ARCHIVE

Lost in Translation? Tactile Collaborations

Margaret Baguley

The Parliament House embroidery in 1988 enabled weaver Kay Lawrence the opportunity to work with embroiderers at large.

When the master accepted commissions he was usually required to guarantee that he would handle the design and the important details of the composition himself. Whether he acknowledged and promoted his apprentice was largely a matter of his temperament. The work which emerged from the bottega [studio] was mostly uninscribed: when a name appeared upon it, it was always the master's. No dishonesty was meant thereby; Giotto used to ‘sign' works which had been mainly carried out by his assistants. The name was evidence of his creative control, a guarantee of quality.

The art world has only recently acknowledged and accepted multiple authorship in the mainstream as a credible and effective artistic practice. Western art history has traditionally promoted the individual genius over those working in partnerships and collectives. This bias has resulted in many artists traditionally concealing, either passively or actively this type of activity in their own practice. The inherent complexities within collaborative or co-operative practice can be perceived as a direct response to the stereotypical and romantic view of the artist, defined as one who is preferably male, defies social convention, is solely dedicated to their art and is selfish in its pursuit.

The distinction between the role of the artisan and the artist which provided a rationale for the ‘exaltation of the artist-genius' can be traced to the artists of the High Renaissance. The writer Vasari, who documented the lives of these artists, emphasised the intellectual aspect of art above its manual labour – the basis of the later art/craft debate – in order to give artists professional status and to differentiate them from artisans. Until this time artists drew upon traditions which were strongly conservative. Originality, innovation and change ‘were seldom, if ever part of their mental apparatus'. The use of the word artist in the Renaissance was an anachronism, because it was seldom used to describe a person who made art. Makers were identified by their craft, such as painting, sculpting, or illuminating and were known as artisans . In addition, the objects that are now called art were described by type and were strictly functional such as an altarpiece, a stained glass window or a fresco. Renaissance artists slowly began to break with the traditions of the workshops and guilds, although it was still quite acceptable to employ artisans, but they were never formally recognised as having contributed to the finished work.

Contemporary artists have continued this tradition of outsourcing and working with various craftspeople, technicians and artists to create components or entire pieces of work. They can also, in most cases, determine if the people they have employed to execute some or all of their work will be identified in subsequent documentation. The Victorian Tapestry Workshop based in Melbourne , Victoria was established in 1976 by the Victorian Government, and is today regarded as one of the few world centres for one of western civilisation's oldest and richest art forms. The workshop's technically excellent tapestries have been exhibited widely in Europe, Asia and the United States . An important underpinning of the Victorian Tapestry Workshop is the fact that its skilled weavers are also trained artists. Due to their visual sensitivity and technical expertise, they are able to enter into a special form of collaboration with the artists whose designs they translate, not simply copy. Therefore, with this background they are able to ‘engage in fine art practice as contemporary artists rather than working as artisan craft weavers.' The fact that the weavers are also artists provides a sense of equality between both parties, a situation which stands in marked contrast to the traditional perception of the workshop in which amateur craft workers slavishly followed a dictated pattern. As Sue Walker the Director of the Victorian Tapestry Workshop states:

The weaver's role is to interpret the artist's designs into tapestries which carry the spirit and feeling of the original image, but which take on a new life in the tapestry medium as a result of the interpretative process. Designs hang in the Workshop for some time before the interpretation begins. It is important to live with a work of art, to get to know it and to understand what it is saying. Other examples of the artist's work are studied, and a familiarity and trust develops between artist and weaver. Colour strips are woven to establish the palette to be used. Woven colour is very different to paint and has wonderful qualities that can be exploited with great skill by an experienced weaver. Ideas about colour and tonal balance are discussed with the artist, as are issues relating to change in scale. Whilst an approach to the work has been established at the outset, the tapestry will soon take over and lead the team into new and unexpected directions. Indeed, the more the weaving progresses the more discussion is generated at the loom.

The weavers are also acknowledged in any documentation associated with the finished tapestry either as interpreter or weaver. The interpreter has to translate the artist's concept in thread as it is such a different medium to paint. The weavers can therefore experiment with many different coloured threads wound on the same bobbin to achieve the painterly effects desired by the artist, but through this translation can also emphasise surface qualities perhaps not initially considered by the artist. Sue Walker describes the process as one set of artists interpreting the work of another artist. Therefore, it is to be expected that professional artists such as those working at the Victorian Tapestry Workshop should and have been recognised as artists collaborating with other artists.

