'Love Knots' by Clever Wench
View previous topic | View next topic >
Post new topic Reply to topic
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Weaves Discussion
   
Author Message

Joined: October 02, 2003
Posts: 119
Submissions: 16
Location: Capital Region, NY

'Love Knots' by Clever Wench
Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Dec 26, 2009 5:31 pm || Last edited by CShake on Sat Dec 26, 2009 7:22 pm; edited 1 time in total
Link to Post: Link to Post

http://www.mailleartisans.org/weaves/subcat.cgi?key=47915
Nice picture, seems like a fun simple weave.

I have a question however about the description - specifically "Love Knots is to Double Spiral what Byzantine is to Box."
Byzantine is units of box connected by '4n2' links, yes, but each box unit in byz alternates directions which is a very important difference. The 8-ring units of doubled spiral here are in line here, and every other is not reversed. A weave that would make this comparison a bit more accurate would have every other 8-ring unit flipped, which doesn't exist in the database, but also wouldn't be sufficiently unique to count anyway (In my opinion, since I'm thinking that HP3n1 'left handed' and 'right handed' are the still the same, and comparing it to that).

Assuming that I'm not just being pedantic about wording, I'm also interested in why after drawing this comparison it was submitted to 'unit weaves'. Byzantine and Box are both in the same category, and Doubled Spiral is not a Unit weave.

[edit - the 'units' of double spiral are 8-ring, not 6-ring, correcting myself]


Maille Code V2.0 T5.9 R5.1 En.o Fcir MFe.s Wgm$ Cab$w G0.2-2.0 I1.2-14.1 N(many).~25 Pdjs Dacdejst Xg(many)t1w5 S03
deviantArt

Joined: August 10, 2005
Posts: 7098
Submissions: 337
Location: UK

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:23 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

It was actually submitted to Spiral but Phong! suggested it was more of a Unit weave because it's kind of pieces/units bolted together. So that was my doing, as for the wording I thought it was ok but you have some good points, maybe CW can elaborate more?


Maille Code
V2.0 T7.3 R5.4 Ep Feur MAg/Cu Wm$ Cbjpw$ G0.5/3.0 I1.5/12.0 N322.150 Pajs Dacdjsw Xa7g631p4t24w64 S88 Hipsu

Joined: April 15, 2002
Posts: 1823
Submissions: 1
Location: Calgary, AB. Canada.

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Dec 26, 2009 7:09 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Hrm. Interesting.

The Box-Byz logic flows to a point. I can see what she's getting at by saying that. I think it's a bit misleading (in terms of what box-byz is), because it's not really that similar of a transformation. I don't see it the same way as Shake though.

2-2 chain is no units flipped back.
Box is a flipback (involving 4 rings) every 2 pairs.
Byz is a flipback (involving 4 rings) every 3 pairs.

So, to make the Box-Byz connection.. it's a stretch at best. You could go with, I suppose, a "twistback" terminology, and suggest that regular double spiral is a twistback as often as possible, but LoveKnots is a twistback only 2/3 times.

It's not really though. They're not integral, like they are in Byz. They're superfluous connectors.

Not a new weave I'd say. At first look here I thought it was more suitably a unit weave, in the "Well, not a weave but chunks of something that's joined overly simplistically and without being a continuation of the pattern" sense. But, thinking about it again, I'd say it's clearly, and almost certainly, not a unit weave.

What is the LoveKnots unit? Unit weaves should have a very distinct start and end if they're going to be displayed as chains, (also, should be discouraged, unit weaves should show the isolated unit), and it should be really easy to remove the connector rings, hold it up, and say "Here, this is one unit."

But when we do that to LoveKnots, what happens? Removing those doubled connector rings, you just have 4 iterations of double spiral. That's not a unit. That's 4 iterations of double spiral, a chain weave. If that's a unit weave, then so is 3 iterations of double spiral, and 5 iterations... and for that matter, any number of iterations of any other chain weave.

So what is it?

I dunno. To me, neither.

If I took 4 iterations of Box, and then stitched them to 4 more iterations of box with a simple 2-2 connection.. is that a new chain weave? No. At least in my criteria, I don't understand Legba's criteria well... but by observation, I don't think she's let through many like that. Is 4 iterations of box a unit weave then? No. I don't think by anyone's standards.

So, what is different about double-spiral than box, that would make this a unit weave?

...

Like everything that's ever submitted, this is something. But, it's not a something that is a chain or a unit weave.

It's something she decided to *do* with a weave. She made some swapping construction choices. It's pretty, but, the weaves area is for unique weaves. This would belong in the gallery, to me, along with everything else people make that involve construction choices, that people might go to for inspiration.

