You can't make a silk purse out of a pig's ear...

I was thinking about the phrase ''You can't make a silk purse out of a pig's ear", as that's what I do want to do (not literally) and found this posting on http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/26/messages/1199.html. So it seems some scientists did take the saying literally:

Posted by R. Berg on December 13, 2003

In Reply to: Re: Pig's ear posted by Ward on December 13, 2003

: : The phrase finder says that pig's ear means beer (a cockney rhyming slang). But, I have heard of making a pig's ear of something, meaning to make a bad job of something. Where does this come from?

:
: ::: The expression I'm used to is "you can't make a silk purse out of a pigs ear" -- suggesting that some improvement projects of different kinds are doomed to failure. I've heard it used when someone has introduced a new friend and a critic points to a chequred past on the part of that individual and essentially says --- 'the cat doesn't change his spots'.
: Some years ago, a group of scientists who had more money than brains set out to convert the proteins and chemicals in a sows ear into a silky purse. They spent a great deal and were educated to the truth of this expression.

I heard that the scientists DID produce a silk purse from a sow's ear.'

So why the name?

I make and sell necklaces from eco-felt (made from recycled plastic bottles) on etsy.



A lovely girl who bought one of the necklaces to wear at a Christmas party sent me this message:

'Hi there the party was a success and my necklace made a great conversation topic. Good way to show that in proper hands recycled bottles can be more beautiful than diamonds.

Keep up the good job and have a very Merry Christmas!
Rita'

This got me thinking and I decided that my intention should always be to see if I really can make something more beautiful than diamonds from recycled materials. My reasoning being that no-one would ever throw out a diamond, so this could be a way to cut down consumption of clothing.

In-authentic

So, if Amish quilts are authentic what does that mean? How can you tell? And what is in-authentic? Is it always bad? Here are a few more sketchbook pages...

The text here reads:

'Amish quilt. Very similar colours and pattern to drawing of faceted glass beads [below]. But, beads could be thought of as in-authentic and tacky - mass produced rather than carefully hand-crafted. How do these different elements of textiles fit together?'

Above is a quote from Vogue (Jan 2011, 'Princess of Cool', p.122)

'... They are [Sophia Coppola's films] dialogues between the superficial and the authentic, both of which can be beautiful, and between situations and feelings.' (My emphasis)

I'm interested in this; they way the in-authentic or tacky can also be beautiful and enduring - the difference between diamonds and sequins.

Initial Amish Research

I thought it would be interesting to look at the products from cultures that reject decoration as it's the complete opposite of embroidery, which can seem frivolous and unnecessary. I wanted to know how I can make embroidery important and hold long-lasting value. These are the next few pages from my sketchbook - still lots of spider diagrams, trying to figure out what I'm doing, so not very pretty to look at...

I read 'Sunshine and Shadow' by Phylis Haders, (1976), which was easy to read and a good basic introduction to Amish quilts.

Some of the notes I made are:

Hader states:

'Amish quilts are now recognized as being unique. Those made prior to 1940 were conceived through the upmost simplification of design elements, simplified to the point of abstraction. Materials were chosen from fabrics and colors acceptable within a community which religiously shunned the outside world. From this narrow disciplined background emerged a distinct and rare color sense.' p.7

PH explains that the designs (she says stars and diamonds) are almost always surrounded by a square, a fence. She describes this as a frame to put the shapes within an ordered system. It reminds me of Stuart Walker's method of using white squares to put his reclaimed and modified objects in to give them a context.

'This activity [quilting] has afforded women creative and social outlets denied in other areas of domestic life. Why was it allowed? Probably because the quilt has been viewed as a utilitarian object. The making of quilts is a natural extension of other matronly duties performed by a wife and daughters such as the making of clothing.' p.17

'Why are such bright colours chosen for use in quilts? Without indulging in pop psychology, it seems reasonable to suggest that quiltmaking itself is an escape from the monotony of rural life, the humdrum tasks of raising a large family.' p.18

'Many quilts are now being made to sell. The outward form remains, but the inner spirit is changing, and few will ask why.' p.24

Is this always a problem? Is it common in other communities where traditional crafts start to be collected because they are beautiful and then they get made to sell and become less beautiful? What changes? Is it the care? Should you always make something as though it's for your family? Design a dress to hand down to your grand daughter?

When trying to decipher the meaning of a quilting design, Haders states:

‘Everything treated by the Amish has more than a mundane meaning, but little is made explicit.’ p.70

So, here is a list of what I think makes Amish quilts eternally desirable:

Unique
Authentic
Personal/individual
Handmade
Skilful
Time intensive
Colour sense
Spiritual
Considered
Joyful
Evocative
Functional
Non-explicit
Non-fashion

It seems the actual making of the quilt was also enjoyable - it was personal, creative and also social, meeting the higher level needs in Maslow's  hierarchy of needs. This is something I should consider carefully. As is the fact the physical qualities of the quilt are not necessarily what I need to embed in my work - it's the meaning is more important, although it does need to be conveyed visually.
 -         links to emotionally durable design book a bit – layers of meaning and mystery plus spiritual – more than just utility (even though that’s what’s it’s classed as – reason for making.) Is it only spiritual to ‘outsiders’? Haders relates how the Amish ladies she met very often didn't understand why she was more interested in the old quilts than any quilts they were currently working on. Haders' objection seems to be that these new quilts were made from kits and therefore not unique, any attempt to copy an old quilt would not be authentic. Also the new colours aren't as vivid and the materials have changed from natural to synthetic. So, Haders' love of Amish quilts seems to stem from the individuality of the maker. Later she makes a distinction between 'expertly' worked stitches (new) and 'finely' worked stitches (old) p.21, maybe perfect and professional isn't enough, maybe consideration and love is needed?
  

Getting started

Here are the first few pages from my sketchbook, where I am just working out ideas:

The beginning...

I’m starting my project (and this blog!) from the position that most of us in the Western world are over-consumers of clothes (and lots of other things too). We want cheap and fast fashion, and this puts pressure on the environment with dangerous levels of pollution and excess waste, pressure or workers to stitch faster and longer for low wages, and pressure on us to look fashionable. We have more clothes than ever before and yet we aren’t any happier. Surely something is wrong?!

As an embroidery designer I feel like we need to reclaim embroidery as embellishment, meaning to improve something, rather then embellishment as cheap plastic sequins that quickly fade and have no lasting value.

So, I decided to look at cultures that deny themselves decoration to see what I could learn in an attempt to create textiles that have longevity, with the belief that if you are happier with a product for longer you are less likely to buy other things. I’m not saying that denial is a good or sustainable way of cutting down consumption – but hope it will give me a starting point. As Kate Fletcher writes in Designers, Visionaries and Other Stories (ed. Jonathon Chapman and Nick Gant, 2002):

‘A new vision for sustainable fashion has to be more than a minimal consumption drive, something more attractive not because we are flippant or fashion junkies but because of the significance of fashion to human culture.’ pgs 121-122.

I’m interested in the conflict between denial and excess, utility and decoration, function and beauty.