Local quilt show: observations

On Aug 17, 9:33*am, "Taria" wrote:
John, *You started this thread with a disclaimer that you had no intention
of offending anyone. *It has been interesting to read through folks thoughts
on
the actual quilting we do.
Looking at your quilts and beautiful woodworking it is very easy to see you
are a perfectionist. *I confess I probably take a more slap dash approach
though my work not terrible. *LOL * Yep, there is room for all of it and we
can enjoy what we do.
Thanks for opening up the discussion.
Taria

Me too, Taria. I am much more casual about it. I started quilting to
keep myself
from going insane after losing the ability to work outside the home.
It's like a crossword puzzle. I love the *doing* part of it, even if I
have no
use for the finished product. I love the quilts but I love the
process more. Idle hands, and all that.
If I obsessed over whether every quilt was quilt-show-worthy, I don't
think
it would be fun anymore.

Sherry

I was thinking something along similar lines. I've done feathers on a
Trip Around the World -- really my first attempt at free-hand feathers,
so they're not the greatest. But it's a big quilt, so I got lots of
practice. I liked the quilt a lot better after quilting than I had
before. http://webpages.charter.net/jaccola/ButterfliesAroundTheWorld.JPG
http://webpages.charter.net/jaccola/ButterfliesATWCloseupCenter.JPG

Julia in MN

Leslie& The Furbabies in MO. wrote:
Oh, yes, I *would* do a feather quilting pattern on a Log Cabin!
Imagine a very subdued Log Cabin block in beautiful neutrals. Then an
outrageous feather quilting pattern- beautifully executed- with tons of
detail in a glorious thread that really stood out... and maybe some
yummy beading to really set off the quilting design. (Now this is a
dream- I am not capable of doing quilting of that caliber!)

The block setting could be the long diagonal rows of color (can't think
of the name of that setting- furrows???) with long curvy feathers down
the length following the diagonal. Or the diamond Barn Raising setting
with the feathers confined to each diamond shaped area. Oh yeah.
There's room for anything and everything in quilting.

But make that Log Cabin in small florals and prints- ugh- no feathers.
No way!

Leslie & The Furbabies in MO.

"John" wrote in message
...
On Aug 16, 11:52 pm, Sherry wrote:
On Aug 15, 2:58 pm, John wrote:



On Aug 15, 1:25 pm, John wrote:

Let me start off with a disclaimer. If any of you are offended by my
observations, then I am sorry. If you derive pleasure from the things
I am commenting on, then go ahead and continue to enjoy them. My
opinions are my own, and "might" coincide with others, or maybe not.
That stated, herein follows a brief recounting of todays visit to the
local yearly quilt show.
Lois and I showed up at the local show and started viewing the
offerings from large bed sized quilts to small wall hangings and
items
of apparel. The one thing that struck me, and Lois, was the fact that
the degree of overall quilting by machine was of a singular nature.
This observation applied to about 75% of the quilts. The other 25%
were hand quilted, and this observation does not apply to them. They
were very nicely done.
As to the 75%; I have never seen as large a group of quilts, in my
life, that were done in such a random manner that defied the sewn
seams of the pattern, of the quilt. It is as if the person doing the
quilting, and some of them were "professionally" machine quilted, and
they used that word "professionally", loosely, in my opinion, was
insensitive to the fact that they were crossing over the seams of the
pattern of the quilt on autopilot in an effort to confuse attempted
artistic random loops and squiggles, in the guise of art, and not
respecting the pattern seams as defining elements of the quilt.
Now if
this is the new norm and I am completely out of step with State of
the
Art Free motion quilting, then so be it, I am out of step. If you
look
at the other 25% of the quilts that were hand stitched. they used
overall quilting in the appropriate seam bordered elements of the
pattern and stayed within the confines of the seams and produced a
quilt that respected the pattern design and complimented that with
area quilting which enhanced the overall appearance. Out of probably
35 Machine quilts, I think there were probably 2 or 3 that met the
the
above criteria of respecting the seams, and not going over them
randomey, in an attempt to achieve, I don't know what. It is
almost as
if people take a class on free motion quilting and then throw away
all
the time honored traditions of using quilting and stippling within
area elements that respect the seam lines of the sewn pattern, and
throw themselves into the process of random placement of the
needle on
autopilot. Thank you very much,but I think I will get on the other
bus, on this show.
So there you have it. My personal take on the recent, and not so
happy
viewing of the state of the art of Machine quilting, as it
pertains to
Knox County, Ohio. And once again, I hope that I have not stepped on
any toes here. Or otherwise raised any hackles.

