A PERSPECTIVE ON EMBROIDERY: IN ANSWER TO EMERY

Dot From

Embroidery does not lack works of excellence - the magnificent Opus Anglicanum pieces (Dean, p. 12); the exquisite Chinese embroideries that were well developed before the art of painting (Chung, p. 5) and of course the unparalleled Peruvian stitcheries (Harcourt, p. 139) are only a few examples - but it does lack a simple language. Embroidery terminology comprises a conglomerate of words that has inspired many authors and countless revisions since the arts and crafts renaissance of the 1960's (Clabburn, p. 2253). Some ideas are valid while others such as Irene Emery's discussion of "accessory stitches" in her well known text, The Primary Structures of Fabrics, are questionable. Emery's general concept of embroidery and some of her technical judgements are the basis of this brief paper that points to an old truism: two wrongs don't make a right.

In their attempt to clarify the literature and pinpoint terminology common to all fibre art fields, textile experts like Emery have tended to be prolific writers but are not necessarily answering the problem. Well versed in textiles and thus the intricacies of weaving they tend to employ their own jargon which in some instances serves well: a buttonhole stitch in embroidery and a half hitch in macrame is readily explained as the simple loop, thereby helping to minimize the textile nomenclature in general.

However, such a system has its drawbacks. For instance weavers may ponder pulled as compared to drawn thread work but stitchers well understand the differences which are not made clear at all under the guise of "deflected element work" (Vandenburg, p. 3).

The thrust of Emery's discussion is embedded in her concept of embroidery which she defines as "accessory to fabrics" (Emery, xv). She explains that embroidery is "the least restricted of fabric constructions"; it neither has to yield to the perpendicular character - istics of warp and weft nor to a technique consistency found in looped and knotted structures, for instance (Emery, p. 234). In other words Emery does not see embroidery meshing with and re-organizing fibres that comprise the very fabrics being worked in embroidery, nor does

ARS TEXTRINA 6 (1986), pp. 195-210

she understand that respective stitches meant to achieve respective effects must adhere to an overall coherent technique and plan within their own structure (Christie, p. 2).

There are two basic reasons why the above statements may be argued, (1) The general notion that embellishment or, in this case, embroidery, specifically, alters the ground it is worked on, is readily confirmed by the basic understanding that where one order is imposed on another - surface stitchery or needlelace decorating fabric for example - then the original structure is modified (Gombrich, p. 65). (2) Some work such as counted thread stitching relies entirely on the grid of the fabric that is automatically changed and distorted as the work progresses (Howard, p. 72).

In considering these arguments it's interesting to note that Christine Thompson, a weaver and student at the University of Wisconsin, points out that fabric construction is most definitely altered by any embellishment the embroiderer attempts. She adds that it is for this very reason that she, as a weaver, has not become involved in embroidery: She does not want to alter the works of others (1).

The second reason for reviewing Emery's accessory concept of embroidery gives consideration to the counted thread families. Black work, pulled and drawn thread and canvas embroidery are well known examples. All techniques are based on warp and weft alignments. Fabric threads are counted to ensure the correct placement of stitch and the exactness of the latter, both in height and width. Depending on the technique stitchers may remove some warp and weft threads to add their own new ones or they may group fabric threads together in patterns with the working thread. At any rate turning plain, even weave fabric into lace is the ultimate objective of the stitcher (McNeill, p. 174; Gudjonsson, p. 133).

Surely then such involvement - whether surface stitchery that conforms to design and indirectly alters the symetrics of the weave (Gombrich, p. 75) or counted thread that directly changes the nature of the fabric - rates a better explanation than "accessory".

There is no doubt that Emery reduces the parameters of embroidery as she arbitrarily molds her discussion to fit the general fibre art spectrum. For example, she acknowledges only three ancestoral groups of stitches - flat, loop, and knot - as opposed to numerous other well known groups or families such as the chain which she simply

196

includes in loop (Christie, p. 7). In re-arranging these various groups she frequently name drops; some names no longer familiar are resurrected from the 19th and early 20th century literature and mixed with today's variations needing explicit definitions (Emery, p. 237). No such distinctions are offered.

Similarly, Emery's Note - meant to provide a quick clarification - often cites terms reflecting a broad usage not easily explained in these smaller set-apart spaces. One such section deals with surface (Emery, p. 244) and ironically Emery's analysis tends to offer a surface look at the meaning of surface as it relates to embroidery. Her discussion alludes to some concepts of this term, but, surface, as it is generally and most importantly understood, is not mentioned at all. To refer to surface stitchery is to refer to the broad category of needlework in which stitching into the fabric has no particular relation to the weave, in contrast to counted thread work, but follows the design on the surface of the fabric (Bath, p. 77).

