Comments on: more Mountmellick and silk

By: yvette

yvette — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 03:23:28 +0000

Hi Shirley, thanks for your comment. I’m glad you are enjoying the blog!

Thanks for letting me know about Donna’s reply to my comment on Mary’s post. Something weird is happening there… Yes, I had already found it, and replied. I have been checking to see if my comment has been approved. Sometimes it says that there are 7 comments (the last of which is Donna’s to me) and at other times it says that there are 8. But when you go into the comments, only 7 show up.

So I thought that I would reply again, but when I went to post a new comment, there was my first one (comment number 8), sitting there, available for me to read. I don’t know if it is just happening to me, or whether others can see my reply, but from your comment, it sounds like you can’t. Maybe I’ll reply again, just to make sure.

But thanks for re-alerting me to it!

By: Shirley Crockett

Shirley Crockett — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 23:25:06 +0000

Yvette,

I am so enjoying your “new” blog. Love hearing about your adventures in Africa, and of course, I have always loved your needlework posts.

Just wondered if you had revisited Mary Corbet’s blog since you posted about the Mountmellick and silk? I wanted to make sure you knew that Donna Cardwell left a lovely comment, and also had a question for you.

Shirley

By: yvette

yvette — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:48:56 +0000

Yes, I think I know what you mean: that times and circumstances change, and that sometimes embroidery changes because of those things? Is that sort of what you were saying?

That does happen, and yes, there are historical examples (in museums) where “ladies” stitched their Mountmellick embroidery on linen, rather than the traditional cotton satin jean, simply because they could afford to buy/use linen.

But that doesn’t change the fact that the traditional way is to use cotton satin jean.

By: méri

méri — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:37:37 +0000

Of course, Yvette!
But what I tried to say it is that when an author like you write about something has to go further and write about the deflections and its reasons too, because they belong already to history of something. The readers must be alerted for the deflections.
I don’t know (unhappily) your book about Mountmellick embroidery so I don’t know if you’ve made some reference to those deflections – I can wonder (but can be wrong) that beeing this embroidery made in cotton at a special time and (new-rich)society it could seem too poor – see what I mean? – and of course the manufacturers take profit – whatever age it may be
I like to understand these kind of things. Can you understand what I mean in such a bad English??? Sorry this long comment…

By: yvette

yvette — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:08:39 +0000

Oh Meri!! A woman after my own heart! I completely agree, and that is why I have tried, as much as possible, to present the embroideries in their most historically correct forms. If people don’t learn the correct way to work these historical embroideries, then how will they ever be passed on? Every time the style is diluted, it becomes less of what it really is. If people start believing that Mountmellick embroidery can be worked in silk, or with colour, what makes it Mountmellick embroidery anymore?

By: méri

méri — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:12:57 +0000

I’ve found that on-line book a while ago and I thought of you when I read about Mountmellick embroidery – I remember that Ifound most strange was the colors – after reading your articles I was sure that was a whitework – and I was right, of course!
I think some of these books can induce historical mistakes, if we don’t go deeper in research, but we have to read them in order to highlight some historical aberrations (don’t know if it is the right word…)isn’t it?