John

I can understand the limitations of money into the overall equation.
But, I do all of the quilting on all of my quilts myself; with a
machine, and proudly so.
1. If I didn't do it, all myself, I wouldn't call it, "My Quilt".
2. If I paid to have it quilted, I wouldn't enter it into a show.
3. I don't like the look of all over quilting on small pieced tops.
4. Number three does not apply to art quilts which are different than
small pieced quilts, and have a different type of piecing pattern than
traditional small pieced pattern quilts, and therefor might be a
candidate for overall machine quilting. I don't make Art Quilts, so I
have no personal experience with that element of the medium. I neither
like or dislike them. They are a different kettle of fish, for me.
Neither better nor worse. Just different. If I ever did do an Art
Quilt, I would certainly consider an all over quilting pattern, if I
thought it would not detract from the design.
Maybe I am a traditionalist in this regard, but one of the quilts
that I really appreciated was machine pieced, and hand quilted. The
hand quilting was stitched in the ditch. Now there was somebody that
took hand stitching to another level. She buried the stitches in the
fold of the seam and they were not even seen in some instances. That
takes commitment when it could have been done by machine with no foul.
Except it wouldn't have been hand quilted. Kudo's to her. I wish I
could do the hand stitching, but these old stubby hammer pounded
fingers just won't cooperate. My own personal cross to bear, I guess.

John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Stitching-in-the-ditch is difficult to do by hand, I think. It's just
tough
to push the needle in & out, for me anyway, and still maintain
some degree of consistently small stitches. OTOH, at the same time,
creatively it's the easy way out. No marking, no creative process to
come up with a design that will complement the pattern. Depending
on the pattern, sometimes I think it looks okay. Other patterns, it's
just kind of blah. Some patterns just scream for feathers and wreaths
and cables and loops and .....
I don't see anything wrong with entering a quilt you paid to have
machine
quilted at all. But then I only enter quilt shows for fun and I get a
kick out
of the compliments I get from the people who saw my first horrible
attempts just 4 short years ago. That's the buzz I get from quilt
shows.

Sherry

I agree that some designs call out for feathers, intertwined rope
links, fans, or rosettes. Those sorts of things are long standing
ideal elements of quilt design that are found in the best of quilts.
But, and this is the thing, they are mostly found within the confines
of borders, in large open areas, and other places without any pattern
piecing, underneath them. You wouldn't do a feather pattern on top of
a log cabin square of piecing. You might do it in another area of the
quilt that contains the log cabin pattern, and place the feather, ect,
in the open spaces of the design. If you look at hand quilting as an
example, you never see, or should I say I have never seen, overall
design of random squiggles, done by hand, on top of a pieced pattern
where you would run across the stitching seams of the pieced square,
with that rosette, or fan, or whatever. . That, and only that, is what
this whole dust up is trying to clarify. And once again, anybody who
loves doing that sort of thing, then you have my permission, as if it
was needed, to continue enjoying your chosen style choice. Just don't
expect me to get excited about it, as if that really mattered either.

John


--
-----------
This message has been scanned for viruses by Norton Anti-Virus
http://webpages.charter.net/jaccola/default
-----------

You wouldn't do a feather pattern on top of
a log cabin square of piecing. You might do it in another area of the
quilt that contains the log cabin pattern, and place the feather, ect,
in the open spaces of the design. If you look at hand quilting as an
example, you never see, or should I say I have never seen, overall
design of random squiggles, done by hand, on top of a pieced pattern
where you would run across the stitching seams of the pieced square,
with that rosette, or fan, or whatever. . That, and only that, is what
this whole dust up is trying to clarify. And once again, anybody who
loves doing that sort of thing, then you have my permission, as if it
was needed, to continue enjoying your chosen style choice. Just don't
expect me to get excited about it, as if that really mattered either.

You wouldn't do a feather in a single piece of a log cabin block, or
waste your time doing a design in the whole block. Most log cabin blocks
have light and dark sections and when put with the rest of the blocks
those lights and darks form a design, the whole quilt then becomes about
the interplay of those lights and darks, not about the individual
blocks, so to then go and quilt something individual in the blocks
wouldn't be respecting the quilt design, but to quilt a feather design
in areas created by the block pattern would be stunning, but would also
cross lots of seam lines.