Emery's Note on surface leaves the impression that vast amounts of work have been or may be executed using nothing but what she refers to as surface satin, in other words laid work without couching. Most authorities do not acknowledge surface satin. Authors who do - Bucher, Day, and Thomas - all emphasize the strong possibility of unsatisfactory results and that a better way to economize on threads is by working the laid and couching techniques (Thomas, p. 180).

There are numerous other oversights within Emery's discussion that might be termed inconsistencies in that they confuse rather than mini - mize the technical discrepancies that prompted her study in the first place. Only a few examples are mentioned due to the brevity of this paper.

(1) Notes on the Use of Terms may be ill-named in that this discussion is really confined to Emery's reiteration about embroidery being free "of any need for structural coherence". Emery extends this idea to the point that she surmises needlework to be a "homely activity... which can be raised almost to the rank of a fine art" if the stitcher employs sufficient skill and imagination.

Such an appraisal certainly appears to veer off the technical course of inquiry. In her Forward, Emery clearly states the reason for this research - "it was time for someone to attempt to correlate the widest possible range of fabrics and terms" (Emery, p. xii). To correlate

197

fabrics and terms is serf explanatory and does not pertain to any artistic assessment of either the product or its maker.

(2) A most distracting approach Emery frequently employs is to insinuate doubt by using the word "so-called" but never once clarify - ing her concern. Indicative of this excessive usage is page 245 where so-called appears at least eight times.

(3) Finally there is the section on styles - correctly known as media (vanWyk, p. 271 and Wilson, p. 351) - which deals with terms that serve double duty or are alike in some manner but do maintain clear meanings of reference when used with good intent. Unfortunately, Emery exploits these multi-purpose terms, failing to make any real point. For instance, the threesome, canvas, tapestry, and Berlin work, could quickly focus on an in-depth discussion of embroidery on canvas. This is because tapestry is correctly defined as a misnomer (Dyer, p. 7-8; Clabburn, p. 263) and Berlin work with its tremendous commercialism, bright yarns and poor design is given a low profile by most stitchers (Swain, 104-5; Bath, p. 204). Unfortunately, Emery does not discuss canvas or the obtrusive use of tapestry in any precise or knowledgeable manner and refers to Berlin work as being specialized.

Similarly, Emery plays havoc with both the crewel and cut work/drawn thread sections failing to make the basic distinctions. For sure, crewel yarn is a special two-ply yarn that has been used for 600 years and is most often worked in particular designs that do require specific techniques such as crewel stitch, otherwise known as stem (Clabburn, p. 71-2). The main difference between cut work and drawn thread is the following: in cut work, fabric, as opposed to specific warp and weft areas, is cut away to comply with surface design; (Anchor Manual, p. 63-4; Palliser, p. 19; Clabburn, p. 74-77) drawn thread work entails the removal of warp and weft in a very precise manner, that is by the counting of threads (vanWyk, p. 169; Palliser, p. 25). Both openwork methods are then embellished with such techniques as needlelace, needleweaving, picots, bars, and satin stitch.

In view of the above misunderstandings and omissions it is not surprising that Emery presents only a cursory look at the actual stitch structures. Both her discussions and illustrations lack interesting, precise information. A few examples of the mistreated structures are listed below:

198

Running Stitch: Emery is correct when she says running stitch is the simplest of stitches; she is also wrong to have omitted its most important characteristics - absolute exactness. Established patterns are set up by stitchers - beauty is in the regularity - which must be and can only be maintained by using a regular weave. For example surface darning features identical alternate rows not unlike brick laying while pattern darning comprised geometric designs that may be very complex - the Japanese call it Kogin - and requires a lot of planning time (Enthoven, p. 43-45).

Straight Stitch: Emery's discussion is far too involved for the very basic structures she presents. Indicative of the possibilities of this stitch is the design "free spirit" by fibre artist Flo Dutka who lives near Edmonton (2).

Back Stitch: Suffice it to say that Emery becomes more involved in the underside variety of stem stitching produced by the top side lineal back movement that little is revealed as to the actual capability of this stitch. However, under the pile section she does name Turkey Work (Emery, p. 245) but gives no indication that, in fact, the simple back stitch is the basic structure of this thick, plush-like texture. Here flat back stitches anchor back stitch loops that may be left as is or cut to varying degrees for special effects (Francini, p. 64; Wilson, p. 88).

