In a message dated 9/6/2005 1:19:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Perhaps I told you at the time: About 10 years ago, when the main shopping
street in Portland Maine had many vacant stores, I gave thought to renting a
store for the Summer, and exhibiting lace there
In a message dated 9/6/05 9:28:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> During the off month
> of July the gallery, which is rather well thought of, in a departure from
> its usual practice, actually rented out the space to a graduate school MFA
> program from the south.
Aurelia wrote: But my main argument is exactly NOT to value lace as
just another fiber art!
Fiber art qualifies as art in my book.
A wrote: Why segregate "fiber" arts? (and what other
"fiber" arts are there?) Why is paint on canvas to be regarded with
more respect, not to say awe and $$
Oh Devon dear -- But my main argument is exactly NOT to value lace as
just another fiber art! Why segregate "fiber" arts? (and what other
"fiber" arts are there?) Why is paint on canvas to be regarded with
more respect, not to say awe and $$$, than linen or cotton or silk?
It is not the medium
Aurelia wrote:
But they were
appraised by a former president of the EGA at $10,000, and that is
what they are insured for, in a rider to my homeowner's policy.
I was very interested to read this. Would I be correct in assuming that she
used comparables that were in a related medium like
I don't think it's appropriate to value a piece of recently-made
handmade lace by x-dollars times the hours it took to make it. You
wouldn't price a painting according to how long it took the painter
to spread the paint over the canvas. Nor would you necessarily price
a large painting as worth
