At the Hem.

The first class of reading cloth met most of the expectations I had. It went from one topic to the next, quickly and indefinitely as we explored things that had long been forgotten and unnoticed. Our history knowledge was very obviously quite rusty but after the rocky beginning we started to recall more and more, getting more engaged with every question unanswered.

As the class progressed and we talked about traditions and various incidents in history I began to realize how much of a change this could have had on Cloth. Cloth isn't isolated. We inherit skills and traditions and add things as well.

I watched the video about Yinka Shonibare and I was taken aback by his work.

It’s interesting to see that he looked into his heritage as well and made such elaborate installations that instill a sense of confusion compelling us to question the difference of our cultures. When placed against and within each other, the cultural differences are stark yet seem to blend at the same time. I liked his piece on Mr and Mrs Andrews and the conference one, holding much more than what was seen at the surface. He tests our confidence in how influenced our cultures are. 

Are they only influenced by our people? Could African art have had such an influence? Why are some motifs and prints produced in countries outside their origin? Like the paisley did it start somewhere else and get propagated, accepted as their own? 

Fabric has a physical structure. Geometry. Repetition. Symmetry. Fabric in the beginning was draped as are seen in the olden days as togas and saris.

Ornament and Crime first had me confused because I read it in such a way that I thought the author was amused about how the society had perceived and judged to the extent of making norms, a satirical observation of society. Then I came to the realization that the author, an influential architect, was setting down a sort of set of rules that need to be followed in order to be "modern". This absolutely condemned ornamentation of any kind which was any sort of accessory or excess. objects with ornamentation were considered rubbish. All the ages that past had ornamentation but the modern age was "advanced" and hence would not have any ornamentation. Simplicity was to be attained. Plain. Ordinary. To put salt on the wounds he further accused countries that allowed the exorbitant use of colour and print were not modern, but criminal and degenerate. He further claimed that ornamentation would decrease working hours and increase wages. But what about the skills and traditions lost? All the ornate objects that had intricate work that took hours to do and skilled hands to make? This would cause the loss of so many artisans that had to succumb to change to feed the mouths in their families.
The next film we watched was quite amusing. It was about the Perfect Human and how he/she should walk, fall, jump and so on. They were plainly clad and very stoic. How to do this. How to do that. A danish film made in 1967, really well done.

Cloth can be viewed as a medium of understanding social status as well and it's not limited to just the type of cloth but the way it has been produced and cut and printed, embellished. Different places have different standards. What may be considered high class clothing in one place maybe be condemned somewhere else. This raises the question that if we all wore the same clothing, like a uniform, would the judgmental nature of people stop or even reduce? I don't think so.


I visited a silk weaving colony in Yelahanka Old town last year and I got to see the silk loom and how it worked.




I was ignorant then but I saw the punched cards that were introduced by Jacquard in 1801 and are so popular today. It was a real achievement at the time allowing lesser skilled artisans to produce beautiful designs, reducing time and hard work. 

It automatically controlled and arranged the warp and weft thread in complex designs through recorded patterns of holes in cards.

 The discarded and broken punch cards.








Arts and Crafts movement was an international movement that started in England led by William Morris, an artist and writer. He was under the impression there were enough of images. He encouraged creativity in architecture, textiles. Bringing back dying out crafts in a different way and held handmade craftsmanship in the highest respect. He wanted all the furnishings to be available to all classes of society however handmade items were expensive and hence the two things he wanted couldn't seem to go hand in hand.

He concentrated on wallpaper designs and here his creativity really came forward, perfecting ranges of textiles reproductions of early 19th century prints.
The depth of the mystery of cloth is inconceivable but I hope I get myself off to a commendable start with this course.