Interesting observation on embroidery techniques.

Ok, 180 is also countable, but it's not "readily countable." In fact,
I'd argue that 40 count is not necessarily "readily countable" but at
least it would be a grey area.

Counted embroidery isn't the same as free stitchery, that's why it says
"or". Needlepointers today use both depending on need. "Random stitch"
for example, is often used but isn't counted.

And the EGA doesn't stop where there ANG begins. There's lots of
overlap between the two organizations. EGA teaches canvas courses and
counted work as does the ANG. I took a course a the EGA regional
seminar last may that I'd definitely call needlepoint (although the
instructor might argue). It was silks and metals on congress cloth and
included both counted and free stitches.

You wouldn't be wanting everything to be nice and neatly categorized,
would you? *evil grin*

Elizabeth

Dianne Lewandowski wrote:
Well, (and I'm not saying I'm *right* - just that I can't get a mental
handle on their definition) . . .

Needlepoint is a term borrowed from lace makers. It is generally known
as canvas embroidery.

Canvas embroidery can be anything, and in recent *history* (thinking
Armbuter especially, but UK designers did other things in the early 20th
century) has included about every historical embroidery technique you
can think of.

If the organization would to say "broadened the definition" to include
any readily countable ground . . . .

But even that is a misnomer. To one person, the only countable ground
is 18-count . . . . to another person (I know one who did), a countable
ground is 180-count.

Counted embroidery also isn't the same as "free stitchery", so I'm
confused by that terminology, unless they're including the darning
patterns in filet lace, for instance.

I realize they're trying to change people's mind about the term
"needlepoint". And they perhaps don't want to *only* be stuck with the
term "canvas embroidery". But then, where does EGA stop and ANG begin .
. . .

It just confuses me.
Dianne

Dr. Brat wrote:

Dianne Lewandowski wrote:

For those interested ANG defines needlepoint as any counted or free
stitchery worked by hand with a threaded needle on a readily
countable ground.

I take issue with their definition, but then, who am I?

Ok, Dianne, I'll bite. What's your issue?

Elizabeth


--
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~living well is the best revenge~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The most important thing one woman can do for another is to illuminate
and expand her sense of actual possibilities. --Adrienne Rich
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

It says, " ANG defines needlepoint as any counted or free stitchery
worked by hand with a threaded needle on a readily countable ground."

You can do free stitchery on canvas, although you are pretty much
relegated to following the squares. That's not the same as free
stitchery on non-readily-countable grounds.

I just don't understand why they are redefining the word "needlepoint"
in this way. I like that the term is now "canvas embroidery" rather
than "needlepoint". But what I think they need to define is their
"organization", not the word "needlepoint". The word needlepoint has
been misused for eons, as has the sister word "tapestry" in the UK.
Such as: "ANG is focused on canvas embroidery and free stitchery on any
readily countable ground." There's better ways to word that, but you
get my drift. I don't mind the "mixed" focus of the organization. The
more the merrier.

EGA was almost entirely focused on counted embroidery, a little on
canvas embroidery, for a very long time and is now expanding, thank
heavens. Finally the message is being received. It is more
encompassing. Hooray!

As you pointed out, what is a "countable ground" differs. "Readily
countable ground" a slippery term. Is that 18-count? 32? And why
isn't that spelled out? I think I know why, but . . .

I have no quarrel. I have been tempted to join, but my focus has been
other places for a long time, and keeps expanding in that direction,
leaving little time to explore the counted world as much as I'd like. I
love it all . . . I'm just taking different roads.

Yes, EGA tends to use the term "silk and metal embroidery" when it's
those threads on a "readily countable ground" or on canvas.

I wildly vascillate between wanting things categorized and also in
disarray. :-) It's in the genes: French and German. How wildly
different can you get!

Dianne

Dr. Brat wrote:
Ok, 180 is also countable, but it's not "readily countable." In fact,
I'd argue that 40 count is not necessarily "readily countable" but at
least it would be a grey area.

Counted embroidery isn't the same as free stitchery, that's why it says
"or". Needlepointers today use both depending on need. "Random stitch"
for example, is often used but isn't counted.

And the EGA doesn't stop where there ANG begins. There's lots of
overlap between the two organizations. EGA teaches canvas courses and
counted work as does the ANG. I took a course a the EGA regional
seminar last may that I'd definitely call needlepoint (although the
instructor might argue). It was silks and metals on congress cloth and
included both counted and free stitches.

You wouldn't be wanting everything to be nice and neatly categorized,
would you? *evil grin*

Elizabeth

Dianne Lewandowski wrote:

Well, (and I'm not saying I'm *right* - just that I can't get a mental
handle on their definition) . . .

Needlepoint is a term borrowed from lace makers. It is generally
known as canvas embroidery.

Canvas embroidery can be anything, and in recent *history* (thinking
Armbuter especially, but UK designers did other things in the early
20th century) has included about every historical embroidery technique
you can think of.

If the organization would to say "broadened the definition" to include
any readily countable ground . . . .

But even that is a misnomer. To one person, the only countable ground
is 18-count . . . . to another person (I know one who did), a
countable ground is 180-count.

Counted embroidery also isn't the same as "free stitchery", so I'm
confused by that terminology, unless they're including the darning
patterns in filet lace, for instance.

I realize they're trying to change people's mind about the term
"needlepoint". And they perhaps don't want to *only* be stuck with
the term "canvas embroidery". But then, where does EGA stop and ANG
begin . . . .