Cheers
Anne

On Aug 17, 11:18*am, "Dr. Zachary Smith"
wrote:
On Aug 17, 10:33*am, "Taria" wrote:

John, *You started this thread with a disclaimer that you had no intention
of offending anyone.

25+ years on Usenet has taught me that that *usually* means, "A whole
lot of people are likely to be offended by what I'm about to put down,
BUT..." *:-)

If John isn't "quilt police", he's most certainly a "quilt snob" (not
that there's anything WRONG with that... *:-) *Actually, after reading
his last missive on being self-taught by the books he's read, I think
I understand it now. *Often, we're strongly influenced by the first
exposure we have on a particular subject, and when seeking out further
information, some folks tend to gravitate toward those that agree with
or build upon the precepts of that first exposure. *Other folks get a
lot of different perspectives, decide what they agree with/like
because of the people they are, and build their libraries on those
precepts. *I'm not trying to cubbyhole John or imply that either
applies to him - I don't know him that well. *However his journey
progressed, it seems apparent to me that the books he's read seem to
be of similar schools of thought (I say that only because I have read
books with differing views, so I know that they're out there.)
There's nothing wrong with any of that either.

I'm not offended by anything here; I'm LMAO at a lot of it. *What I'm
getting from John though, whether his intent or not, is: "Do whatever
you like, but if you intend to enter it any show that I'll have any
say about the judging in, either make it *exactly* the way I think
quilts should be made or don't bother entering it, because I'm not
going to brook any of that nonsense." *What I'm having trouble
discerning though is his *attitude*; I can't tell if he's sincere
about the way he's putting some things or if he's being facetious.

As I said before, *"I had no idea something like this would be such a
big deal..." *I can respect John for sticking to his guns (and I'm
really tempted to add, "even if he is completely wrong and talking out
his..." but that would just be my being a horse's patoot again).
Opinions can't be wrong - only different.

Doc

As you say Doc, You don't know me. Yes, I did learn to quilt from
books, and can not claim to have read every book on the subject. But
of those that I have read, and they are many, they do state a similar
attitude to the one I proposed. I would bet any that state otherwise
may have their own axe to grind. I have also spent a fair amount of
time in quilting museums and other non bookish venues, and those have
also informed my opinions. I have sewn clothes for myself and
professionally with my Hippie signifigant other, for sail, in
boutiques, during the 1960's. (gotta love those Hippie Granny
Dresses). But the thing that has formed the "backbone" of my
esthetics, is the 30 plus years spent as a custom furniture maker
doing reproduction furniture, and other custom work, in tandem with 40
plus years as a interior remodeling contractor. Believe me when I say,
You come across all types of situations where people have come up
with, shall we say,"interesting", ideas. I have found that the Novel
and New ideas seldom stand the test of time. Yesterdays wonderful "Art
Project Chair", that, by the way is uncomfortable to sit in, has often
somehow found it's way into the dumpster, out back. There are very
good reasons that good design tends to transend the moments fashion.
That is probably what has given me the greatest understanding as to
what works for me, and what doesn't. I could tell you some very
interesting stories about the homeowner who wanted to remodel a
kitchen that I had just completed for another customer in order to
sell the house she bought. $50,000 on the first remodel, and $20,000
on the second remodel. The second woman had no idea that I did the
first remodel, and she had her own ideas as to what should be done. I
happily tore out the first job and finished her ideas and she was very
happy. The ironic part of this whole story, is that I pocketed both
checks, and was happy to do so. Both people had very good ideas as to
what would work for them. They just did not happen to coincide. So
with this in mind, I take leave of the subject. I don't begrudge
anybody their choices. But on the same token, I would hope that those
choices, should not contain a claim on my right to disagree. I will
pass those choices by when the opportunity comes, and continue doing
what has stood me, and so may others in very good stead, for quite
some time now. As to the quilt snob-police, appellation, Well, Snob
yes, Police, I am not so sure about that as I do say they can do what
they want. Now police would say, "Use free motion on a pieced quilt,
and go to jail. I say,"Friends don't let Friends ruin quilts".

