Tuesday, August 6, 2013
Monday, July 15, 2013
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Monday, March 25, 2013
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Sunday, December 2, 2012
I began by taking a piece of 3.5 ounce linen (approx. 80 threads per square inch) and remove 6 threads together. This may have been slightly more than I wanted, but I wanted it to be visible. I did a hem stitch to create a half-inch hem, and then went back and worked the drawn threads in both directions, creating, in theory, little boxes. Somehow, I got a torque in the material, so my lines slant- this may be a result of tension, hemming, or of removing too many threads. I should experiment in the future. I then decided to add a simple needlelace border, using 40/2 linen thread. Ideally, I would like to use 60/2, or perhaps 90/2, but I couldn't find those in my stash. the 120/2 was simply too lightweight too work. Overall, I'm happy with how my border came out, but it is a little "thick", probably due to the thread weight. The border was worked by making bars and covering with a buttonhole stitch.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
It moves much faster than the polychrome embroidery, averaging about 40 minutes or so a motif. I'm still struggling with stem vs. outline stitch, and sometimes the stitch just looks "rope-y" no matter what I do, but that is in keeping with extant pieces, so the overall effect is still Elizabethan, at least to my eyes.
I rather enjoy how each little critter has their own personality.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
It occurred to me that this also applied to the construction of deep knowledge in the SCA, particularly in applied Arts and Sciences. Let's use embroidery as a "for instance". When we begin looking at embroidery, we may begin by learning about the extant pieces. We can name them, locate them, and maybe find new ones. We are at the stage of "knowledge". We may then begin examining them more closely- maybe we identify the stitches being used, and maybe we figure out how the object was made. We may share this knowledge with others, demonstrating our "comprehension" of the subject. When we actually make a replica of an object, we've moved up to "application" of our comprehension. We don't just own the information, we've used the knowledge to construct something similar. Now this is where it gets tricky. What, exactly, is the difference between "application" and "creation/synthesis"? Well, it really depends on the next step, "analysis". Without a thorough analysis of the subject as a whole, one cannot truly synthesize their knowledge. Without an understanding of time and place, motifs, themes, and styles, one is left only applying their knowledge, instead of synthesizing it into a new creation.
At the top of the pyramid is synthesis and evaluation. These two really do go hand in hand. Without a critical eye (and I mean constructively critical) one cannot truly create a period artifact. One needs to evaluate what is (and is not!) there in the object before one can make informed choices about the object one is about to create.
So, in slightly simpler terms, using embroidery as a metaphor:
Knowledge: There is a polychrome coif in the Met, acquistion number 64.101.1258.
Comprehension: It's worked in detached buttonhole and plaited braid stitches.Motifs are birds, butterflies, roses, lillies, cornflowers.
Application: Experimenting shows that outlining the flowers first in stem stitch makes it easier to do the detached buttonhole evenly. Starting with a row of running stitches stops me from making too many buttonhole stitches.
Analysis: These flowers are all found in an English kitchen garden; many others also use blue borages; the plaited braid is done using gilt thread on the extant examples, whether coif, nightcap, or jacket.
Synthesis and Evaluation: A new design is created, using the most commonly found examples from extant pieces. The designer can explain every decision, without having to cite rare or out-of-period examples. The designer can also note where he or she may have deviated from the extant pieces, and discuss why.
These stages do overlap each other, and constructing deep knowledge is a never-ending process. We always begin with some sort of memory/recall/knowledge of the subject, and tease out comprehension as we apply. But it's in the synthesis and evaluation that one can really begin to achieve some mastery over the subject.
So what do you think about this? Does Bloom's Taxonomy apply to you and your field? How? Should it apply in the SCA? How?