It doesn't need to be lost forever simply by not accepting it as a weave.

Joined: May 08, 2005
Posts: 231
Submissions: 7
Location: Worcester, UK

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Dec 26, 2009 7:44 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Just to chirp in with my tuppence.

I can't see this as a new weave either. It is just double spiral that by the description was too tight an AR to continue beyond a certain point and so was "bolted" together to another similar piece.

In my eyes this does not constitute a new weave. It is the same as trying to make E6in1 with an AR of 4, getting three rows in, saying "oh bugger.... thats too tight" and bolting it to another piece just you can achieve a certain dimension.

Any weave by this criteria could be considered a unit weave if re-woven with a constricting AR that does not allow expansion beyond a certain point with anything other that "bolting".

I have to agree with Cynake. A gallery piece certainly, but a new weave, unit or otherwise......not.

Dave

Joined: January 21, 2004
Posts: 1061
Submissions: 75

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

I never said that it was a Unit weave; I said that I had an initial aversion to "Bolties" -- weaves that are made by 'bolting' sections together with 2 rings. So please don't put words in my mouth Legba, since time has repeatedly shown that we have very different approaches to weaves. Since this was submitted as a chain, I have no idea why it would go in the Unit category. And even the component spiral units themselves aren't very solid to be their own weave. That said, I didn't find it as egregiously bad as others that had been let through before, and didn't feel like getting into a tangle about it. *shrug*

Under the current weave guidelines, this could count as a new weave, since it's distinct from anything else in a. looks, b. structure, and c. behavior. However, I feel that these 3 criteria by themselves are inadequate to properly adjudicate new submissions, as this example very poignantly demonstrates. Over the next few months I'll be working on a new classification and evaluation system that will hopefully better categorize the weaves area, while respecting creative and personal considerations.

-phong



-- CGMaille tutorials now hosted here at MAIL! --

Joined: January 10, 2009
Posts: 615
Submissions: 0

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Dec 27, 2009 12:39 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Interesting takes on the weave. Smile

The Byz to Box comparison goes like this:

Byzantine is a boxed pair bolted to another boxed pair, showing off the boxed link.

Love Knots is just enough of the Double Spiral to establish it as Double Spiral, not a doubled Mobius unit, bolted to another unit of the same. It shows off the "knot" which Double Spiral doesn't.

Additionally, Love Knots lays flat which makes it quite suitable for jewelry in all sizes. It also allows for variations in links and webs which would be clumsy in a Double Spiral.

Joined: May 07, 2008
Posts: 3615
Submissions: 149
Location: Germany, Herxheim

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Dec 27, 2009 1:47 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

OK, what shall we do with it now?

In similar cases, like Moon Twist, ot Whatif - that are variations of existing weaves - I submitted such stuff into the ARTICLE database, or described the variants in Forum threads (Elvenrope/Elfweave variations not yet cast into an article).

That might be the way to go here as well - submitting as article (as knowledge shall not get lost), and removing from weaves. But that's not my decision.

-ZiLi-


Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Ep Fper MAl Ws$ Cpbsw$ G0.3-6.4 I1.0-30.0 N28.25 Ps Dacdejst Xagtw S08 Hip

Human societies are like chain mail.
A single link will be worth nothing.
A chain is of use, but will break at the weakest link.
A weak weave will have the need to replace weak links.
A strong weave will survive even with weak links included.
-'me

Joined: August 30, 2008
Posts: 3138
Submissions: 20
Location: Burlington, ON, Canada

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Dec 27, 2009 2:48 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

I think I suggested it was a Unit Weave... In one of my fly-by-night appearances in the Admin Panel...

I could be wrong, or drunk... Take it as you will, 'tis the season, after all.



Joined: April 15, 2002
Posts: 1823
Submissions: 1
Location: Calgary, AB. Canada.

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Dec 27, 2009 5:17 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

ZiLi wrote:
OK, what shall we do with it now?

That might be the way to go here as well - submitting as article (as knowledge shall not get lost), and removing from weaves. But that's not my decision.


Hrm. Articles are good for describing weave theory and modification patterns that can be continued. But, they're not good for little things.

What about if we created a section of the Gallery called "Weaves In Use" or something similar?

This would differ from earrings or bracelets or necklaces, in that the photos wouldn't actually be of a project. They'd specifically be to show off something someone did weave-wise, but in a way that isn't a new weave?

No naming them, no needing them to be unique.. but for all the times people want to share inspiration of what you can do with some weaves, or for some reject-weaves that still have aesthetic or creative merit, they'd have somewhere to go?

This could maybe make everyone happy.