John

When I started free motion quilting (domestic machine) I felt
compelled to stay within seam lines, but that requires a tremendous
amount of stopping, starting, hiding threads, etc. I finally got brave
enough to try one larger free motion technique in an entire block,
instead of in the smaller parts of a block. Ta-dah! It made the
quilting much faster, and it was creatively freeing, if you can
understand that. Nowadays, while I still don't ever do an overall
meandering or an overall pattern for a whole quilt, I will often do a
design that wanders deliberately over seam lines, but in a planned way
- if that makes any sense at all.

Carole D. - Retired and loving it in the foothills of NW Georgia

My quilts, crafts, QIs, and more - http://home.windstream.net/caroledoyle

"Flimsy" last week and "gitterdun" this week.
I'm pleased to enrich to your vocabulary.

Nann
who believes she also coined TSWLTH some years ago (The Store We Love
to Hate, aka Joann Fabrics)


On Aug 16, 10:06*am, "Polly Esther" wrote:
I like Nann's word 'gitterdun'. *I think I'll keep it. *Polly

"Taria" wrote in message

...

Howdy!

Stitch in the ditch: why bother? Esp. w/ handquilting.
All those layers of fabric in the seams to sew into,
hiding the very stitches that make handquilting such a
joy - why? Stitch in the ditch- utility,
just a way to tack the back to the front. YMMV

btw, it's been a long time since I heard someone proclaim
that machine quilting isn't "real" quilting, or that machiners
aren't real quilters. Also been a long time since I heard
people in the LQS go into shock because men came into the
store for supplies for their own quilts. It's a big ol' wide-open
world for quilting.

R/Sandy - I like it when people critique or otherwise give their
opinions on the quilts ;-D

On Aug 17, 12:06*pm, John wrote:
On Aug 17, 10:28*am, Sandy wrote:



In article
,

*John wrote:
If you look at hand quilting as an
example, you never see, or should I say I have never seen, overall
design of random squiggles, done by hand, on top of a pieced pattern
where you would run across the stitching seams of the pieced square,
with that rosette, or fan, or whatever. .

And that would probably be due to the fact that it's more difficult to
hand quilt across seam lines -- a limitation that doesn't exist
(usually) in machine quilting.

--
Sandy in Henderson, near Las Vegas
sw.foster1 (at) gmail (dot) com (remove/change the obvious)http://www.sandymike.net

Sandy, I accept that hand quilting across seams is probably more
difficult than across plain cloth and batting. But I am sure that
those people I have seen, that have hand quilted all the seams with
SITD quilting, I will say, that at least for some of those people, it
is not to difficult. But, you are probably right, that is the reason
that most people don't do that who hand quilt today. But along with
that reason for those that hand quilt via the SITD method, and do not
do random stitch pattern, across seam lines, I think that esthetics
play an might play important part in their decision making. My whole
take on this is just because the modern machine allows someone to do
this, with ease, Is not in and of itself, something that should
motivate somebody who is appalled by the finished product, to "Give
her a try". It all boils down to esthetics. Like I said at the first
post, if you like doing it, "git her done" that way. I just won't be
spending any time oohing, and awing over the finished result. Just as
some who do that type of quilting, may quickly pass by my traditional
style. Choices, Ain't they grand?

John

Sherry wrote:
On Aug 17, 8:40 am, John wrote:
On Aug 16, 11:52 pm, Sherry wrote:





