![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
American Textile History Museum
Sep. 17th, 2010 02:35 amWent to the American Textile History Museum in Lowell this evening. Jonathon's cousin was celebrating an installation opening. She has a number of fabric-print inspired glitter-paintings that were commissioned for the museum.
It's a surprisingly surprising sight to see glitter-art so tautly executed --- a far cry from the "oozing glue + over-loaded heaps of sparkle" that the term "glitter painting" brings to mind.
Apparently, her usual style tends to the large, bold & spare, often incorporating a character, word, or short phrase. You can see some images on her website, but these were quite different, design-wise. I liked these more. Each was an over-sized detail of a 60s or 70s print, executed in precise mandala-like glitter over painted negative space. Very controlled, but also full of sparkling energy.
Anyway, what I'd wanted to comment about here was that the museum was much more interesting than I'd expected. There's a Haute Couture exhibit going on. I'm not a big "fan" of fashion & style, nor historical dress, so I expected to be bored (if aesthetically serviced).
One room had some designer dresses which "student designers use to do their research," and which we were allowed to handle (if gloved). I liked the chance to touch things (although the pieces would probably have been more illuminating to a seamstress or designer), but my brain kept rebelling: "Research?"
What are they researching? "Seeking inspiration", I would understand. Or learning from examples of a technique. But... if they are "researching", shouldn't they be experimentally constructing their own articles? Where's the hypothesis in looking at someone else's executed design?
I guess you can research "how did someone else address x-y-z challenge".
And people do genuinely study fashion design, so I shouldn't be so thrown by the term.
I did my part for fashion by taking the opportunity to wear (for the first time) my knee-high 5-inch-heel grey suede boots :-)
In conclusion: American Textile History Museum cool. Try it sometime!
It's a surprisingly surprising sight to see glitter-art so tautly executed --- a far cry from the "oozing glue + over-loaded heaps of sparkle" that the term "glitter painting" brings to mind.
Apparently, her usual style tends to the large, bold & spare, often incorporating a character, word, or short phrase. You can see some images on her website, but these were quite different, design-wise. I liked these more. Each was an over-sized detail of a 60s or 70s print, executed in precise mandala-like glitter over painted negative space. Very controlled, but also full of sparkling energy.
Anyway, what I'd wanted to comment about here was that the museum was much more interesting than I'd expected. There's a Haute Couture exhibit going on. I'm not a big "fan" of fashion & style, nor historical dress, so I expected to be bored (if aesthetically serviced).
One room had some designer dresses which "student designers use to do their research," and which we were allowed to handle (if gloved). I liked the chance to touch things (although the pieces would probably have been more illuminating to a seamstress or designer), but my brain kept rebelling: "Research?"
What are they researching? "Seeking inspiration", I would understand. Or learning from examples of a technique. But... if they are "researching", shouldn't they be experimentally constructing their own articles? Where's the hypothesis in looking at someone else's executed design?
I guess you can research "how did someone else address x-y-z challenge".
And people do genuinely study fashion design, so I shouldn't be so thrown by the term.
I did my part for fashion by taking the opportunity to wear (for the first time) my knee-high 5-inch-heel grey suede boots :-)
In conclusion: American Textile History Museum cool. Try it sometime!
