Dennis Hornsby once said to me that if I had been born in Buckinghamshire and learnt lace during its heyday, I would have learnt bucks point and nothing else. So why did i think I had to learn in an order?
I can see a progression from nice lace to another in the same way we can see how one lace evolved from the techniques of another but that doesn't mean to say you have to learn it that way. When I learnt to play the guitar I was taught by someone who was two steps ahead on the book. Then, when I went for formal lessons, I was expected to play scales which I couldn't and the teacher was annoyed that technically I was much more advanced in my playing than her students who could play scales. My original teacher found a piece that we used to use as a warmonger and then we went for it. When I taught myself to play the piano I found a piece I wanted to learn (I dint know how to love him) and went for it. When you hit a roadblock then don't try to get over it or around it. Just choose another destination. Kind Regards Liz Baker > On 20 Oct 2013, at 23:49, Anna Binnie <l...@binnie.id.au> wrote: > Recently I rethought the whole notion of why we learn lace the way we do. In > lacemaking towns children learnt honiton or bucks or beds and may never have > learnt torchon at all. They had to be productive early and the sooner the > better. > > I think that once some one has mastered cloth stitch and half stitch they > should be able to do any lace at all. There are no concepts that have to be > learnt other than those 2 stitches and every lace goes from there. So > question why are we statring beginners on torchon and not say Milanese or > beds or honiton? > - To unsubscribe send email to majord...@arachne.com containing the line: unsubscribe lace y...@address.here. For help, write to arachne.modera...@gmail.com. Photo site: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lacemaker/sets/