On Aug 15, 2:58 pm, John wrote:
On Aug 15, 1:25 pm, John wrote:
Let me start off with a disclaimer. If any of you are offended by my
observations, then I am sorry. If you derive pleasure from the things
I am commenting on, then go ahead and continue to enjoy them. My
opinions are my own, and "might" coincide with others, or maybe not.
That stated, herein follows a brief recounting of todays visit to the
local yearly quilt show.
Lois and I showed up at the local show and started viewing the
offerings from large bed sized quilts to small wall hangings and items
of apparel. The one thing that struck me, and Lois, was the fact that
the degree of overall quilting by machine was of a singular nature.
This observation applied to about 75% of the quilts. The other 25%
were hand quilted, and this observation does not apply to them. They
were very nicely done.
As to the 75%; I have never seen as large a group of quilts, in my
life, that were done in such a random manner that defied the sewn
seams of the pattern, of the quilt. It is as if the person doing the
quilting, and some of them were "professionally" machine quilted, and
they used that word "professionally", loosely, in my opinion, was
insensitive to the fact that they were crossing over the seams of the
pattern of the quilt on autopilot in an effort to confuse attempted
artistic random loops and squiggles, in the guise of art, and not
respecting the pattern seams as defining elements of the quilt. Now if
this is the new norm and I am completely out of step with State of the
Art Free motion quilting, then so be it, I am out of step. If you look
at the other 25% of the quilts that were hand stitched. they used
overall quilting in the appropriate seam bordered elements of the
pattern and stayed within the confines of the seams and produced a
quilt that respected the pattern design and complimented that with
area quilting which enhanced the overall appearance. Out of probably
35 Machine quilts, I think there were probably 2 or 3 that met the the
above criteria of respecting the seams, and not going over them
randomey, in an attempt to achieve, I don't know what. It is almost as
if people take a class on free motion quilting and then throw away all
the time honored traditions of using quilting and stippling within
area elements that respect the seam lines of the sewn pattern, and
throw themselves into the process of random placement of the needle on
autopilot. Thank you very much,but I think I will get on the other
bus, on this show.
So there you have it. My personal take on the recent, and not so happy
viewing of the state of the art of Machine quilting, as it pertains to
Knox County, Ohio. And once again, I hope that I have not stepped on
any toes here. Or otherwise raised any hackles.
John
I can understand the limitations of money into the overall equation.
But, I do all of the quilting on all of my quilts myself; with a
machine, and proudly so.
1. If I didn't do it, all myself, I wouldn't call it, "My Quilt".
2. If I paid to have it quilted, I wouldn't enter it into a show.
3. I don't like the look of all over quilting on small pieced tops.
4. Number three does not apply to art quilts which are different than
small pieced quilts, and have a different type of piecing pattern than
traditional small pieced pattern quilts, and therefor might be a
candidate for overall machine quilting. I don't make Art Quilts, so I
have no personal experience with that element of the medium. I neither
like or dislike them. They are a different kettle of fish, for me.
Neither better nor worse. Just different. If I ever did do an Art
Quilt, I would certainly consider an all over quilting pattern, if I
thought it would not detract from the design.
Maybe I am a traditionalist in this regard, but one of the quilts
that I really appreciated was machine pieced, and hand quilted. The
hand quilting was stitched in the ditch. Now there was somebody that
took hand stitching to another level. She buried the stitches in the
fold of the seam and they were not even seen in some instances. That
takes commitment when it could have been done by machine with no foul.
Except it wouldn't have been hand quilted. Kudo's to her. I wish I
could do the hand stitching, but these old stubby hammer pounded
fingers just won't cooperate. My own personal cross to bear, I guess.
John- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Stitching-in-the-ditch is difficult to do by hand, I think. It's just
tough
to push the needle in & out, for me anyway, and still maintain
some degree of consistently small stitches. OTOH, at the same time,
creatively it's the easy way out. No marking, no creative process to
come up with a design that will complement the pattern. Depending
on the pattern, sometimes I think it looks okay. Other patterns, it's
just kind of blah. Some patterns just scream for feathers and wreaths
and cables and loops and .....
I don't see anything wrong with entering a quilt you paid to have
machine
quilted at all. But then I only enter quilt shows for fun and I get a
kick out
of the compliments I get from the people who saw my first horrible
attempts just 4 short years ago. That's the buzz I get from quilt
shows.
Sherry
I agree that some designs call out for feathers, intertwined rope
links, fans, or rosettes. Those sorts of things are long standing
ideal elements of quilt design that are found in the best of quilts.
But, and this is the thing, they are mostly found within the confines
of borders, in large open areas, and other places without any pattern
piecing, underneath them. You wouldn't do a feather pattern on top of
a log cabin square of piecing. You might do it in another area of the
quilt that contains the log cabin pattern, and place the feather, ect,
in the open spaces of the design. If you look at hand quilting as an
example, you never see, or should I say I have never seen, overall
design of random squiggles, done by hand, on top of a pieced pattern
where you would run across the stitching seams of the pieced square,
with that rosette, or fan, or whatever. . That, and only that, is what
this whole dust up is trying to clarify. And once again, anybody who
loves doing that sort of thing, then you have my permission, as if it
was needed, to continue enjoying your chosen style choice. Just don't
expect me to get excited about it, as if that really mattered either.

