique (as far as I can tell)
technique for cross-stitch embroidery. It's not "regional," in that many other
forms of the cross-stitch are practiced in the region where this style arose.
"Ethnic" I find too Anglo-centric a term. So, I'm playing around with
"traditional," "tribal," "people's," "peasant," and "folk," alone and in
combination.

Annie

"FKBABB" wrote in message
...
I've been puzzling over this question myself in trying to get down on
paper the
results of some research I've been doing on a unique (as far as I can
tell)
technique for cross-stitch embroidery. It's not "regional," in that many
other
forms of the cross-stitch are practiced in the region where this style
arose.
"Ethnic" I find too Anglo-centric a term. So, I'm playing around with
"traditional," "tribal," "people's," "peasant," and "folk," alone and in
combination.

Interesting. I've always felt the same about the word "ethnic". "Peasant"
and "primitive" used as descriptives always strike me as condescending -
sort of Lady-of-the Manor-ish.
I think traditional is good, combined with another adjective, maybe a
geographic one.

emerald

In article QU0Hb.830451$pl3.44668@pd7tw3no, "emerald"
writes:

I've always felt the same about the word "ethnic". "Peasant"
and "primitive" used as descriptives always strike me as condescending

Indigenous?

Historical?

Local?

Skip the modifiers and simply say "typical of the Black Forest region"? Or
"numerous 17th century examples of this are found on folk costumes in what is
now Budapest"?

I mean, what was "the in thing" in the 1400s was not necessarily "the in thing"
in the 1800s, so if you just tag it as "Moldavian", it may lead some readers to
think that this is the only style ever used in Moldavia, when, in fact, a
century earlier everyone was doing rustic monochrome cross-stitch on burlap and
a century later everyone was doing high-falutin lacework on fine silk.

And how was it used? Maybe hardanger was only done on aprons to show the dress
underneath, but never on blouses where it might show bare skin? Or only single
girls could wear peacocks and married women had to embroider only blackbirds on
their clothes? Or only men could have dragons, while girls' clothing was
required to have flowers?
--
Finished 12/14/03 -- Mermaid (Dimensions)
WIP: Angel of Autumn, Calif Sampler, Holiday Snowglobe, Guide the Hands (2d
one)

Paralegal - Writer - Editor - Researcher
http://hometown.aol.com/kmc528/KMC.html

Ahhhh, but Annie, if the "style" (or genre/specific technique) arose
from this "region" - even if they practise other similar stitches there
and elsewhere, isn't that still "regional", because it came from there
originally. Like Mountmellick. It arose from a specific area - so
that's "regional", even though the Brits took it from there and did
their own "versions".

Interesting, I asked my husband at dinner, and he felt "ethnic" was more
race-oriented, or "brown" oriented in its nuance. He liked "regional"
because it doesn't have such negative connotations.

Thanks for the input!!!
Dianne

FKBABB wrote:
I've been puzzling over this question myself in trying to get down on paper the
results of some research I've been doing on a unique (as far as I can tell)
technique for cross-stitch embroidery. It's not "regional," in that many other
forms of the cross-stitch are practiced in the region where this style arose.
"Ethnic" I find too Anglo-centric a term. So, I'm playing around with
"traditional," "tribal," "people's," "peasant," and "folk," alone and in
combination.

Annie

I like what you're saying. But let's take Mountmellick - which is easy
to talk about and most of us know what it is. It wasn't done in this
peculiar style prior to the 1800's, but it's still a regional
embroidery. All the stitches were known elsewhere, for eons, but not
worked in this specific manner and in the specific drawings used.

Peasant and primitive: I agree with you. Not good word choices. Some
of these embroideries are far from either general connotations these
words might have.

I'm talking specifically about a place wherein a particular embroidery
stitch, technique or style developed. It can get muddy to talk about
embroideries of the Ottoman empire because it was so vast. But
"regions" within this empire developed unique stitches (Mushabek - don't
ask me the correct spelling at this instant). So it's a "regional" stitch.

I have to use a broad term covering embroideries that are distinct in
style and use of stitch. Old Hedebo is similar to Schwalm, and uses
similar openwork stitches, but they are "distinct" regional embroideries.

