Monday, August 3, 2015
I am delighted to announce that my book, long in the making, is finally published and ready for purchase! I've written about it in the past but to recap, the premise is that you don't need to use other people's patterns to make beautiful quilts. Instead, I start with a traditional quilt block -- the Rail Fence -- and use it as the foundation for a bazillion variations.
So who needs to buy this book?
It's been my experience that millions of quilters are willing to invest lots of time and effort into improving their technical skills. They attend workshops, buy tools and equipment, read blogs, magazines and books to learn better technique. But they don't invest commensurately in design skills.
"To me that's sad. My great joy in making a quilt is not that I've sewed straight seams and gotten it to lie flat -- heck, any Third World sweatshop worker can do that -- but that I've made a pleasing design, and that my quilt is unlike anybody else's. This part has the creativity and the joy, and I want to do that myself, not buy it from somebody else."
If you know somebody who needs a bit of a kickstart for the confidence to develop design skills, get her a copy of this book!
Or if you enjoy making the occasional non-art quilt, whether it's for a new bedroom, a new baby, or a charity, maybe you'd like a copy too, for a new take on how to whip out attractive and unique quilts.
Click here to go to the bookselling site. If you're in Europe, hold on for a couple of days; we're still arranging for publication there so you won't have to pay for shipping from the U.S.
I'll be giving you some little sneak peeks from the book in the next couple of days, and giving away a free copy of the book to people who leave a comment before midnight, August 10.
Sunday, August 2, 2015
Saturday, August 1, 2015
A dear friend of mine is just about perfect except that she keeps sending me friendspam email -- you know, the gee-whiz articles, jokes, photo arrays and heartwarming stories that somebody sent her.
Usually I just delete such messages without reading, but for some reason I looked at this one. Here's how it started:
OH, HOW TRUE THIS IS!!
Subject: Fw: How old is grandma?
Stay with this -- the answer is at the end... It will blow you away.
One evening a grandson was talking to his grandmother about current events.
The grandson asked his grandmother what she thought about the shootings at schools, the computer age, and Just things in general.
The Grandmother replied, "Well, let me think a minute
I was born before:
laser beams or
Man had not yet invented:
and man hadn't yet walked on the moon
I'll spare you the very long middle part of the story, in which grandma smugly carries on about how life was so much better in the olden days and people were more patriotic, more moral, etc. But the punchline is that grandma is only 72 years old, born in 1942. We're supposed to feel all gee-whiz at how fast the world has changed, plus (if we're on the old side) pretty smug ourselves for having grown up without all those newfangled contraptions.
I'm still jet-lagged from my recent trip halfway around the world, so I was sleep-deprived and crabby enough to look at this list of allegedly post-1942 inventions with suspicion. So I looked them up. And discovered:
television -- invented in 1925
penicillin -- discovered in 1928
frozen foods -- commercially available in 1929
Xerox -- invented in 1938
contact lenses -- invented in 1887
instant coffee -- invented in 1890
ball-point pens -- invented in 1938
air conditioners -- invented in 1902
dishwashers -- invented in 1893
clothes dryers -- hand-cranked, invented in 1800; electric, invented in 1938
In other words, the story ended before the grandson says in response: Grandma, you're full of crap. You're wrong about 10 of the 17 items on your list.
But what I find intriguing is how these founts of misinformation start their endless journeys through cyberspace. Who writes this stuff anyway? Obviously somebody too old to understand about Wikipedia.
Thursday, July 30, 2015
I can't help it, I'm a sucker for Monet. I know that Impressionism is so easy to love, requiring not much rigor, not much sophistication, but still I love it. And Claude is my favorite of them all. Yes, even more than Cezanne, although I'll lose art brownie points for admitting it.
So what a pleasure to find lots of Monets at the National Gallery in London. Some seemed very familiar: water lilies, a train station, a Japanese bridge, boats on the Seine, snow on the countryside. Because Monet so frequently painted long series of the same scene, exploring different conditions of light, you feel you're seeing old friends even if you've never come across this particular picture in person.
In particular, it felt like old home week to come upon a huge water lilies panel, on the same scale as those in the Orangerie in Paris (built specifically to house Monet's grand gift to the French people) and those at MOMA in New York. I have spent a lot of time sitting in front of those lilies, drifting happily through that horizonless universe. Sitting down with this one brought me back to that familiar reverie.
Tuesday, July 28, 2015
Monday, July 27, 2015
Close readers of my past museum reports know that while I appreciate the old masters, my blood really starts pulsing when we get to the 20th century and beyond. I was intrigued to find, among the good old stuff at the National Gallery in London, some pictures that seemed modern beyond their years.
Let's start with Manet, famous from your art history class as one of the very earliest "modern" artists. And perhaps your art history class talked in detail about this very painting. It's the second of three versions of the same scene that Manet painted; the moment of total failure for French colonialist ambitions in Mexico. The French puppet emperor Maximilian was overthrown and offed by Mexican nationalists (a previous battle with the French, which the Mexicans also won, is remembered today as Cinco de Mayo).
It's in pieces because Manet couldn't exhibit the work -- too politically explosive -- and it was damaged during years of poor storage in his studio. Manet's son cut it into four bits, throwing away the bad parts of the canvas, and Edgar Degas rescued the pieces. That's not even Max in the picture, just his left hand; the guy in the white shirt is one of his generals.
What makes it modern? First off, a new take on history painting, with no obvious good guys vanquishing obvious bad guys; in fact, the vanquished is the representative of Manet's own government. Second, the matter-of-fact attitude of the sergeant at right; he's not brandishing his sword but perhaps wondering how long it will be before lunch. Manet is clearly appalled by the violence and immorality of the French adventure and its consequences, but he expresses it coolly.
The second painting that struck me as modern was very different -- a hyperrealistic depiction of a rearing stallion by George Stubbs, the great British painter of horses.
This guy is BIG -- life-size -- and absolutely dominates the room. His tail almost escapes the frame. To me, placing him in a blank universe instead of a grassy field or a racetrack seems very modern; there's nothing to distract us from the monumental presence of the horse. Even the ornate frame seems to recede and let the stallion burst out.
More art from the National Gallery in later posts. I hope you're enjoying your visit!