John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You've got me thinking now. This is actually an element of quilting I
don't
have a lot of confidence in my creative abilities. :-)
Since I don't like to stitch in the ditch, on most of the handquilted
ones I
stitch 1/4 line *away* from the seam, then for borders my favorites
are feathers or cables. (I'm thinking this would look weird on a 1
inch log cabin, what do you think?)

The biggest reason for this is that I have never found a method to
mark the
quilt yet and again, don't have the confidence to just wing it without
marking first.
I drug out some antique quilts to have a look yesterday. They're
allover
patterns. Crosshatch seemed to be big, as was Baptist fan pattern. And
some
just tiny stitches in long lines very close together. One "echo" type.
No rosettes there!

I have a quilt top that I was real pleased with but it has been in a
drawer for nearly
a year. Because I'm waffling about what to do about quilting it. If I
take a pic of
it, do you think I could get some suggestions (from all) ?

Sherry



I was thinking I'd really read somewhere--but I can't remember
where--that all over stippling used to be done traditional
hand-quilters. So apparently, this isn't a new phenomena.

Best regards,
Michelle in Nevada

All "art" is subjective. Sheesh! There are incredibly valuable
paintings hanging in art museums (The Scream comes to mind) that I
wouldn't hang in my garage. ;-)

As for quilting, my first love is scrappy quilts, because it is what I
was exposed to as a child and I associate them with a grandmother's
love. Now, in magazines I often see beautifully done picture quilts. I
am awed by the craftsmanship. However, truth be known, they don't
really seem like quilts to me. I don't get that warm fuzzy feeling from
them, so it's almost like another medium to me.

Best regards,
Michelle in Nevada

Ooh, that quilt is just yummy, Julia! I love the colors, and your
free-formed feathers look great!

Michelle in Nevada

Julia in MN wrote:
I was thinking something along similar lines. I've done feathers on a
Trip Around the World -- really my first attempt at free-hand feathers,
so they're not the greatest. But it's a big quilt, so I got lots of
practice. I liked the quilt a lot better after quilting than I had
before. http://webpages.charter.net/jaccola/ButterfliesAroundTheWorld.JPG
http://webpages.charter.net/jaccola/ButterfliesATWCloseupCenter.JPG

Julia in MN

Leslie& The Furbabies in MO. wrote:
Oh, yes, I *would* do a feather quilting pattern on a Log Cabin!
Imagine a very subdued Log Cabin block in beautiful neutrals. Then an
outrageous feather quilting pattern- beautifully executed- with tons
of detail in a glorious thread that really stood out... and maybe some
yummy beading to really set off the quilting design. (Now this is a
dream- I am not capable of doing quilting of that caliber!)

The block setting could be the long diagonal rows of color (can't
think of the name of that setting- furrows???) with long curvy
feathers down the length following the diagonal. Or the diamond Barn
Raising setting with the feathers confined to each diamond shaped
area. Oh yeah. There's room for anything and everything in quilting.

But make that Log Cabin in small florals and prints- ugh- no
feathers. No way!

Leslie & The Furbabies in MO.

"John" wrote in message
...
On Aug 16, 11:52 pm, Sherry wrote:
On Aug 15, 2:58 pm, John wrote:



On Aug 15, 1:25 pm, John wrote:

