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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 09:39 PM |
OT - poor Bob (joke) | Kathy Applebaum | Quilting | 1 | October 15th 03 06:00 AM |