The Parliament House Embroidery completed as a gift to Australia in 1988, was designed by the artist Kay Lawrence and worked on by every State Embroidery Guild in Australia . One of the inherent difficulties to this monumental community art project was that the embroiderers were not artists, but highly skilled craft workers. This process therefore required numerous meetings with various guilds so that Lawrence could explain her design and the reasons behind the narrative she created. An intensive sampler making process was instituted before work could begin on the actual embroidery, to ensure that the effects the embroiderers were creating were what Lawrence had envisaged. Lawrence recalled that some embroiderers were initially frustrated because they were unable to demonstrate their high levels of skill in terms of the actual complexity of the stitch, but instead were required to use their sensitivity to create the blending of colours through simpler stitches. She further added that this was a different way of working for many embroiderers who had followed patterns, but had never interpreted a drawing into embroidery before. Members of the Embroiderers' Guild of Tasmania and South Australia confirmed the difficulties faced by members who had to suspend their traditional way of working to interpret a sixteen meter design which was both fluid and fixed by watercolour paintings and defined images.

The Parliament House Embroidery archives held at the National Library in Canberra reveal initial concerns regarding the guilds' capacity to design a suitable image for the embroidery; although their craftsmanship was beyond question. They then decided to hold a National Competition from which Lawrence 's design was chosen. It appears from these records that a number of concerns were about the actual design which was not a clearly defined pattern for the embroiderers to follow. Lawrence wished them use their skills and experience to experiment with different ways of interpreting each section of the design to make the process of interpretation ‘truly collaborative using their skills and experience to develop my idea.' Anne Richards the National Coordinator for the project noted that the most difficult aspect for Lawrence to convey to the embroiderers was the concept of tone. Many of the embroiderers' relished using colour in their own work and were surprised by their perceived lack of colour in the design. The embroiderers' realised after many discussions with Lawrence that there was scope for wide tonal variations within a reduced palette:

When we first saw the images we were to embroider we were deeply disappointed. The work seemed to be almost all black and we wanted to use our expertise in colour, especially in the section depicting John Glover's cottage and garden. There was much gnashing of teeth at the prospect of charcoal foliage and flowers! The incorporation of a variety of matt and shiny threads and permission from the designer, Kay Lawrence to include mauve and olive colours in some areas improved our humour.

A number of these interpretative issues are documented in the archives and on recordings made of the State Supervisor's Conferences which were held throughout the project. Lawrence maintained a rigorous program of visits and sampler assessments to ensure the integrity of the design was maintained. Lawrence admits that she was ‘open to changes in the design, small changes in the design' , but it was very important to maintain fairly strict control, a stricture supported by the members themselves.

Due to the fact that over five hundred embroiderers were involved it was impractical to list all of their names on the signage at Parliament House, however they are clearly identified as having contributed their skills to the Parliament House Embroidery. Each state section is clearly defined on a map for the viewer, which is also located near the signage for the work. The original guild members who worked on the Parliament House Embroidery confirmed that they felt it was important that they were recognised for contributing but were satisfied with the way they were identified at Parliament House. They also pointed out that the book detailing the project ‘A Work of Many Hands' does list the name of every embroiderer involved.

The art/craft debate has traditionally affected the way textile art is perceived, and even within textiles itself there appears to be a hierarchy. Apparently tapestry is regarded as a higher form of art then embroidery and this is one of the reasons why the Bayeaux tapestry, which is in fact an embroidery, is identified as such. As Dormer notes the art world has perceived skill to be a technical constraint upon self-expression, and not something that can be the content as well as the means of expression. He further states that artists who turn their ideas over to others can ultimately become a designer.

Designers lose control over their creation once they relinquish is to production, whereas one of the strengths of a handicraft-based art form is the flexibility it allows for the artist to change, expand and explore his (sic) original intention (or design) until the point he or she consider that the art work is complete.

In the cases of both the Victorian Tapestry Workshop and the Parliament House Embroidery the particular skills of tapestry and embroidery were and are integral to the vision of the artist. The respect for the immense skill acquired over many years by the weavers of the Victorian Tapestry Workshop and the embroiderers who worked on the Parliament House Embroidery is rightly acknowledged by the people who conceived of the original idea and worked actively with the participants and involved them in the decision making process. In this respect the traditions of the historical guilds and workshops continue but in a way which is equitable and fulfilling to all concerned.

The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the official policy of Craft Victoria. Please log into the online forums to discuss the content of these articles.