It is difficult to explain, but here's an example - in the older patterns
if there's a series of snowflakes around another element they would be
evenly spaced with reference to that other element, even if it means taking
them out of the straight lines of the snowflake ground. In the modern
patterns, though, the snowflake ground marches across the lace in military
fashion, each snowflake exactly spaced with reference to the next, but all
of them ignoring the placement of other design elements. It is almost as
though the ground and the other design elements were cut out of different
pieces of lace and just glued into the puzzle, and the effect jars my
aesthetic sense.
Interesting aesthetic. I do understand what you're saying, but my eye gets
jarred when the ground gets all distorted trying to flow around another
element. That looks sloppy to me. I like when the snowflakes (or whatever)
march blindly, as if the other element isn't there, disappearing
"underneath" the element to emerge unscathed and undaunted on the other
side.
to each his/her own....
Indeed :) I'm of Adele's school of thought: the *motif* is the Sun around which the rest of the universe revolves, the ruling Queen/King among the courtiers...
Given skill, he ground doesn't have to be distorted, even if it doesn't march as if on a parade -- you add a stitch there and nip another somewhere else, and they conform visually. In fact, quite often, it's the "geometrically corrected" ("trued") old laces that look out of kilter, because the pinholes had been put into a straight jackets via a ruler (been there, done that, was dismayed by the results, and never did it again <g>)
Though, to be fair, I also think that using cotton instead of linen accounts for some of that "regimented" look... Cotton is far more uniform; it produces a crisper but also flatter result. Make a piece of lace -- perfectly -- in cotton and it looks "just like as if made by a machine" (which, BTW, used to be the highest compliment one could accord to a knitter of my childhood <g>). Make it equally perfectly in linen, and it still looks "human"
And, Adele wrote (in response to Aurelia):
But compare the "fully evolved" (i.e. gorgeous)
Thomas Lester designs with the best of the Binche, and you may think that
the writer of the above quote perhaps had a point
And early Binche is not middle Binche is not modern Binche. In fact, Binche itself isn't really Binche, because the type of lace we now call Binche was made in different towns (Valenciennes, Antwerp) while in Binche itself they made some great Valenciennes...
And while some of the laces produced in those towns might have had -- at a certain period -- lots of elements we now asscociate with Binche, but were never *called* Binche (or Paris Ground, or Valenciennes)... They were just "lace" or, perhaps, "fine lace"... :) I feel that "the writer of the above quote" (about the "fully evolved" Lester designs as opposed to the mediocrity of Binche) could not have, possibly, seen "the best of the Binche"...
The same "early/modern" dichotomy can be seen in the so-called Flanders lace. Although I love Flanders in general, I much prefer the "old stuff" in particular. The modern "Flanders" (after it received the distinction of a name) is all about ground and its variations. Cute, but in the process the motif becomes either a blob or something done with a ruler (even a cookie cutter has more flowing lines).
OTOH, look at Caroluskantjes (modern reproduction, by Nora Andries, of 17thc laces found in a church in Antwerp). There, it's all about the *motif*; the ground (as in: *back*ground) is made to look less conspicuous through using whole stitch (CTCT) throughout the ground's "rosette" (in the new Flanders, 4 out of the 6 are half stitches making it more sprawly and prominent). That is, if the "ground" is there at all; lots of times, it's simply plaits that are sneaking, as stealthily as possible, from one motif to the next... The ground also takes the back seat to the motif in that it's "broken" (partial) as needed; you'll have a half, or two thirds, or three quarters of the ground rosette -- *whatever fits to show off the motif* to the best advantage... Your standard "connection in two" is but the beginning, but one you have to fully understand... One thing where Flanders has more appeal to me than Binche does: it's coarser, so one can still find *linen* thread to make it...
I once did an experiment (OIDFA Buletin, 1-'98) using the same motif with 3 different grounds. On the "new" Flanders ground, everything was fuzzy-looking... Of course looking at it *now*, I wish I had "gentled" the ring pairs -- they're all parade-ground straight, as is the ground (which fits, *precisely*, the straight lines of the ring pairs, of course, with not a single "in two" connection <g>). But I was very, very green then... :)
----- Tamara P Duvall mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Lexington, Virginia, USA Formerly of Warsaw, Poland
- To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
