A PERSPECTIVE ON EMBROIDERY: IN ANSWER TO EMERY Dot From Embroidery does not lack works of excellence - the magnificent Opus Anglicanum pieces (Dean, p. 12); the exquisite Chinese embroideries that were well developed before the art of painting (Chung, p. 5) and of course the unparalleled Peruvian stitcheries (Harcourt, p. 139) are only a few examples - but it does lack a simple language. Embroidery terminology comprises a conglomerate of words that has inspired many authors and countless revisions since the arts and crafts renaissance of the 1960's (Clabburn, p. 2253). Some ideas are valid while others such as Irene Emery's discussion of "accessory stitches" in her well known text, The Primary Structures of Fabrics, are questionable. Emery's general concept of embroidery and some of her technical judgements are the basis of this brief paper that points to an old truism: two wrongs don't make a right. In their attempt to clarify the literature and pinpoint terminology common to all fibre art fields, textile experts like Emery have tended to be prolific writers but are not necessarily answering the problem. Well versed in textiles and thus the intricacies of weaving they tend to employ their own jargon which in some instances serves well: a buttonhole stitch in embroidery and a half hitch in macrame is readily explained as the simple loop, thereby helping to minimize the textile nomenclature in general. However, such a system has its drawbacks. For instance weavers may ponder pulled as compared to drawn thread work but stitchers well understand the differences which are not made clear at all under the guise of "deflected element work" (Vandenburg, p. 3). The thrust of Emery's discussion is embedded in her concept of embroidery which she defines as "accessory to fabrics" (Emery, xv). She explains that embroidery is "the least restricted of fabric constructions"; it neither has to yield to the perpendicular character - istics of warp and weft nor to a technique consistency found in looped and knotted structures, for instance (Emery, p. 234). In other words Emery does not see embroidery meshing with and re-organizing fibres that comprise the very fabrics being worked in embroidery, nor does ARS TEXTRINA 6 (1986), pp. 195-210 she understand that respective stitches meant to achieve respective effects must adhere to an overall coherent technique and plan within their own structure (Christie, p. 2). There are two basic reasons why the above statements may be argued, (1) The general notion that embellishment or, in this case, embroidery, specifically, alters the ground it is worked on, is readily confirmed by the basic understanding that where one order is imposed on another - surface stitchery or needlelace decorating fabric for example - then the original structure is modified (Gombrich, p. 65). (2) Some work such as counted thread stitching relies entirely on the grid of the fabric that is automatically changed and distorted as the work progresses (Howard, p. 72). In considering these arguments it's interesting to note that Christine Thompson, a weaver and student at the University of Wisconsin, points out that fabric construction is most definitely altered by any embellishment the embroiderer attempts. She adds that it is for this very reason that she, as a weaver, has not become involved in embroidery: She does not want to alter the works of others (1). The second reason for reviewing Emery's accessory concept of embroidery gives consideration to the counted thread families. Black work, pulled and drawn thread and canvas embroidery are well known examples. All techniques are based on warp and weft alignments. Fabric threads are counted to ensure the correct placement of stitch and the exactness of the latter, both in height and width. Depending on the technique stitchers may remove some warp and weft threads to add their own new ones or they may group fabric threads together in patterns with the working thread. At any rate turning plain, even weave fabric into lace is the ultimate objective of the stitcher (McNeill, p. 174; Gudjonsson, p. 133). Surely then such involvement - whether surface stitchery that conforms to design and indirectly alters the symetrics of the weave (Gombrich, p. 75) or counted thread that directly changes the nature of the fabric - rates a better explanation than "accessory". There is no doubt that Emery reduces the parameters of embroidery as she arbitrarily molds her discussion to fit the general fibre art spectrum. For example, she acknowledges only three ancestoral groups of stitches - flat, loop, and knot - as opposed to numerous other well known groups or families such as the chain which she simply 196 includes in loop (Christie, p. 7). In re-arranging these various groups she frequently name drops; some names no longer familiar are resurrected from the 19th and early 20th