Glimpses

 

After several months of working on the manuscript, it is beginning to pull together and I am finally beginning to see glimpses of what it will look like - soon.

Last night my editor sent the edited version of one of the essays I was having trouble polishing myself (that's what editors are for, amirite?) and I got a glimpse of how my words are going to look in book form.

COMPLEX MACHINES

Just because one weaving machine or handloom is more complex than another doesn’t mean it isn’t still a handloom.

A machine is just a tool with lots of mechanical assistance, which means less labour for the operator.

When I ordered the AVL Production Dobby Loom in 1981, I excitedly told my weaving friends, expecting them to be as excited as I was. Or, if not excited, to at least understand why I felt such a loom was necessary for me. After all, from day one, I had made my intention to earn an income from weaving and selling my textiles clear.  It only made sense to me that I weave with the maximum amount of efficiency.

The reception to my ‘news’ was cool, to say the least.  Fly shuttle?  Dobby??  Auto-cloth advance???

Several of them flat out told me I could no longer call my textiles hand woven.  I was crushed, but I’d already decided that such a piece of equipment was the correct one for me, and I stoutly maintained that I was every bit as much of a weaver as someone on a more ‘usual’ handloom.  I pointed out that I still had to design the cloth, wind the warp, thread, sley and tie it on.  Every single pick had to be laid in by my stepping on a treadle and throwing the shuttle.  I had to understand the weave structure completely because I had to peg the dobby bars and ‘program’ the design before I could weave.

None of these arguments swayed anyone’s opinion until I discovered that the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (of Canada) had an actual definition of hand weaving: each and every action of the loom must be initiated by the weaver.

The above is just a snippet of that particular essay.  

But as I read through my polished up prose, once again I felt the unease of impostor syndrome.  Do I really want to say these things?  Out loud?  In public, so to speak?  Who am I to hold such Opinions?

Once again I had to let the emotions flow through until they stopped and I was able to clear my head.  I wrote the essay for a number of reasons.  

One of the motivating forces of my life as a weaver was constantly trying to find my way.  Defining my goals.  Charting a path to get to them.  My life is not the same as others, and so I had to find my own path to meet my expectations and, yes, ambition(s).

When that meant choosing tools, I had to select the ones that would help me meet my goals.  To then be told I was not, could no longer be, part of the handweaving community, stung.

Recently I advised someone to do much the same thing - figure out what they wanted to accomplish then set their course so that they could follow through.  And to not be swayed by others who would disagree with their choices.

Right now the quandary seems to be if simple looms are 'real' looms or not.  Um, yes!  One type of loom is not 'better' or more 'real' than any other.

One of the discussions I had about whether or not my 16 shaft AVL with fly shuttle, cloth advance and compu-dobby was 'hand' enough for the 'hand' weaving community.  I pointed out that I have two looms.  A Leclerc Fanny 4 shaft counter balanced loom and the aforementioned AVL (now Megado).

Once the webs were cut off the looms and wet finished, there was nothing much to distinguish them from each other - given I have a pretty consistent beat, can manage decent selvedges on either loom.  And yes, I have been known to weave plain weave on the AVL and Megado.  More telling would be if the cloth was woven with a structure with more than 4 shafts required.  That would be a dead give away that it had been woven on the more complex loom.  OTOH, I have used a pick up stick to create a cloth that required far more than 16 shafts if it were to be done loom 'controlled'.  

Not a great photo - it was taken as a quick snapshot with my Blackberry at my brother's funeral service.  He designed the chart based on the photo of the steam locomotive (The Royal Hudson), I cleaned the chart up to make it weave-able, then wove it using pick up in a form of Beiderwand.

It is not the equipment you use, but what you do with it.

Rigid heddle looms are quite popular right now and are finding a home amongst weavers who are using them with creativity.  They are every bit as much a 'hand' loom as my Megado.  As are warp weighted looms, inkle or band looms, or even tablet weaving.

I think that we, as members of the human family, tend to want people to want what we want, do things the way we do them.  In reality we are much better suited to each finding our own pathway through life.  Diversity is better than conformity.  

Holding respect for everyone, no matter what loom they use, (or any other thing that could be used to divide us), is far better for humankind than trying to make us all into the same cookie using one cookie cutter.

So it was as a fairly new weaver that I began advocating for acceptance of any loom that would hold thread under tension so that it could be interlaced with another thread.  It didn't hurt that I'd seen a variety of complex cloths made on simple equipment to help me understand that it is the *weaver* not the equipment they use that is the important part of any woven cloth.

As I began teaching I wanted people to use 'my' methods, but I very quickly learned that not everyone could, sometimes not even the people who would have liked to use them.  Instead, I began urging them to find which processes, techniques and tools would be best for them.  I could explain the reasoning behind why I do what I do, but if they didn't have the physical capacity to do it that way, then fine tune the process to meet their requirements.

Inclusivity meant accepting ALL the ways thread can be woven, not just MY way.

In the end, the book of essays may offend some, but I hope it will shed some light, as well.  Acceptance is better than rejection.  Including different ways and means is better than shutting some things out of the community.  Respect is better than disrespect.  And ultimately?  Respect is a two way street.  Holding up one way as the One True Way isn't helpful (imho, of course!)

Will everyone agree with me in my very opinionated essays?  I doubt it.  But perhaps they might spark some discussion.  Shed a light on something that may have been puzzling.  Certainly just writing the essays has opened some things up for me.  Will these essays be my 'final' word?  I doubt it.  Recently I adjusted my thinking about something and have moderated my opinion.  I'm sure it will happen again.  Why?  Because I am not welded to my opinions but leave myself open to learning more, willing to admit that I have adjusted my thinking, am willing to change and learn.

Does this make me a better person than someone else?  No.  Of course not.  But if people want to take what I do as an example of one way to approach the craft, I'm ok with that.  Impostor Syndrome notwithstanding...