Sorry for the gulf in blogs.  I am recovering from jet lag that has hit me like a ton of bricks.  My husband is into adventure travel and we are recovering from his latest adventure.  When someone at his work heard about us taking our 5-year old hiking down into an active volcano at 10,000 feet half-way around the world last week he remarked:  “I don’t even take my kids to the mall!”.  This latest adventure left me too tried at night to add a few extra blogs for our flights home.  But I will get back into the grove.  I calculated how much I have been on travel this year so far – getting close to eight weeks!  Will have at least five more before it is done – so there may be a few short breaks to come again.

I wanted to point out an article I read in The Journal of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation (Spring 2010 issue).  It is by Jay Gaynor, Colonial Williamsburg’s director of Historic Trades.  The article, entitled “Why Do We Cast Cannons, Make Wooden Wheels, and Build Coffeehouses?” is available online so you can read it too.  Mr. Gaynor’s article is a wonderful discussion detailing the value of making reproduction objects.  I especially like his discussion of the different production value systems – today and period.  He talks about how difficult it is to get out of our own head when thinking about producing an object (such as why use silver thread that tarnishes?) and get into their mental model.  He points out that what looks like an irrational decision to us today, is almost always rational when compared to their world – or that it just wasn’t important at all.

We came upon these issues over and over.  I am so glad to have worked the Plimoth Jacket as it forever changed how I look at historic embroidery.  I no longer look at it from the perspective of its current value on the antique market and what has been written, but try to clear my head and look more objectively and think about the context of production at the time.  Things I have never ’seen’ in objects are now popping up regularly.  This leads to unusual theories – one I am mulling over at the moment is how many spot samplers may have had their goldwork taught in a short 1-2 day session, the silk motifs being left more to the student’s down time to add and collect as patterns.  I won’t elaborate on this, but the clues are all there.

Interestingly, these thought processes either intrigue curators I meet (most) or bring us into conflict.  Some I have talked to have a very hard time divorcing themselves from the “object as art” thought process and realizing that in their time, many of these objects were just fancy versions of common everyday consumer items.  Much like the newest IPhone and not produced to be a Rembrandt.  One person I worked with this year couldn’t get their head around the idea that the embroiderer most likely did not build elaborate messages into the nightcap by the choice of flowers but was just following a pattern related to our jacket.  The pattern may have been published as a broadside – being reproduced on anything that could accommodate the scale.  No meanings – just pretty and available to draft onto linen without any thought.  Not romantic, just practical.

When you read the article on the Williamsburg site, enjoy the slide show and the side bar material (tons of it).  Lots of great ‘maker’ eye candy there.

Tricia