Knit Me A Straightjacket

Name:
Location: Wild West, United States

Friday, April 07, 2006

Sock Designing


Here's some recent knitting - it's the May sock-of-the-month for Judy at theknitter.com. Designing socks for Judy is always interesting - she picks the yarn and the color, so you can't rely on being inspired by the materials. It's kind of a test - you take the yarn you're assigned, and the season it's for, and any guidance on things to avoid, like "no more lace for a while" or somesuch, and you come up with something.

It has to be pretty, it has to function well as a sock (i.e.: be stretchy and comfortable and adaptable for different sizes), it can't be too difficult or the beginners will complain, but it can't be too simple or the experts will complain (after all, people are paying good money for this pattern!)

So you come up with something, and you show it to your knitting group and Judy and they say, "Oh. We just did one like that last month."

Shit. Start over.

Finally come up with another pattern that meets all the criteria, then you have to write it up. Ideally, you have been making detailed notes all along, which merely need to be collated. Riiiiight. In reality, you now have to madly try to remember what the hell you did, and what those scribbles on that napkin mean, and which needles you ended up using after all, and, and, and...

So you write it up, you take a picture, PhotoShop it a little to pretty it up, and send the pattern to Judy to be test-knit. At least, that's what you're supposed to do. However, if you are me, you then test-knit it yourself (gotta make a second one anyway, right?) and completely re-write the pattern. Then you send it on to be tested. There are deadlines to be dealt with, as well.

The test knitter gives feedback, you make changes, the sock kit gets shipped to 350 strangers and you desperately hope that they like it and that no one complains, because that would be so embarassing and you'd feel terrible if Judy lost customers because of you, and besides you're afraid someone might find out you're really just a hack. *shudder* Did I say that out loud?

Anyway, the best part is when Judy delivers the pound of luscious silk yarn which is your payment, and the whole reason why you did this in the first place. *sigh* Then you see the great pattern book and fun sock yarns she's brought along and you want but can't afford them, so you ask:

"Need any more sock designs?"

:-)

Arts & Sciences

Yes, it's been more than a month since my last post. So sue me! It's not that nothing's been going on, but rather that I've been to busy to post. Now I want to catch up - so here's something I posted to one of my yahoo groups on the subject of A&S, creativity, authenticity, yadda yadda yadda....

from March 22nd:

"That whole "slavish" copying or reproduction thing drives me nuts. There was just recently a big dust-up on one of my SCA lists about this. I'm a research geek, and to me, trying to do things as closely as possible to the way they were actually done in my period of study is challenging and fulfilling, and it's why I do historical stuff in the first place. I do modern knitting and things too, but they are a separate activity.
I have found that the people who insist that it must be changed (usually modernized) in order to be "creative" or of "artistic" value are a) incapable of making an accurate reproduction; b) have an inflated sense of the quality and value of their own work; and c) are idiots.
I know, I know - I should stop holding back and tell you how I really feel, right? ;-> Don't even get me started on the whole "Art" thing. Oy."

from March 24th:

"I should have been more specific, I apologize. In *this* kingdom, when people talk about creativity, it seems more often than not to be an excuse for mediocrity. It is frustrating to say the least to be told by a complete moron that one should "use some actual brain power" by coming up with something original, rather than attempting to be as accurate as possible. Bitter? Damn right. I'll take that one to my grave, I'm sure.

A master-level original work, expertly crafted and accurate enough that Eleanora herself would have bought it is indeed something to be aspired to - but is *not* what the people I was referring to are doing.

It seems to me that some people feel that anything hand-made or "old-timey" ought to be just as good as something carefully researched and skillfully crafted. It isn't - not in this context, anyway.

I am also baffled by the violent reaction to this discussion that some people have - they seem to think that striving toward an ideal means making perfection the minimum standard. What's with that? I've never said everyone should do everything perfectly or not bother - honestly, that's completely ridiculous. All I and others like me are saying is that the more accurate it is, the higher it should score. What's so hard to understand about that?

Oh, and on idiot judges - I have one rule: ignore them. Don't let one jerk ruin it for you. They're not worth it. The point for me is the research, the learning, the craftsmanship. Competing means sharing what I've learned, showing what I'm doing, and learning from and seeing what others are doing. If I'm lucky I might get some useful feedback from the judges, but that's not really what I'm there for. The score is irrelevant and is not a personal value judgment. Perhaps it is my Art background that has taught me to separate my *self* from the work - not that I don't put myself into it, but that the work is not *me*. Criticism of the work is not criticism of me. I guess people who aren't used to that process get freaked out by it and take it personally. I think that's really too bad. They could be learning from it and improving."