century literature and mixed with today's variations needing explicit definitions (Emery, p. 237). No such distinctions are offered. Similarly, Emery's Note - meant to provide a quick clarification - often cites terms reflecting a broad usage not easily explained in these smaller set-apart spaces. One such section deals with surface (Emery, p. 244) and ironically Emery's analysis tends to offer a surface look at the meaning of surface as it relates to embroidery. Her discussion alludes to some concepts of this term, but, surface, as it is generally and most importantly understood, is not mentioned at all. To refer to surface stitchery is to refer to the broad category of needlework in which stitching into the fabric has no particular relation to the weave, in contrast to counted thread work, but follows the design on the surface of the fabric (Bath, p. 77). Emery's Note on surface leaves the impression that vast amounts of work have been or may be executed using nothing but what she refers to as surface satin, in other words laid work without couching. Most authorities do not acknowledge surface satin. Authors who do - Bucher, Day, and Thomas - all emphasize the strong possibility of unsatisfactory results and that a better way to economize on threads is by working the laid and couching techniques (Thomas, p. 180). There are numerous other oversights within Emery's discussion that might be termed inconsistencies in that they confuse rather than mini - mize the technical discrepancies that prompted her study in the first place. Only a few examples are mentioned due to the brevity of this paper. (1) Notes on the Use of Terms may be ill-named in that this discussion is really confined to Emery's reiteration about embroidery being free "of any need for structural coherence". Emery extends this idea to the point that she surmises needlework to be a "homely activity... which can be raised almost to the rank of a fine art" if the stitcher employs sufficient skill and imagination. Such an appraisal certainly appears to veer off the technical course of inquiry. In her Forward, Emery clearly states the reason for this research - "it was time for someone to attempt to correlate the widest possible range of fabrics and terms" (Emery, p. xii). To correlate 197 fabrics and terms is serf explanatory and does not pertain to any artistic assessment of either the product or its maker. (2) A most distracting approach Emery frequently employs is to insinuate doubt by using the word "so-called" but never once clarify - ing her concern. Indicative of this excessive usage is page 245 where so-called appears at least eight times. (3) Finally there is the section on styles - correctly known as media (vanWyk, p. 271 and Wilson, p. 351) - which deals with terms that serve double duty or are alike in some manner but do maintain clear meanings of reference when used with good intent. Unfortunately, Emery exploits these multi-purpose terms, failing to make any real point. For instance, the threesome, canvas, tapestry, and Berlin work, could quickly focus on an in-depth discussion of embroidery on canvas. This is because tapestry is correctly defined as a misnomer (Dyer, p. 7-8; Clabburn, p. 263) and Berlin work with its tremendous commercialism, bright yarns and poor design is given a low profile by most stitchers (Swain, 104-5; Bath, p. 204). Unfortunately, Emery does not discuss canvas or the obtrusive use of tapestry in any precise or knowledgeable manner and refers to Berlin work as being specialized. Similarly, Emery plays havoc with both the crewel and cut work/drawn thread sections failing to make the basic distinctions. For sure, crewel yarn is a special two-ply yarn that has been used for 600 years and is most often worked in particular designs that do require specific techniques such as crewel stitch, otherwise known as stem (Clabburn, p. 71-2). The main difference between cut work and drawn thread is the following: in cut work, fabric, as opposed to specific warp and weft areas, is cut away to comply with surface design; (Anchor Manual, p. 63-4; Palliser, p. 19; Clabburn, p. 74-77) drawn thread work entails the removal of warp and weft in a very precise manner, that is by the counting of threads (vanWyk, p. 169; Palliser, p. 25). Both openwork methods are then embellished with such techniques as needlelace, needleweaving, picots, bars, and satin stitch. In view of the above misunderstandings and omissions it is not surprising that Emery presents only a cursory look at the actual stitch structures. Both her discussions and illustrations lack interesting, precise information. A few examples of the mistreated structures are listed below: 198 Running Stitch: Emery is correct when she says running stitch is the simplest of stitches; she is also wrong to have omitted its most important characteristics - absolute exactness.