Let me start off with a disclaimer. If any of you are offended by my
observations, then I am sorry. If you derive pleasure from the
things
I am commenting on, then go ahead and continue to enjoy them. My
opinions are my own, and "might" coincide with others, or maybe not.
That stated, herein follows a brief recounting of todays visit to
the
local yearly quilt show.
Lois and I showed up at the local show and started viewing the
offerings from large bed sized quilts to small wall hangings and
items
of apparel. The one thing that struck me, and Lois, was the fact
that
the degree of overall quilting by machine was of a singular nature.
This observation applied to about 75% of the quilts. The other 25%
were hand quilted, and this observation does not apply to them. They
were very nicely done.
As to the 75%; I have never seen as large a group of quilts, in my
life, that were done in such a random manner that defied the sewn
seams of the pattern, of the quilt. It is as if the person doing the
quilting, and some of them were "professionally" machine quilted,
and
they used that word "professionally", loosely, in my opinion, was
insensitive to the fact that they were crossing over the seams of
the
pattern of the quilt on autopilot in an effort to confuse attempted
artistic random loops and squiggles, in the guise of art, and not
respecting the pattern seams as defining elements of the quilt.
Now if
this is the new norm and I am completely out of step with State
of the
Art Free motion quilting, then so be it, I am out of step. If you
look
at the other 25% of the quilts that were hand stitched. they used
overall quilting in the appropriate seam bordered elements of the
pattern and stayed within the confines of the seams and produced a
quilt that respected the pattern design and complimented that with
area quilting which enhanced the overall appearance. Out of probably
35 Machine quilts, I think there were probably 2 or 3 that met
the the
above criteria of respecting the seams, and not going over them
randomey, in an attempt to achieve, I don't know what. It is
almost as
if people take a class on free motion quilting and then throw
away all
the time honored traditions of using quilting and stippling within
area elements that respect the seam lines of the sewn pattern, and
throw themselves into the process of random placement of the
needle on
autopilot. Thank you very much,but I think I will get on the other
bus, on this show.
So there you have it. My personal take on the recent, and not so
happy
viewing of the state of the art of Machine quilting, as it
pertains to
Knox County, Ohio. And once again, I hope that I have not stepped on
any toes here. Or otherwise raised any hackles.

John

I can understand the limitations of money into the overall equation.
But, I do all of the quilting on all of my quilts myself; with a
machine, and proudly so.
1. If I didn't do it, all myself, I wouldn't call it, "My Quilt".
2. If I paid to have it quilted, I wouldn't enter it into a show.
3. I don't like the look of all over quilting on small pieced tops.
4. Number three does not apply to art quilts which are different than
small pieced quilts, and have a different type of piecing pattern than
traditional small pieced pattern quilts, and therefor might be a
candidate for overall machine quilting. I don't make Art Quilts, so I
have no personal experience with that element of the medium. I neither
like or dislike them. They are a different kettle of fish, for me.
Neither better nor worse. Just different. If I ever did do an Art
Quilt, I would certainly consider an all over quilting pattern, if I
thought it would not detract from the design.
Maybe I am a traditionalist in this regard, but one of the quilts
that I really appreciated was machine pieced, and hand quilted. The
hand quilting was stitched in the ditch. Now there was somebody that
took hand stitching to another level. She buried the stitches in the
fold of the seam and they were not even seen in some instances. That
takes commitment when it could have been done by machine with no foul.
Except it wouldn't have been hand quilted. Kudo's to her. I wish I
could do the hand stitching, but these old stubby hammer pounded
fingers just won't cooperate. My own personal cross to bear, I guess.

John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Stitching-in-the-ditch is difficult to do by hand, I think. It's just
tough
to push the needle in & out, for me anyway, and still maintain
some degree of consistently small stitches. OTOH, at the same time,
creatively it's the easy way out. No marking, no creative process to
come up with a design that will complement the pattern. Depending
on the pattern, sometimes I think it looks okay. Other patterns, it's
just kind of blah. Some patterns just scream for feathers and wreaths
and cables and loops and .....
I don't see anything wrong with entering a quilt you paid to have
machine
quilted at all. But then I only enter quilt shows for fun and I get a
kick out
of the compliments I get from the people who saw my first horrible
attempts just 4 short years ago. That's the buzz I get from quilt
shows.

Sherry

I agree that some designs call out for feathers, intertwined rope
links, fans, or rosettes. Those sorts of things are long standing
ideal elements of quilt design that are found in the best of quilts.
But, and this is the thing, they are mostly found within the confines
of borders, in large open areas, and other places without any pattern
piecing, underneath them. You wouldn't do a feather pattern on top of
a log cabin square of piecing. You might do it in another area of the
quilt that contains the log cabin pattern, and place the feather, ect,
in the open spaces of the design. If you look at hand quilting as an
example, you never see, or should I say I have never seen, overall
design of random squiggles, done by hand, on top of a pieced pattern
where you would run across the stitching seams of the pieced square,
with that rosette, or fan, or whatever. . That, and only that, is what
this whole dust up is trying to clarify. And once again, anybody who
loves doing that sort of thing, then you have my permission, as if it
was needed, to continue enjoying your chosen style choice. Just don't
expect me to get excited about it, as if that really mattered either.

John