I'm pretty strict on weaves not just being something pretty and unique. That there has to be criteria beyond that. Taxonomy is very much a logical left-brained activity, and it is a poorly served with an aesthetic right-brained methodology.

But, I find I rarely get much inspiration from the weaves database itself. The weaves database is cold and structural. I get my inspiration from the beautiful things people post in the Gallery. Often I find many weaves to be boring and ugly until I see how someone used slightly different-sized rings, or highlighted different parts of the weave with color, etc. Or, how people selectively use pieces of weaves together. E4 with HP3 trim, graduated weaves, etc. None of those things make them new weaves, but they very much serve a purpose.

Would creating a weave-like heading in the Gallery, and then tightening down on weave constraints make sense to most people?

In MAIL 3.0, these pics could all be tagged with the weave(s) they have, so people could find variations, combinations, etc for any weaves.

Joined: January 10, 2009
Posts: 615
Submissions: 0

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Dec 27, 2009 9:08 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Excuse me! I believe Love Knots is a legitimate weave and should be included in the weave database.

It adds a new "twist" to the spiral weaves. It is as legitimate as Lorraine's JPL variations ad infinitum which nobody will ever use for any practical purposes past JPL 5 or maybe, just maybe, 7.

I'm a little fed up with the technical versus creative schools here. Banishing it to the hinterlands of the gallery means nobody will ever see it. I want to find something new to do or to master, I go to the weave database.

Joined: July 23, 2006
Posts: 2278
Submissions: 97
Location: Standish, Michigan, USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Dec 27, 2009 9:16 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Cynake wrote:


Would creating a weave-like heading in the Gallery, and then tightening down on weave constraints make sense to most people?

In MAIL 3.0, these pics could all be tagged with the weave(s) they have, so people could find variations, combinations, etc for any weaves.


There are a couple categories in Gallery that have (at least by myself) been used that way: "Patches" and"Chains." However, I think it would be a good idea to have a category in the Gallery for weave variants. It would make it easier to find/submit variants and clean up a lot of confusing clutter. It wouldn't be rejecting new information, simply re-directing it.


Insistence is futile.

We are the Quartz, lower your shovels and surrender your rocks. We will add your gemological and mineralogical distinctiveness to our own. You will adapt to service us. Resistance is rutile.

Handmaden Designs LLC
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Handmade Artists Shop
Author Website

Joined: May 07, 2008
Posts: 3615
Submissions: 149
Location: Germany, Herxheim

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Dec 27, 2009 9:42 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

I agree with CW that the Gallery would be the wrong place for such items. But I also think, that this has no real place in the Weaves database in its CURRENT structure. But that is not the weave's fault, but more that of the database structure, and the rules applied, when a new item counts as weave, and when as variant.

And it is an undeniable fact, that it IS a number of Double-Twist segments 'bolted together'. So, if at all, it has its place in Hybrid category - as hybrid of Double Spiral and 1-1-1 (2-2-2 being a variant of 1-1-1) - and this ONLY due to the fact that the Spiral is woven so tight that it can only be chained in that manner shown; resulting in an extension of possibilities of Double Spiral to another useable AR range.

With application of 'artistic' rules I had a couple of weave entries more in in our database - but I tend to stay on the technical side.

About your criticism regarding the higher JPLs: Every member of JPL weave family has its rightful place in our database - fully according to the current rules - as every one of them has (similar but) different ring interactions.

-ZiLi-


Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Ep Fper MAl Ws$ Cpbsw$ G0.3-6.4 I1.0-30.0 N28.25 Ps Dacdejst Xagtw S08 Hip

Human societies are like chain mail.
A single link will be worth nothing.
A chain is of use, but will break at the weakest link.
A weak weave will have the need to replace weak links.
A strong weave will survive even with weak links included.
-'me

Joined: July 23, 2006
Posts: 2278
Submissions: 97
Location: Standish, Michigan, USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Dec 27, 2009 9:56 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

ZiLi wrote:
But I also think, that this has no real place in the Weaves database in its CURRENT structure. But that is not the weave's fault, but more that of the database structure, and the rules applied, when a new item counts as weave, and when as variant.

-ZiLi-


What about a sub-database in Weaves for variants? One that would have the same general structure as the Weaves database in regards to families so as to not get too confusing and messy, but would keep the variant submissions somewhat separated from the weaves. They wouldn't, technically be in Weaves, merely alongside of it where they might be more easily noticed than in the gallery. Or would this be more trouble than it's worth? Just curious.


Insistence is futile.

We are the Quartz, lower your shovels and surrender your rocks. We will add your gemological and mineralogical distinctiveness to our own. You will adapt to service us. Resistance is rutile.

