Dear Devon -- I would not get waylaid by the word "judge." A lot
depends on who the gallery owner would be. If it were a subsidiary
forum of Arachne, I should think space would be open to any spider
who had original work and wanted to show it, much as is done at
present by IOLI and CRLG (we haven't been overwhelmed as yet with
submissions). But if the gallery were a privately owned web site
(owned as might be by a founding half-dozen of us lacemakers), it
would be treated more like a piece of property (is there a lawyer
anywhere in the vicinity?) and we would set up a (rotating?) board
who would screen would-be-entering pieces according to an
agreed-upon standard. I'm afraid it goes almost without saying that
no matter what the standard, we would immediately find people who
took issue with us about what is clumsy, ugly, meaningful, truly
modern, on and on. You stop somewhere along the way and say, "This is
what we think. And it's our gallery." Isn't that, in fact, what
happens right now in real life? Also, it helps to remember that our
underlying motive for this whole gallery-dream is to have a vehicle
for showing our work to the non-lacemaking, non-textile-knowledgeable
public (like you wearing lace jewelry to be seen).
Thank you for the URL of the Textile Study Group. I found them
fascinating. However, they show every medium imaginable, some of
which I had a hard time identifying as textiles. Our gallery would
have a far easier time of it, as we would be limited to lace. Just
lace. OK, we might have to stop fretting about the definition of
"modern/contemporary" and start to fret about a definition of lace
(here I refer you again to the Walters catalogue). But you tell me
any venue for anything at all that doesn't encourage hairsplitting.
What did you think of my beginner's stab at a founding document
(e-mail to Clay B. yesterday)?
Aurelia
In a message dated 7/29/2007 10:44:51 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Out of curiosity... How will you decide which names should or should
not go into the virtual gallery of the modern/contemporary/cutting
edge/creative lace designers? Since "clumsy/ugly" vs "elegant"
(Aurelia's standard) is not, really, an objective measure, but a highly
personal judgement?
I was a little concerned about this, myself, because a lot of contemporary
work is ugly to some people, often because it makes a statement. Veronique
Louppe's piece in which the wire was cut was beautiful and shocking
at once. But
I found it fascinating. My daughter, who has just graduated from college
with a degree in Fine Art, concentration in sculpture, was
gravitating to soft
sculpture near the end and found that she was the only person in the
class who
thought that a piece of art could be visually appealing and still convey a
meaningful message. So, at her college, at least, there are a lot of people
who think art really has no business being anything but ugly.
Of course, my original thought was simply to assemble a list as sort of an
intellectual game, in case anyone ever asked for one. The
recruitment of a web
master, etc, had not occurred to me. However, in the words of the immortal
Tommy Smothers, I say "Take it, Dickie"! to anyone who wants to go
that route.
For anyone who is interested, here is the website of the Members Gallery of
the Textile Study Group of New York. _http://www.tsgny.org/GALLERY.html_
(http://www.tsgny.org/GALLERY.html)
Devon
(showing her age by referencing the Smothers Brothers)
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
-
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line:
unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line:
unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
