| sprice@hsc.vcu.edu
Dear People, Daniel speaks of structure-limited designs in his Salon, and
it occurs to me that there are probably some readers who don't know what
this means. So, at the risk of sounding pedantic, I'll be pedantic. The
simplest textile structure is a plainweave; warps running the length of
the textile, wefts running the width, with wefts weaving between the
warps. If wefts are heavy and packed down tightly the warp will be hidden
and we will see only weft. That's a weft-faced plainweave, and the only
kind of design that can be woven into it is horizontal stripes. If wefts
are thin and packed loosely we will see only the warp. That's a warp-faced
plainweave, and the only kind of design that can be woven into it is
vertical stripes. If wefts are of about the same thicknes as warps and
packed about as densely as the warps, we will see both warps and wefts.
That's a balanced plainweave, and the weaver can make horizontal stripes,
vertical stripes, and, since those can intersect, checks and plaids. All
of these designs are structure-limited. Let's go a step further, and make
a weft-faced textile in which the individual wefts don't each go across
the full width, but go partway across and another weft of another color
enters the width at the warp after the last one the first weft covered.
This is a form of tapestry. Obviously, the weaver can now make patterns
more complicated than simple horizontal stripes. But suppose she tries to
make vertical stripes. The adjacent warps where the color changes are not
connected to each other, so if she makes the vertical stripes run for more
than a very short distance the fabric will have large slits and will be
unstable. That's why this is called slit tapestry. The way to make it
stable and still have some interesting designs and motifs is to use lots
of diagonal color changes. That way, the unconnected parts of adjacent
warps are very short, and the textile is stable. This is a reasonable
explanation (first proposed, to the best of my knowledge, by Marla
Mallett) for the very widespread occurrence of diagonals and motifs like
latchhooks on slit kilims. The design was structure-limited or, if you
prefer, structure-dictated. Since tapestry weaving almost certainly
predated pile weaving, designs dictated by structure of tapestry were
probably carried over into pile textiles, even though the structural
limitations don't exist in pile. There are alternative explanations for
the occurrence of these designs in pile rugs (latchhooks can be
interpreted as animal heads, for example), and the two explanations are
not mutually exclusive. I hope this is helpful to some of our readers.
Pedantically, Steve Price |
The first row (A-H) shows how diagonals look with a balanced
knot count--the same number of knots horizontally and vertically. In D, E,
and F the knots are offset in successive rows--tied on alternate warp
pairs. The second row in the drawing shows a weave with twice as many
knots vertically as horizontally, as in many Turkmen rugs and bags. Here
the possibilities increase, as it is more practical for vertical steps to
utilize several knots. In L, M, and N the knots are offset. Of course when
any of these diagonals are thickened horizontally, the line appears to be
smoother, as in Q or R. This optical effect occurs when the diagonal is at
the edge of a solid area too. The diagonal in Z is formed in exactly the
same way as that in A. Intermediate angles can be drawn by alternating
steps of different sizes as in S, where the steps are made alternately
with two and three knots vertically. A more shallow angle would result if
the steps were alternately made with one and two knots vertically. In T
I've shown another way: steps alternate in width--alternately one and two
knots wide. Still another option: the angle can be changed by offsetting
successive groups of knots in various ways, as in V, where three-knot
groups are offset by half a knot. These last methods have been used only
occasionally on the rugs we encounter, and usually then to articulate
unusual motifs. Recently I saw a Tekke mafrash with this kind of detail
used for the tails of small animals. -------- On your broader topic, John:
The general design transfer principles that I've lectured on ad nauseum
and that Jon Thompson has dubbed "Marla's Laws 1 and 2" are: 1. Design
influence flows most often from restrictive techniques to freer
techniques. (Knotted pile, soumak and embroidery allow the most freedom.
They are the most eclectic; they can copy almost anything. Among the most
common restrictive techniques are brocading, the warp-pattern weaves, and
slit tapestry. Part of the restrictions lie in the processes themselves;
others are due to structural limitations.) 2. Designs are the most stable
in those techniques that are the most restrictive; conversely, they are
the most likely to change and evolve in the freer techniques. (To find the
archetypal forms of a great many designs we must study brocade,
slit-tapestry and warp-pattern design material. Motifs in these have
frequently been copied by pile and soumak weavers, then altered, to suit
the weavers' fancy.) Marla
I see at least 3
diagonal angles to the right as well as counterparts for each to the left.
Strictly speaking, that makes at least 6 angles although the mechanics of
making the right and left versions of the same angle are identical. Steve
Price