Stem Stitch: Even though Emery has emphasized that stitchery does not conform to warp and weft elements, she likens the stem stitch to the weaver's Soumack techniques, pointing out "weft wrapping" charac - teristics. She also neglects to mention one very exciting variation that readily accommodates different threads, Portuguese Stem, which wraps around itself as the work progresses (Enthoven, p. 69).

Cross Stitch: Emery does not appear to comprehend the intricacies of counted thread and the need to use even weave fabric when working this technique. She first suggests "cross stitch seems to be independent of method, material or the arrangement of stitch units" only to back track in the next paragraph by suggesting that some stitch stipulations "are undoubtedly related to the use of canvas". She does not seem to realize that all variations including long armed structures are specific techniques based on a regular weave count (Christie, p. 81-2).

199

She does acknowledge variations of this technique but consistently complicates explanations dealing with long armed stitches. For instance, she laments about the inappropriate name of herringbone, hastening to recite six other names it may be called, all of which are really variations with specific differences. For example, shadow stitch denotes working of closed herringbone on the back side of a sheer fabric, which from the front then appears somewhat opaque except for the row of back stitches outlining the design, that are really the under - side of the herringbone (Bucher, p. 219, Clabburn, p. 237).

Detached: Many stitchers, without realizing, do work detached structures. Emery establishes a special category and then presents a very elementary example that is not really typical. This tree, which I designed and embroidered, illustrates two examples of detached work - the needlelace foliage and the raised chain in the trunk (3).

Composite: To categorize composite stitches is to clutter rather than clarify which is certainly apparent in Emery's discussion where, for instance, she is forced to reconsider the detached stitches discussed above. Emery also looks at the centuries-old Pekinese stitch that consists of back stitches interlaced with a second thread that moves ahead two back stitches and back one, creating tiny loops which, contrary to what Emery says, are not true buttonhole loops (Clabburn, p. 202; Christie, 67-8).

In summary, the main objection to Emery's account of embroidery is that it is filled with unnecesary tension. The tension is derived from a contradiction based on the idea that while embroidery techniques are different than weaving they can be explained, renamed and re- categorized according to the criteria established to accommodate weaving. In actual fact, embroidery comprises one family that relies heavily on a counted thread structure while another deals with surface design (4) with both adhering to an inherent organization whereby no stitch structures, not even the look alikes, fit the weaver's system (Vandenberg, p. 3; Harcourt, p. 129).

Seemingly trying to eliminate confusion and repitition, Emery by her own admission (Emery, p. 234) discusses only a few stitches and variations as compared to the many techniques available to stitchers. But, such a random selection is like judging the piano after hearing only the children's exercises (Dyer, p. 7). And imagine what the

200

Gothic traceries would have offered, had the craftsmen not played with variations (Gombrich, p. 82).

A major oversight that may be linked to Emery's idea of embroidery being free of any restrictions, is her inadequate discussion of counted thread structures based on even weaves. At any rate, Emery does not look at these stitch structures in relation to the regular weaves in which they are now intricately involved. In addition, Emery appears un - aware of the importance of the development of even weaves (Dyer, p.12) - linens to canvases - which has prompted tremendous diversification. One example is the auxiliary canvas that permits the stitching of traditional ethnic embroideries on any material. Somewhat deceiving to the unfamiliar, this lighter, even weave mesh is readily basted to the ground fabric and when the project is completed the canvas threads are removed (Ukrainian Women's Association of Canada, p. 23).

Finally, the study of embroidery, like any other research, is dependent on reliable, up-to-date sources and the ability of the researcher to separate fact from fantasy (Nodleman, p. 10-11). Emery does use some classic authorities such as Christie and Kendricks. Unfortun - ately, she also has consulted some rather questionable authors such as Lewis Day, a designer at the turn of the 20th century, who appears out of touch arguing that the stitcher should never become the designer (Day, p. 244-45); Marcus Huish, whose book fails to express either the inspiration or knowledge reflected in the 1901 Sampler Exhibition which is the summation of the publication; (Huish, p. 146, 151) and, even Verla Birrell whose scant outlines often border on half truths, be it crewel or cut work (p. 361-6). Certainly Emery has not successfully systematized embroidery but has managed to deface embroidery generally, which, in my opinion, now needs to be updated and corrected.