Handmaden Designs LLC
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Handmade Artists Shop
Author Website

Joined: April 15, 2002
Posts: 1823
Submissions: 1
Location: Calgary, AB. Canada.

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Dec 28, 2009 12:46 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Clever Wench wrote:
Excuse me! I believe Love Knots is a legitimate weave and should be included in the weave database.


...

???

Quote:
It adds a new "twist" to the spiral weaves. It is as legitimate as Lorraine's JPL variations ad infinitum which nobody will ever use for any practical purposes past JPL 5 or maybe, just maybe, 7.


Hrm. I'm going to try to give you the benefit of the doubt and interpret that as something other than the personal cheapshot I suspect it is.

Indeed, one of the common themes in redesigning the weaves area is that there be recognition of continuing patterns, so that they don't all become individual weaves. You recognize the original weave, and then you demonstrate the technique that modifies them.

Euro 4-1, 6-1, 8-1, 10-1, 12-1 ...
Box, Round, Celtic ...
Byz, Turkish, Celtic ...
Spiral 4-1, 6-1, 8-1 ...
JPL 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 ...
All the Taos...

I don't think we judge weaves based on who will use them, or how pretty they are, or how much people like them.

I would bet that 90% of the weaves in the database have never had more than 1 other person beyond the submitter make them.

Quote:
I'm a little fed up with the technical versus creative schools here. Banishing it to the hinterlands of the gallery means nobody will ever see it. I want to find something new to do or to master, I go to the weave database.


I would like to discourage the ego people associate with their submissions, the prestige they perceive with it being accepted, and the dismay they attribute to it being rejected. I would also like to discourage people thinking they are entitled to having a weave displayed, and have pride associated over where their work is displayed.

The purpose of the weaves database is not to make the submitters feel special and to show off their work. That's what the gallery is for. The weave database is to archive and educate.

Putting a weave submission that is a combo weave and not a new or original weave, into an area where it is tagged with the component weaves, is not "banishing it to the hinterlands". And if (which certainly isn't the case) "no one ever sees it", so what? That's not inherrently a bad thing.

Your behavior, where you go right now, and what you ignore, is a function of the current system. If the system changes, so will your behavior. If the new section of the gallery contains useful and interesting things, people will go there and see what's there. If it doesn't, people will not. And either of those will be the right thing to do. People will pay it as much attention as it deserves, based on the value of the content in it.

Fact of the matter is, weaves are a technical, structural thing. If you want to say they're simply a creative thing, then just throw away having any criteria at all and just accept every mess of rings ever submitted so everyone can be possessive and happy. The gallery is a creative area. The weaves database is the structural, classified system. Weaves involve creativity, but there's more to them than that.

Nárrína wrote:
They wouldn't, technically be in Weaves, merely alongside of it where they might be more easily noticed than in the gallery. Or would this be more trouble than it's worth? Just curious.[/color]


That's the plan for MAIL 3.0. Has been for 5 years.

Gallery images will be tagged with the weaves the have in them, and that way things that are combo weaves, which are almost always rejected (like Love Knots), weaves with different sizes, materials, used in different situations, etc.. can all appear, simply by the click of a button. "Show me variations on this weave", or "Show me samples of this weave".

Again, in this case.. is there anything special about 4 pairs of double spiral? If so, 3 pairs? 5 pairs? 6, 7, 8, 9, 10? What if I connect with a single ring instead of double? What if I connect with 3 instead of 2? What if I add superfluous rings onto the outsides like Shaggy Loops? What if the connecting pair is mobiused? What if the rotation direction alternates? Etc etc etc.

Love Knots is something, but that something isn't really a new weave, unless everything is a weave. And I like to think there are some basic standards for what a new weave is or isn't.

Joined: January 10, 2009
Posts: 615
Submissions: 0

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Dec 28, 2009 1:29 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Now, Cynake, if Love Knots had been submitted before Double Spiral, it would have happily been added to the database.

Then, if someone had submitted Double Spiral later, it, too, would have been added to the Weave database.

What is the difference? There are sufficient examples of weaves with less merit being accepted into the database.

I feel that your interpretation of what makes a weave is entirely too restrictive. This may be because you have never submitted a weave at all, nor posted to the gallery. Do you maille or are you just a theorist? If this is your chosen contribution to maille, I can understand your position, but it does put you outside the experience of most of the members of this community.

There is an understandable pride and excitement having a weave accepted. When MAIL 3.0 is implemented, my Love Knots can happily be listed as a variant of Double Spiral. Until then, it stands on its own merit.

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Page 1 of 3. Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sun Feb 23, 2020 12:59 pm
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Weaves Discussion
Display posts from previous: