First, she asks “I’d love to know what ‘ethnic’ means when you say ‘heavy-handed in its ethnic imagery.’ Was the quilt too Scandinavian? What exactly was it too much of?”

The imagery in these quilts was African. I did not say there was too much of it, I said it seemed heavy-handed.

Second, she asks “I’m also curious about the ‘puzzling juxtaposition of Afro-ethnic themes and fabrics’ you mention… did you walk through the rest of the show and say ‘Gee, what a puzzling juxtaposition of Euro-ethnic fabrics and imagery’? …I bet not!”

What I actually commented upon was the juxtaposition of many different ideas in this exhibit. Afro-ethnic themes and fabrics constituted one major idea, represented by several quilts. Other major ideas (or techniques) that showed up repeatedly in the show included beading and abstractions. I had a hard time figuring out which of these ideas the curator intended to be the “theme” of the exhibit, or how these various ideas fit together. If the exhibit were meant to be Afro-ethnic, that would be fine with me, but apparently it wasn’t, since many of the quilts did not have this theme. I described this feeling of confusion as “puzzling juxtaposition” – I couldn’t figure out why these quilts were put together in the show.

The exhibit was certainly thought-provoking, but unfortunately in my case the thoughts it provoked were along the lines of “huh??”

Finally, she says “you should have left your racist assumptions and pattern-maker standards at home.”

This is a cheap shot. Is it out of bounds for a viewer to comment that certain quilts appeared to be early work and not as good as the artist’s later/better pieces? Or is Karen making a “racist assumption” that the artist should be immune from comment because she is black (I don’t know whether she is, but perhaps Karen does, and Karen certainly is taking offense on these grounds) or because she uses Afro-ethnic themes?

Although I will address point #2 in general with no specific piece of artwork in mind.

I have seen many fiber pieces where the maker has used loose stitching, or other techniques such as dangling threads, that could be interpretted as either a technically poor work or as artistic license. But more often than not I find myself seeing it as a lack of command of the medium. Using loose or large stitching is wonderful if the rest of the piece supports this style of work. But very often I see it being done for no apparent reason as it is not well integrated into the work. As a result the piece just looks sloppy. The intent might have been artistic license but if it is not done well the piece is not successful.

And in fact I find this to be an ever growing trend in art quilting, to add in random touches of different techniques with no clear purpose in mind. Playing with a technique and mastering a technique and successfully integrating it into the whole are 2 different things. It’s not a question of 8-12 beautiful stitches per inch or perfect binding - it’s a question of a successful unified piece of artwork.

Whether or not the pieces in this show successfully used this technique is not for me to say as I am unfamiliar with the work.

As Ms. Donabed has pointed out you are welcome to submit your own review of the show if you feel this one was inaccurate in evaluating the intention of the artists.

Lisa Call
http://www.lisacall.com

Thank you for pointing me to the submission guidelines. After I read the above review, I wondered about the submission criteria.

I don’t think writing a review would be productive. I felt personally very disappointed that you responded to the most insignificant point of my post.

What about the “thinking” questions I already laid on the table?

1.) What is the reviewer talking about when she uses the word “ethnic”? If a quilt had been appliqued to death with Celtic knots, would it have been too “heavy-handed in its ethnic imagery”? Would there have then been a “puzzling juxtaposition of Indo-European themes”?

2.) Why were Abdusamad’s quilts “technically disappointing”? Why did it look like “early work”? Because she didn’t hand quilt 8-12 stitches per inch? I interpreted the stitches as a conscious aesthetic choice, not a lack of technical skill. What’s behind the reviewer’s assumptions that she interpreted it as anything other than artistic license?

There’s plenty here for a hearty discussion without a separate review, but I don’t expect any thoughts on the questions I posed. Look, I’m not trying to be mean-spirited here. I just see a glaring lack of depth of inquiry and I’m challenging that. I don’t see this questioning happening anywhere in quilt world and these assumptions are nearly everywhere in this circle. It’s frustrating, insincere and superficial. Makes me want another hobby… maybe gardening.

Of course you are right about this, but no where in the Loomis review do I see any mention of diptychs or triptychs and can only assume that you are referring to the photos included of Sandra Woock’s 3 pieces and Shelly Baird’s 2 pieces. All five of these works are stand-alone work, though they do bear strong relationships to each other through techniques and theme. Because they are also separately titled, I see them as being from a series, not part of a diptych or triptych. Sandra Woock’s website shows her three pieces on this page: http://www.sandrawoock.com/pages/gallery2.html, as part of a related series. I am currently unable to locate a website for Shelley Baird.

Perhaps you should write your own opposing review and submit it to ArtQuiltReviews and share the points that gave you “something to THINK about”. Please see the submission guides at the top of the page. Sandy Donabed

Ms. Loomis, I’d love to know what “ethnic” means when you say “heavy-handed in its ethnic imagery”. Was the quilt too Scandinavian? Was it too Irish? What exactly was it too much of? Please, enlighten me. I’d love to understand exactly what you’re saying here.

Ms. Loomis, I’m also curious about the “puzzling juxtaposition of Afro-ethnic themes and fabrics” you mention. I wonder… did you walk through the rest of the show and say, “Gee, what a puzzling juxtaposition of Euro-ethnic fabrics and imagery”? Or “Gee, there are too many quilts that look like they were made by white people here”? I bet not! Makes me embarrassed to be white. (Scottish parents actually… which is an ethnicity too.)

Why go to an exhibit if you don’t plan to think? Do you need an essay beside each quilt to understand what it means? Do the artists have to connect the dots for you? I got something I don’t normally get at art quilt shows–something to THINK about.

I am a sculptor and quilts are my hobby. I notice that art quilters want to be taken seriously as artists, but somehow can’t adapt to the art arena. It should be thought provoking. You should have to think for yourself to interpret art. Why would we take art quilts seriously when you pander to audiences (and reviewers) who want to go to the county fair to see a bunch of “technically successful” bedspreads with perfect little stitches? Why would we take art quilts seriously if even art quilters don’t interpret them as art?

Perhaps, Ms. Loomis, you should have left your racist assumptions and pattern-maker standards at home.

And by the way, diptychs count as 1 work, not 2. Triptychs are 1, not 3. Lord!

I wondered about the groupings myself, but don’t know how that whole process evolved.

I also heard the complaints about attendance. I have some thoughts that I hope to share with people about getting more involved with local groups, but what you’ve mentioned about recognition for art quilts is troubling. Hopefully this review will be forwarded to people connected with organizing the show.