Weaving Books and Learning and Designing

Weavers in Facebook weaving groups insisting this or that being the latest "must have" book led me to these meandering thoughts.

I've woven one piece where I followed a recipe. It was a commission in 2008 and the client was notified I would weave it within a year, but she got impatient after a month or two. Instead of reminding her what I promised, I used Strickler #301 I always wanted to weave. 100% cashmere in two grays, she looked better than I imagined, I was actually taken aback, she being one of those women who always dressed nicely but not over-the-top-ly, with a beautiful head of shoulder-length snowy gray hair perpetually cut just so.  

In the early days I read a few books, studied a few structures, but always made my own plans, in part because I have never been a recipe follower; in part because I have a hard time understanding weaving unless they are accompanied by plentiful illustrations/photos/vids, but mostly because I had few equipment/material at the start, and no immediate access to more , so I needed to improvise. One memorable project, my very first on a four-shaft loom, required two sizes of the same yarn for a texture-striped shawl. I wanted to make a set of cottolin serviettes based on the look, so I crammed/spaced the same sized yarn, and as long as I was modifying, I varied the width of the stripes.

I preferred to learn structures, from Strickler in the first instance, but as mentioned because I don't understand weaving in words only, once I got the gist, I made drafts to see if I understood the definition of that structure. On the other hand, I wove plain weave for seven years, then almost exclusively twill ever since; I sit with a given structure for a long time trying to exhaust possibilities, and have rarely needed new structures. (I learned Rep and corkscrew for a sample exchange scheme but never wove either again; double weave because I had commissions for baby blankets which I wove double-width; and finally tied unit weaves on weaving teacher Ali's recommendation to weave a specific look. Lucky this one stuck. It's the same for me with yarns; when I find a good one, I stick with it and collect different colors.)

I took the NZ Guild's design course twice in the 2000s; once by correspondence and once in person, because both the teacher Alison and I were unsatisfied with what I (didn't) learn in the first round; we were both happier the second time around, seen here and here. It helped that I knew the subject well: depression. (My classmates' reactions were interesting, one admonishing, two encouraging/empathetic.) For teaching purposes, Alison used a set process she learned from studying design herself. I can't remember all the details, but the following made long-lasting impressions:

* Research - collecting words/images and learning about the subject, which was easy, until I got into abstract subject, and then the words/images got weirder and more interesting;
* Drawings, starting with thumbnail sketches; also drawing with different material to draw the same thing, e.g. pencil, finger, Q-tip, stick and much more; also collages. Thumbnail sketches removed the need to draw accurately, allowing experimentation worry-free and one after another. Same to some degree with collage with torn pieces of paper. The different material/lines was the best trick, and though I don't use it in weaving design, I still enjoy it in my mixed media;
* Selecting material after we have an idea of what we want to make, which was obvious to me but many weavers already with big stashes, a surprise. These days, though, with a big stash myself, I choose from my stash the most suitable, (so, samey??) rather than searching afresh;
* Deciding on values before hues; a shocking idea, this hasn't entered my MO, but I sometimes remember this. I don't even look at others' artwork in this way, though.

Once or twice immediately after the in-person workshop, I followed her process fairly closely, (except the value part,) but over the years my MO has morphed into something more organic, depending on what the project is, how much time I have, how involved I want to be, etc. I have a few techniques I return to, and mix/match as suitable, and use whichever methods come up naturally rather than plan. I still think I have something of an image of the finished product, and work towards realizing it, rather than starting from a blank slate and building up a project.

I have noticed, particularly in listening to Stella the jewelry maker, is as I gain more experience weaving, I rush through the earlier "vague" thinking stages, if I spend time here at all, and start thinking about texture, structure, and a specific look/hand early. OR, my thinking has become two-pronged, and I try to marry/justify the combination of vague thinking with the specifics of weaving almost from the start. It may not be a bad idea to have a checklist of methods I have learned/collected, and see if I can use ones I'm not inclined to think of, for a more unexpected outcome.

This fast track to technique/method comes from my insistence on making my stuff on the loom, of making cloth rather than "fibre art", with all its own set of restrictions we are familiar with. But I would like a little more involvement in my making, more time in the vague stages of, (I know, I know, it's a cliche now, so I'll paraphrase,) thinking outside of my old dog crate.   

I didn't read many of my books, (and I have oh-so-many,) but gazed at the all pictures, and some I read cover to cover. I believed one day when I'm more advanced, I would need these books. Until I realized I didn't. And stopped buying. In fact for a time I found news of the latest must-haves distracting, but now I don't even hear them. Phew! I'm not a well-rounded weaver who weaves many structures or end products, and I'm happy with a handful of rabbit holes. Plus, some of my older books have now-non-standard notations about the threading/tie-up/treadling, which I find confounding. I can figure some out, but others, I can't be bothered.

If you ask me what is the one must-have weaving book, however, it's Strickler, no contest.