The wonderful and the ugly
Originally published at String Notes. You can comment here or there.
The intersection between fiber arts and science (don’t forget the hovertext):
Also interesting: new research on the Bayeux Tapestry. I’d like to read the original, as I’m not certain how deciding that the work was made by professional embroiderers means that it wasn’t made by nuns, or at several locations.
[Doh! Added the link.] But here’s the ugly: a Telegraph article on that same research, offering up such gems as, “The tapestry is also revealed to be an embroidery, with the two require differing techniques,” and “technically an embroidery as it was woven.” Dude. If you’re getting paid to write about textiles, at least DO A LITTLE BIT OF RESEARCH.
Edit: The original document is Alex Makin’s PhD thesis for the University of Manchester, “Embroidery and its context in the British Isles during the early medieval period (AD 450 to 1100).” Which sounds wonderful, and worth reading. I hope it will be published.
I meant the article you linked to " new research on the Bayeux Tapestry". I found that author's attitude a bit condescending.
Edited at 2012-11-16 06:37 pm (UTC)
I didn't *think* I'd said anything problematic, except about the Telegraph "journalist." And yeah, even the better of the two articles was a bit odd.
Little formal training? I am not sure what training embroiderers get today, but it seems like this is highly dependant on how you define formal. Also, what sort of fancy equipment is used today in place of shears?
Shears work fine, although scissors had already been invented, and predate the medieval period by quite a bit. Embroiderers don't need a whole lot of advanced technology: needles are rather old, after all, as is thread. Fabric, even.
But I don't want to trash the original research until I've read it. I can safely say the Telegraph article is atrocious, but can't assess the report itself. Yet.