Pennsic Wrap -Up In Brief

I taught at Pennsic. :D

The following page will take one to the class notes I handed out:16th Century English Monochrome Embroidery.

This document also contains the appendices of all of the extant 16th century English monochromatic embroidered pieces I've found. A quick-and-dirty analysis of the data reveals roughly 80% of the pieces are uncounted, versus 20% possibly counted. More information on my observations is found in the class notes.

I hope this challenges the way we've been thinking about "blackwork". Please feel free to contact me with any questions or suggestions! I welcome all correspondence on this topic. :)

Review from England

I was fortunate enough to take a 10-day trip to England two weeks ago. I had made study appointments at Platt Hall/Gallery of Costume in Manchester, and the Museum of London. I had stopped working on my shift for a bit- I was secretly very nervous that after getting up close and personal with so many extant pieces that I would be doing is "wrong".

My trip was wonderful. I got amazing pictures, and everyone I worked with was very helpful and knowledgeable. And the trip confirmed a lot of what I was already suspecting, which of course makes me paranoid about confirmation bias. ;) Some details: every piece I looked at was of English provenance, late 16th to early 17th centuries. There were no reversible pieces- even pieces, such as forehead cloth 2003.65 from Platt Hall, which is blackwork and cutwork, was NOT reversible, even though it really looked like it could be. All of the collars were lined, so even if they are reversible, we can't tell.

To the best of my knowledge, there are no double-running reversible pieces currently existing of English provenance. Which, if one thinks about it, just makes sense. Why would people be making reversible pieces, if no one is ever going to see the back?

"But Amy", I hear you asking, "Portraits of Jane Seymour and Catherine Howard by Hans Holbein show geometric ruffles on the ends of her sleeves; surely they would be reversible, because one could see the other side?" And yes, those paintings exist. And looking at them, it's hard to say for certainty if those are actually reversible- they look like they could be. There's few extant English pieces with wrist ruffles- I'd love to examine boy's shirt T.112-1972 at the V&A- it does have embroidered wrist ruffles, although I haven't seen the undersides. Smock T.113 to 118-1997 does seem to have both sides of the ruffle the same- however, since there's use of detached buttonhole on both sides, does that actually count as "reversible embroidery" the way we suggest? What does "reversible" actually mean in embroidery? Does a neat underside count? Or do both sides have to be absolutely identical, with one the clear, precise, reverse of the other?

So my current thinking is that I could produce an shirt for use with a 1540s ensemble with an embroidered collar and embroidered reversible ruffles, and I may be able to defend that. I would be a little weak on evidence, having only a few pieces, and most of those paintings, to defend it. If I produce the same thing and wear it with a 1580s ensemble, then I'm getting WAY off track- by this time, English monochrome embroidery is very much evolving away from the earlier styles.

As always, my object is always to challenge preconceived ideas of thinking. Look for yourself, and draw your own evidence-based conclusions. Come see me at Pennsic, and argue with me about what you found. I'll happily incorporate new pieces into my own schema, provided they are a. English provenance, and b. dated 1500-1625. Have fun!

Constructs and Blackwork

So I’ve been thinking about “blackwork” a lot. This has been influenced by my research for an Expert panel for Athena’s Thimble, but also by some recent discussions on facebook. I repeated my assertion that counted reversible blackwork is really not the norm for 16th century English monochrome embroidery, and definitely ruffled some feathers. And I understand why- as a constructivist, I understand that knowledge is based on constructs, and it’s upsetting when constructs are challenged.

In brief, a construct is a belief that is built and developed over time. As adults, our constructs tend to be very firmly built and solid- children have slightly more fluid constructs especially during the 0-5 years. Constructs include an emotional component, and people react violently in some cases when a construct is challenged. This is why you can teach a child that a cat is not a dog, even though both are furry and have four legs, but try to convince an adult that “blackwork in England is mostly not counted or reversible” and you will have a fight on your hands. And I understand. My very first pieces of blackwork were a charted counted reversible cuffs and collar. It was only when I really began LOOKING at what was there that I began to think maybe I wasn’t seeing the whole picture. And that took years of looking.

People respond with exceptions, citing the portrait of Jane Seymour with geometric counted cuffs. Which is a valid example. However, where do we draw the line? If we can say, well, rough 70% of the paintings during this given time and this given place, and 85% of the extant items show these characteristics, then, to me, those would indicate something “true” about embroidery in that specific time and space. And I think we need to recognize that time and space are CRUCIAL- just because we have examples of a low-neck gathered camisa in Italy in the 16th century doesn’t mean that English smocks in the 16th century were made in the same way. Embroidery, likewise, is not necessarily universal in style and technique. We can say with some certainty: This is most common of the pieces and paintings we have. There are always exceptions, and those rare anomalous examples. We have an incomplete record, so we may have to change our constructs in the face of new evidence. If someone unearths a treasure trove of counted reversible cuffs and collars, I will rework my hypotheses. But we have to make our assertions based on the evidence at hand- not we “want” to be true. And this means understanding ‘the common’.

If I’m judging A& or taking a class then I’m looking for an understanding of what we can prove are the dominating trends and characteristics, and NOT someone cherry-picking examples and pieces- that, to me, shows a lack of understanding about the art form as a whole, for a given time and space. But this also assumes everyone thinks like me- I strive to be a historian first, and an artisan second. As a historian, I have rules and confines which govern me- the historical record that exists is my teacher. I must make my decisions based on the reality of that record.

So that happened.

On Saturday, at Mudthaw, Their Majesties of the East, Edward and Thyra, offered me elevation to the Order of the Laurel. After much contemplation and counsel, I accepted. So I am now technically Mistress Amy Webbe, of the East. :) Here's a pic...I'll post more as I get them.

Projecte Update

Here as a progress shot of the blackwork shift- one and a half sleeves finished. I really love the look of the "free" blackwork. Which leads me to my next thought: I'm finding very, very few actual examples of counted English blackwork. We absolutely have counted monochrome embroidery from other parts of the world; however, if we work with the definition that blackwork is "16th century English monochrome embroidery", then, by it's very provenance, extant pieces of 16th century Italian monochrome cannot be examples of blackwork. More on this to come.