Quilting, and communication
May. 5th, 2010 04:33 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
urocyonQuilts and beadwork are interesting to look at, and I still find it amazing the kind of results a person can get with some old fabric or some little beads and imagination. It almost strikes me as magical. But, then, a lot of art does.
Another thing that fascinates me about quilting and some other "decorative" artforms (beadwork, embroidery, sometimes crochet, etc.)? Its use as symbolic language.
For that matter, I'm interested in learning more about wampum, which is more generally recognized as symbolic writing. One semi-interesting article: Wampum as Hypertext: "reading and listening to the wampum requires an understanding of the layered messages embodied by the wampum". I don't think of it quite the way that author does, but even a simple motif can carry an awful lot of information, on multiple levels--and wampum belts only use two colors in a fairly linear format. The "decorative" stuff uses more colors and combines motifs into larger design units, with further combinations of those design units in larger works. Quilting apparently got used in the Underground Railroad; nobody paid much attention to pretty patterns women made with fabric!
To quote from Dubin book (p. 62)*:
The problem with this can be, as illustrated by some of the wampum examples, that these are very high context forms of communication. If you don't know the possible meanings of symbols and how they can interact, and you don't understand the cultural framework which makes full interpretation possible, they're just pretty designs. (Or literal canoes and ships, as Ohnkwe Ohnwe points out.) There's nothing wrong with pretty designs, per se, but that can sort of limit comprehension of what an artist is trying to do, among a wider audience. You have to start thinking even more about multiple levels of access and meaning, unless the piece is very personal (like a memorial quilt) and/or aimed at a clueful audience.
Of course, sometimes it is really "just" a pretty design. *g*
This, BTW, is one of the reasons I get irritated at some of the ludicrous attempts (Susan Powers comes to mind, though she was trying hard) at interpreting other people's art, including artifacts: especially when art historians from the dominant culture get involved, people frequently just don't understand what they are looking at. Without being aware that they don't understand. Things get oversimplified and misinterpreted in a wrong-headed way, particularly when the "experts" don't bother to talk to people who are still working with the same motifs. I find it very disrespectful, even when these interpretations don't shore up some existing misconceptions and disinformation about the cultures in question.
I don't know nearly as much as I could about all the symbolism involved, but I can at least come up with respectful interpretations of Hopewell/Adena period works that make some sense. But, then, I don't have degrees in anthropology or art history, just experience with their descendents' similar use of motifs.
One thing I ran across which struck me as hilarious was this kids' dress from Baby Gap/Gap Kids. It does look like the design was ripped straight off a Plains-style star quilt. (That post gives some interesting background on them, though the "brought by missionaries" bit is more relevant to that region.) Somewhat ironically, it reminded me of Dolly Parton's "Coat of Many Colors". From necessity and ridicule to The Gap! *shakes head*
* Lighly edited from the last post. ;) Lois Sherr Dubin's North American Indian Jewelry and Adornment (the 2003 concise edition I've got), which also repeatedly touches upon adornment as "an important level of...communication, conveying many levels of information". There's a lot of gorgeous work in there. The author does a pretty good job of respectfully describing some cultural contexts, with lots of quotes from artists.
Another thing that fascinates me about quilting and some other "decorative" artforms (beadwork, embroidery, sometimes crochet, etc.)? Its use as symbolic language.
For that matter, I'm interested in learning more about wampum, which is more generally recognized as symbolic writing. One semi-interesting article: Wampum as Hypertext: "reading and listening to the wampum requires an understanding of the layered messages embodied by the wampum". I don't think of it quite the way that author does, but even a simple motif can carry an awful lot of information, on multiple levels--and wampum belts only use two colors in a fairly linear format. The "decorative" stuff uses more colors and combines motifs into larger design units, with further combinations of those design units in larger works. Quilting apparently got used in the Underground Railroad; nobody paid much attention to pretty patterns women made with fabric!
To quote from Dubin book (p. 62)*:
An elder of the Eastern Band of the Chrokee relates that after contact, beadwork enabled cultural survival: "It was a visual language that kept beliefs alive." Attempting to suppress Native culture, colonist destroyed the Cherokee's wampum belts--the repositories of their sacred and historical knowledge. Cherokee teachings continued, however, though presented in acceptable Western forms. "When we worked with flowers, we made the missionaries happy. But hidden in the flowers, as well as other images, the beliefs were kept alive. In the flowers were messages and telegrams...One bead color touching another meant something...The spiritual teachings still circulated."
The problem with this can be, as illustrated by some of the wampum examples, that these are very high context forms of communication. If you don't know the possible meanings of symbols and how they can interact, and you don't understand the cultural framework which makes full interpretation possible, they're just pretty designs. (Or literal canoes and ships, as Ohnkwe Ohnwe points out.) There's nothing wrong with pretty designs, per se, but that can sort of limit comprehension of what an artist is trying to do, among a wider audience. You have to start thinking even more about multiple levels of access and meaning, unless the piece is very personal (like a memorial quilt) and/or aimed at a clueful audience.
Of course, sometimes it is really "just" a pretty design. *g*
This, BTW, is one of the reasons I get irritated at some of the ludicrous attempts (Susan Powers comes to mind, though she was trying hard) at interpreting other people's art, including artifacts: especially when art historians from the dominant culture get involved, people frequently just don't understand what they are looking at. Without being aware that they don't understand. Things get oversimplified and misinterpreted in a wrong-headed way, particularly when the "experts" don't bother to talk to people who are still working with the same motifs. I find it very disrespectful, even when these interpretations don't shore up some existing misconceptions and disinformation about the cultures in question.
I don't know nearly as much as I could about all the symbolism involved, but I can at least come up with respectful interpretations of Hopewell/Adena period works that make some sense. But, then, I don't have degrees in anthropology or art history, just experience with their descendents' similar use of motifs.
One thing I ran across which struck me as hilarious was this kids' dress from Baby Gap/Gap Kids. It does look like the design was ripped straight off a Plains-style star quilt. (That post gives some interesting background on them, though the "brought by missionaries" bit is more relevant to that region.) Somewhat ironically, it reminded me of Dolly Parton's "Coat of Many Colors". From necessity and ridicule to The Gap! *shakes head*
* Lighly edited from the last post. ;) Lois Sherr Dubin's North American Indian Jewelry and Adornment (the 2003 concise edition I've got), which also repeatedly touches upon adornment as "an important level of...communication, conveying many levels of information". There's a lot of gorgeous work in there. The author does a pretty good job of respectfully describing some cultural contexts, with lots of quotes from artists.
