Dear Jeri, I assure you that your contributions to Arachne are much appreciated.
I had thought to take a magnifying glass with me, but at the last moment forgot (for reasons I won’t go into here). But there would have been little point to it. I have been trying to think of a way to describe the way the dresses were displayed, and realise the displays were like shop windows. Thus the mannequins were grouped 3 or 4, up to 6 in a single display some distance back from the plate glass window fronting the unit. At the nearest, a dress would have been one or two feet away, many were set further back. A magnifying glass would have been useless, binoculars and telescopes don’t focus that close.
I did have a torch with me, on my iPod, but it didn’t occur to me to use it. I have pondered this and realise that it is inculcated in me that one no more uses a torch than a camera at an exhibition. I’m surprised that you have never been questioned Jeri. Prior to visiting the Fashion Museum we went to the Bruegel exhibition at the Holburne Museum. Here, my husband was told off for using his camera, even though he had the flash switched off. In fact, the Fashion Museum allows photography - but does not permit the use of flash. As you say, the lights are dim for a reason.
I’m a little bit concerned that you should forward my, strictly personal, opinion to the museum. I think that my reaction to it was based partly on expectation. As I said, we spent the morning at the Bruegel exhibition. I had read an excellent review of this in The Times, knew what to expect, and was not disappointed. I have not seen any reviews of ‘Lace in Fashion’ (only the article in ‘Lace’) and being a bobbin lacemaker knowing a very little about the history of lace, I expected something rather different to what I saw.
That does not make the exhibition any less worthy, meaningful, or interesting.
For example, an interpretation might be that hand made lace, being very expensive, was never anything more than a trimming or accessory. The same effect could be had with ribbons at a fraction of the price. But the creation of lace fabric by machines opens quite new avenues in fashion. Now we see garments cut and styled entirely from lace. The ultimate comparison might be between the narrow trimming on a smock and the dress worn in the James Bond Spectre film, where the lace was sculpted to the shape of a woman’s body.
We work on (almost) flat pillows, taking care that our lace is not distorted by the pattern bending or lifting. Imagine working on a pillow that was shaped like a woman’s body. How would you form the lace around that shape? Those of you who have worked 3D lace might have some idea how to do this, but I would find it extremely challenging. Or perhaps, how would you cut and construct a (flat) lace fabric to create a particular style, a jacket or suit or ….?
Thus, in modern fashion, lace becomes an integral aspect of the garment rather than a trimming, decoration or accessory. I imagine that to a student of fashion, this exhibition would have provided much to interest and inspire.
So I think that my review reflected my personal interests and expectations. I was thinking only of the lace I make, on a pillow with bobbins. There is so much more to lace than that and perhaps it just tells me that I need to be more open-minded ……
Thank you again Jeri, for your input to Arachne. Even when some of your emails go over my head, I still truly appreciate the time, effort and knowledge that you share with us.
Best wishes, Jane On 13/04/2017 16:25, [email protected] wrote:
Ladies, In case you did not receive directly from Arachne, I'm forwarding today's letter directly to you. I thought you might not want The Fashion Museum Bath to have your addresses. Jeri
- To unsubscribe send email to [email protected] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [email protected]. For help, write to [email protected]. Photo site: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lacemaker/sets/