There's just got to be a "name" that covers this. :-)

Dianne

Karen C - California wrote:

In article QU0Hb.830451$pl3.44668@pd7tw3no, "emerald"
writes:


I've always felt the same about the word "ethnic". "Peasant"
and "primitive" used as descriptives always strike me as condescending


Indigenous?

Historical?

Local?

Skip the modifiers and simply say "typical of the Black Forest region"? Or
"numerous 17th century examples of this are found on folk costumes in what is
now Budapest"?

I mean, what was "the in thing" in the 1400s was not necessarily "the in thing"
in the 1800s, so if you just tag it as "Moldavian", it may lead some readers to
think that this is the only style ever used in Moldavia, when, in fact, a
century earlier everyone was doing rustic monochrome cross-stitch on burlap and
a century later everyone was doing high-falutin lacework on fine silk.

And how was it used? Maybe hardanger was only done on aprons to show the dress
underneath, but never on blouses where it might show bare skin? Or only single
girls could wear peacocks and married women had to embroider only blackbirds on
their clothes? Or only men could have dragons, while girls' clothing was
required to have flowers?

Ahhhh, but Annie, if the "style" (or genre/specific technique) arose
from this "region" - even if they practise other similar stitches there
and elsewhere, isn't that still "regional", because it came from there
originally. Like Mountmellick. It arose from a specific area - so
that's "regional", even though the Brits took it from there and did
their own "versions". BRBR

As I understand it, post-1800 Mountmellick did not arise in an "area" or a
"region" but in the mind of a single, socially-conscious Englishwoman who
sought to alleviate poverty in a small corner of rural Ireland by helping
destitute women use a pre-existing skill (the ability to use a needle) to
manufacture something that could be sold for desperately-needed income to the
middle-class English market. She thought that British strivers who couldn't
afford the highly-fashionable, but much more expensive, far more delicate,
Scottish white work, would buy the coarser work *she* designed (and taught her
Irish workers to stitch) using inexpensive materials, sort of like today when
people (myself included) will shop in Target for Pottery Barn knock-offs. And,
she was right. The pieces sold very well until machine-made whitework was
developed toward the end of the century, knocking the bottom out of the market
for hand-made white work of all types. So, to me, Montmellick is a
manufactured style, designed specifically with market considerations in mind.
It is an "ethnic" embroidery only in the sense that those who initially
stitched the pieces were of Irish ethnicity. And, for those poor workers, it
was probably more of a radical than a traditional form of needlework, as they
hitherto had probably had neither the money nor the materials to do much
stitching besides darning.

I hope the foregoing doesn't sound like a rant. I'm finding this an
interesting discussion.

Annie

In article , Dianne Lewandowski
writes:

Thanks for the input!!!

Let me know if you want me to put on my editor hat and have a look through the
final text for you.


--
Finished 12/14/03 -- Mermaid (Dimensions)
WIP: Angel of Autumn, Calif Sampler, Holiday Snowglobe, Guide the Hands (2d
one)

Paralegal - Writer - Editor - Researcher
http://hometown.aol.com/kmc528/KMC.html

The trend in Museology nowadays is to exchange the term , "primitive"
into "Tribal" , or "Ethnic" Excactly because they are Not synonyms ,
Interesting. I've always felt the same about the word "ethnic". "Peasant"
and "primitive" used as descriptives always strike me as condescending -
sort of Lady-of-the Manor-ish.
Nore is Ethnic Synonym to Peasant or Primitive, which are also not
synonyms in them selves.
There is Nothing condescending about the word Ethnic , unless you want
or mean to use it as such.
I think traditional is good, combined with another adjective, maybe a
geographic one.
The word/term traditional wouldn`t be correct, unless one finds a way
to separate between , ancient traditions and rather newly aquired
habits.
mirjam

You are right. But it arose in Mountmellick, Ireland and had a peculiar
style, with its own peculiar stitches found nowhere else. It was
specific types of thread on specific grounds. No one else did it. It
also had specific fringe (usually) that was knitted. It is unique to
this area (region).

Just because something is made for income doesn't mean it isn't unique.
Just because somebody from another country started the "process"
doesn't mean it isn't unique to the region where it was practised.

