On Sep 2, 2004, at 11:49, C. Johnson (Susie) wrote in response to Robin:
This brings up the question of "purity" and naming. If I use some Cluny
techniques on a Beds pattern, is it still Beds? If I use torchon ground on
a Bucks grid, is that Bucks point lace? If I mix crochet stitches in with
detached buttonhole, is that needlelace?
Why can't lacers use "Mixed Techniques" on a lace that incorporated say:
Beds and Torchon stitches in the same pattern; or Honiton and Beds in the
same pattern?
"Mixed Techniques" would, I think, be an excellent way to solve the problem. Though I wouldn't call it "US Lace"; if anything, lacemakers in US tend to be more traditional and "hung up" on doing things in the "right" (ie old) way, than the lacemakers in Europe are. Could be, we haven't yet built enough traditions of our own, so we're fearful of miss-stepping over others'.
As to Robin's original question (where one thing stops being one thing and mutates into another, what do you call it then?)... I once designed a piece in - I fondly thought - Flanders. Michael Giusiana said it wasn't; I should call it, maybe, "inspired by Flanders lace". At the same time, Elaine (Merritt) took the piece to her yearly Brugge class for evaluation, and it came back with a very good review. And no mention of it not being Flanders; it got reviewed *as Flanders*. So, go figure.
All the same, I tend to think of my "Milanese" pieces as "*mostly* Milanese". Just in case someone takes exception :)
The more we dig into the history of lacemaking, the more oddities we find, and they tend to weaken the "absolutes". Somewhere in '96 or '97, somone here said Milanese was always white and never had tallies. Well... There's a piece in V&A which has coloured threads in it - I saw it there in '98. And Sweet Briar College in Lynchburg, VA (Clay's Alma Mater) has, in its collection, a piece which is definitely Milanese, but which has loads of tallies; rolled, raised, leafy - you name it, the lacemakers used them to enhance the overal visual effect. Without worrying about the name of the rose...
Ann as for Jean's original mesage, in which someone told her that stumpowork wasn't made on a sewing machine in 1600, therefore it couldn't be called stumpwork. Adele's solution (so call it "raised embroidery") is, indeed, what I'd settle for also but, at the same time, I can't help but be amused by this. Probably, the main reason people making stumpwork in 17th c didn't use a sewing machine is... The same reason people making quilts in 17th c didn't use the sewing machine; it wasn't there to be used.
When Beethoven found out that the kind of music he was writing didn't sound to good on the harpsichord, he started encouraging all the piano (that horrible, horrible, harsh instrument, that was beginning to show up here and there as an alternative) makers to improve it. Nowadays, a lot of music written for harpsichord originally (pre-Beethoven) is being played on a piano. Does anyone object? Hardly.
--- Tamara P Duvall http://lorien.emufarm.org/~tpd Lexington, Virginia, USA (Formerly of Warsaw, Poland) Healthy US through The No-CARB Diet: no C-heney, no A-shcroft, no R-umsfeld, no B-ush.
- To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
