From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > I am not a primary tatting expert, but offer my opinion as a > collector of > lace and lace books, a lace history student, and a member of > various lace > organizations in the U.S. and Europe: **The submitted "logo" > designs do not reflect > the progress that tatters have made in the past few decades, nor > the history > of tatting. In most cases no relationship to tatting can be > seen.** >
The same can be said of the hedgehog, the mascot of bobbin lacemakers. There are BL people who have no interest in hedgehogs. There are no curators who pay attention to the BL mascot. There's nothing serious about the hedgehog mascot. There's nothing serious about mascots of any sort. Why should there be anything serious about the tatting mascot? It's not a company logo, defining their "brand". It's a "critter" that people can associate with their art or not, personal preference. There's a children's story about a hedgehog who donates his quills to a rabbit to make BL. Some BL makers also associate the quills with pins. That's it. Nothing about advancing the art. Nothing about how the craft can be taken more seriously. Nothing about progress in the field during the last few decades--or hasn't there been any progress to acknowledge with a new BL mascot? This whole brouhaha was simply someone's desire to have a mascot for tatters, comparable to the hedgehog for BL makers. Who cares what a curator thinks about it? That's not relevant to mascot-dom. Robin P. Los Angeles, California, USA (formerly Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