There is hardly a stitch known to man that wasn't done somewhere else in
the world. But often, certain regions (or groups of people) do it in
their own unique "fashion".

I've looked through a lot of clothing and embroidery books (certainly
not all ever printed), and the type of wool on wool embroidery practised
in Australia is not anything like that practised elsewhere in the world.
There are unique stitches and unique ways of combining stitches.
None of the stitches are "new". In New Mexico, from Spanish influence,
Colcha embroidery "became". But it's simply Bakhara couching only 2
threads, and wool, and unique ways of using color that make it distinct.

Chikan embroidery is from India, and - although there are a few unique
stitches employed that began there (such as the phunda knot) - basically
it's a knock-off of fine French embroideries. And the embroideries of
Ayreshire (Scotland) are simply a "style" that evolved from the French.
Often, the only way to tell the difference is in the construction
process of the finished goods. And, of course, the embroideries from
India - while trying to copy European patterns - really are distinct
because of their own art/cultural influence. The unique way the Scots
embroidered and designed, once you study it, are unique in most cases.
Sometimes the French influence creeps in.

Just like the space shuttle of Russia is different from the space
shuttle of the U.S. Same thing - different "style" based on their
cultural influence.

I would think that, in many parts of the world, embroidery was often
practised to make a living. :-)

To me, what separates embroideries is either stitches unique to a given
style, or color unique (like the Hopi's used different colors and
designs, but many American Indians made blankets - but all distinct).

So, these styles and peculiar stitches developed in certain "regions" -
whether or not they originated there, and whether or not they did it to
keep from starving or to embellish wedding dresses (weaving of Lithuania
and the unique construction techniques which are crocheted - including
the buttons).

Anyway, as I re-read what you wrote and I just typed - perhaps we are
talking about something different. Are you referring to something else
and I missed your point?

Dianne

FKBABB wrote:
Ahhhh, but Annie, if the "style" (or genre/specific technique) arose
from this "region" - even if they practise other similar stitches there
and elsewhere, isn't that still "regional", because it came from there
originally. Like Mountmellick. It arose from a specific area - so
that's "regional", even though the Brits took it from there and did
their own "versions". BRBR

As I understand it, post-1800 Mountmellick did not arise in an "area" or a
"region" but in the mind of a single, socially-conscious Englishwoman who
sought to alleviate poverty in a small corner of rural Ireland by helping
destitute women use a pre-existing skill (the ability to use a needle) to
manufacture something that could be sold for desperately-needed income to the
middle-class English market. She thought that British strivers who couldn't
afford the highly-fashionable, but much more expensive, far more delicate,
Scottish white work, would buy the coarser work *she* designed (and taught her
Irish workers to stitch) using inexpensive materials, sort of like today when
people (myself included) will shop in Target for Pottery Barn knock-offs. And,
she was right. The pieces sold very well until machine-made whitework was
developed toward the end of the century, knocking the bottom out of the market
for hand-made white work of all types. So, to me, Montmellick is a
manufactured style, designed specifically with market considerations in mind.
It is an "ethnic" embroidery only in the sense that those who initially
stitched the pieces were of Irish ethnicity. And, for those poor workers, it
was probably more of a radical than a traditional form of needlework, as they
hitherto had probably had neither the money nor the materials to do much
stitching besides darning.

I hope the foregoing doesn't sound like a rant. I'm finding this an
interesting discussion.

Annie

The problem, Karen, in my particular useage, is that I need a word that
covers all the things we're talking about. A "chapter" heading. So
that when, in the index, somebody sees the "chapter title", they know
what the writing will be about. :-)

I've been given the word "ethnic", but I'm not fond of it and wondered
if others thought "regional" might be a better fit. It doesn't matter
*when* the embroidery was practised, or even if it changes through time.
If it's something that has been documented as having arisen from a
group of peoples - even if only practised for 50 years but the work is
of such character that modern embroiderers wish to emulate it because
it's unique - then there has to be an all-encompassing term other than
"ethnic", I would think. ??

Dianne

Karen C - California wrote:

In article , Dianne Lewandowski
writes:


Thanks for the input!!!


Let me know if you want me to put on my editor hat and have a look through the
final text for you.