201

General Notes

(1) Christine Thompson is in an individualized program in related art in environment, textiles and design in the School of Family Resources and Consumer Science. She is also editor of "Liturgical Arts", published by The Ecumenical Liturgical Arts Guild that has space at the university. The above information was pointed out in a private conversation.

(2) Flo Dutka is a long-time stitcher, teacher, and recent graduate of a two-year design course at McEwen College, Edmonton. The stitchery shown in the photographs was bought by the J. P. Coats Company and will become part of their permanent collection after it returns from a touring exhibition in Germany.

(3) This is a 4 1/2 foot embroidered tree which I designed, embroidered, and installed .it St. Luke's Lutheran Church in Winnipeg.

(4) These embroidered motifs, following Mayan tradition which I researched and stitched, are indicative of some surface stitchery that must conform to very controlled surface techniques in order to maintain the design details.

202

References

Bath, Virginia Churchill; "Needlework in America", The Viking Press, New York, 1979.

Birrell, Verla; "The Textile Arts", Harper & Brothers, New York, 1959.

Bucher, Jo; "Embroidery Stitches and Crewel", published by Better Homes and Gardens, Des Moines, Iowa, U.S., 1971.

Christie, Mrs. Archibald; "Samplers and Stitches", B. T. Batsford Ltd., London, 1920.

Chung, Young, Yang; "The Art of Oriental Embroidery", Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1979.

Clabburn, Pamela; "The Needleworker's Dictionary", William Morrow & Co., Inc., New York, 1976.

J. and P. Coats Ltd.; "Anchor Manual of Needlework", B. T. Batsford Ltd., London, 1958.

D'Harcourt, Raoul; "Textiles of Ancient Peru and Their Techniques", University of Washington Press, Seattle, 1962.

Day, Lewis F.; "Art in Needlework", B. T. Batsford, London, 1908.

Dean, Beryl; "Embroidery in Religion and Ceremonial", B. T. Batsford Ltd., London, 1981.

Dyer, Anne and Valerie Duthoit; "Canvas Work from the Start", G. Bell & Sons, London, 1977.

Emery, Irene; "The Primary Structures of Fabrics", The Textile Museum, Washington, D. C., 1966.

Enthoven, Jacqueline; "The Stitches of Creative Embroidery", Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, 1964.

Gombrich, E. H.; "The Sense of Order", Cornell University Press, New York, 1979.

203

Gudjonsson, Elsa E.; "Icelandic Mediaeval Embroidery, etc.", in Studies in Textile History, ROM, Toronto, Ont., 1977, p. 133.

Howard, Constance; "Textile Crafts", Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1978.

Howard, Constance; "20th Century Embroidery in Great Britain to 1939", B.T. Batsford Ltd., London, 1981.

Huish, Marcus; "Samplers and Tapestry Embroideries", Dover Publications Inc., New York, 1970.

McNeill, Moyra; "Pulled Thread Embroidery", Taplinger Publishing Co., New York, 1972.

Nodelman, Perry; "How to Write an Essay", University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, 1970.

Palliser, Mrs. Bury; "History of Lace", Dover Publications Inc., New York, 1984.

Swain, Margaret; "Historical Needlework", Barrie and Jenkins, London, 1970.

Thomas, Mary; "Dictionary of Embroidery Stitches", Hodder & Stoughton Ltd., London, 1934.

Ukrainian Women's Assoc. of Canada; "Ukrainian Embroidery Designs and Stitches", Trident Press Ltd., Winnipeg, 1982.

Vandenberg, Lin; "Double Running Stitch", in Counted Thread, March, 1986, Counted Thread Society of America, Denver, Colorado, p. 3.

vanWyk, Hetsie; "Embroider Now", Perskor Publishers, Johannesburg, 1977.

Wilson, Erica; "Embroidery Book", Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1973.

49 Lethbridge Ave., Dartmouth, N.S., Canada B2X2W4

204

Photo 1. Four and one-half foot embroidered tree. Designed and embroidered by Dot From

205

o OS

Phot

o 2.

St

itche

ry b

y Fl

o D

utka

Phot

o 4.

E

mbr

oide

red

mot

if in

May

an tr

aditi

on.

Em

broi

dere

d by

Dot

Fro

m

Photo 5. Embroidered motif in Mayan tradition. Embroidered by Dot From

209

Photo 6. Embroidered motif in Mayan tradition. Embroidered by Dot From

210