Have been reading with much interest all the letters that Devon has inspired with her original query about valuing machine lace. Although it is nearly 200 years since the struggles with the machine first began to yield anything like lace, categories of thought do die slowly; and the antithesis that has been set up between "machine-made" and "hand-made" is still alive, if not altogether well. What feeds that sturdy antithesis, however, is a slowly-evolving change in our notions of the value of time. Originally, the big contrast between machine- and hand- was the difference in the amount of time it would take to make a yard of either sort. Two hundred years later, to our computer-oriented minds, that difference isn't so salient any more. It still exists, of course, but it doesn't quite matter so much. Nobody is going to smash machinery about it. The more important criterion of judgment (note, dear Spiders, that the singular of "criteria" is "criterION") nowadays is a much subtler and more difficult measure: whether it deserves to be included as "art" or not. And in this inquiry, handmade and machine-made have to stand up as equals before the bar.
Give it time; ideas evolve slowly. Textiles are showing signs of edging their way into the limelight of "art." It's a fight, still; and in some dim-witted sectors, the art-vs-craft contrast still carries weight. But ever less so.... And there are harbingers of progress: for example, next October the famous Baltimore Museum of Art -- known internationally for its great collections of Picassos and Matisses and much contemporary art -- will be hosting -- what, us? -- yes, us! There will be banks of lacemakers, at work with bobbins and pillows, sitting beneath a display of the Museum's antique laces, and producing... art? in that hallowed venue? How times have changed! There are a lot of factors involved in the "Is It Art?" issue. Is a Warhol painting of a can of Campbell's Soup "art?" If so, why isn't the can of soup itself "art?" Is it "art" if there are 100 copies of an indisputably beautiful design? Would it matter if the design was originally concocted by Leonardo or an anonymous housepainter? Of course it would matter. It would matter in the price that the piece could fetch, irrespective of its intrinsic "artistic" merit. And the price would vary, too, depending on whether art-collecting was, at the moment, "up" or "down." Back to my bobbins; Art is a demanding mistress. -- Aurelia - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