It just confuses me.
Dianne

Dr. Brat wrote:

Dianne Lewandowski wrote:

For those interested ANG defines needlepoint as any counted or free
stitchery worked by hand with a threaded needle on a readily
countable ground.

I take issue with their definition, but then, who am I?


Ok, Dianne, I'll bite. What's your issue?

Elizabeth

I would think they define 'needlepoint' because that is the
word used in the name of their organization, *American Needlepoint
Guild" which was created many years ago. Canvaswork is a fairly new
term, is it not? They do not seem to use it anywhere in the goals for
their orgainzation...or did I miss it.

As for doing 'free stitchery' on canvas and being pretty much
relegated to the squares. I thought the same thing for many years
*until* I took a class with Betty Chen Louis. We used a #10
embroidery needle, a single strand of au ver a soie silk and split the
threads of the canvas to do long and short. It looked fabulous, but
was extremely time consuming. Needless to say, that is one class kit
in my pile of UFO's

As for EGA.... I've always been impressed with the selection
of classes they offer at their seminars...gorgeous work! A number of
the local guild members really got into Japanese canvaswork because of
EGA...absolutely beautiful!!! I couldn't justify the time nor the
expense, so stick to what I can handle on my budget

take care, Linda


On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:12:06 -0500, Dianne Lewandowski
wrote:

It says, " ANG defines needlepoint as any counted or free stitchery
worked by hand with a threaded needle on a readily countable ground."

You can do free stitchery on canvas, although you are pretty much
relegated to following the squares. That's not the same as free
stitchery on non-readily-countable grounds.

I just don't understand why they are redefining the word "needlepoint"
in this way. I like that the term is now "canvas embroidery" rather
than "needlepoint". But what I think they need to define is their
"organization", not the word "needlepoint". The word needlepoint has
been misused for eons, as has the sister word "tapestry" in the UK.
Such as: "ANG is focused on canvas embroidery and free stitchery on any
readily countable ground." There's better ways to word that, but you
get my drift. I don't mind the "mixed" focus of the organization. The
more the merrier.

EGA was almost entirely focused on counted embroidery, a little on
canvas embroidery, for a very long time and is now expanding, thank
heavens. Finally the message is being received. It is more
encompassing. Hooray!

As you pointed out, what is a "countable ground" differs. "Readily
countable ground" a slippery term. Is that 18-count? 32? And why
isn't that spelled out? I think I know why, but . . .

I have no quarrel. I have been tempted to join, but my focus has been
other places for a long time, and keeps expanding in that direction,
leaving little time to explore the counted world as much as I'd like. I
love it all . . . I'm just taking different roads.

Yes, EGA tends to use the term "silk and metal embroidery" when it's
those threads on a "readily countable ground" or on canvas.

I wildly vascillate between wanting things categorized and also in
disarray. :-) It's in the genes: French and German. How wildly
different can you get!

Dianne

Dr. Brat wrote:
Ok, 180 is also countable, but it's not "readily countable." In fact,
I'd argue that 40 count is not necessarily "readily countable" but at
least it would be a grey area.

Counted embroidery isn't the same as free stitchery, that's why it says
"or". Needlepointers today use both depending on need. "Random stitch"
for example, is often used but isn't counted.

And the EGA doesn't stop where there ANG begins. There's lots of
overlap between the two organizations. EGA teaches canvas courses and
counted work as does the ANG. I took a course a the EGA regional
seminar last may that I'd definitely call needlepoint (although the
instructor might argue). It was silks and metals on congress cloth and
included both counted and free stitches.

You wouldn't be wanting everything to be nice and neatly categorized,
would you? *evil grin*

Elizabeth

Dianne Lewandowski wrote:

Well, (and I'm not saying I'm *right* - just that I can't get a mental
handle on their definition) . . .

Needlepoint is a term borrowed from lace makers. It is generally
known as canvas embroidery.

Canvas embroidery can be anything, and in recent *history* (thinking
Armbuter especially, but UK designers did other things in the early
20th century) has included about every historical embroidery technique
you can think of.

If the organization would to say "broadened the definition" to include
any readily countable ground . . . .

But even that is a misnomer. To one person, the only countable ground
is 18-count . . . . to another person (I know one who did), a
countable ground is 180-count.

Counted embroidery also isn't the same as "free stitchery", so I'm
confused by that terminology, unless they're including the darning
patterns in filet lace, for instance.

I realize they're trying to change people's mind about the term
"needlepoint". And they perhaps don't want to *only* be stuck with
the term "canvas embroidery". But then, where does EGA stop and ANG
begin . . . .

It just confuses me.
Dianne

Dr. Brat wrote:

Dianne Lewandowski wrote:

For those interested ANG defines needlepoint as any counted or free
stitchery worked by hand with a threaded needle on a readily
countable ground.

I take issue with their definition, but then, who am I?


Ok, Dianne, I'll bite. What's your issue?

Elizabeth





Vancouver Island, bc.ca (remove 'nospam' to reply)
See samples of my work at: www.members.shaw.ca/deugau

There's so much canvas work that I haven't seen, and I know from posts
like yours that some of it is astoundingly beautiful.

I think, from what I've gathered from talking with people here and
elsewhere, that the new term is "canvas embroidery". Might be canvas
work. I don't know for sure.

When you say, "split the threads of the canvas", do you mean penelope
canvas? You don't actually split the ground threads? Or do you?
Actually, from Ambuter's book, that's a technique used often when using
canvas as a ground for what was normally not a canvas "technique", such
as filet lace darning.

Yes, I think they're trying to redefine the word "needlepoint", but to
me, if they are going to redefine their "mission" (which I don't
disagree with), they should rename their organization. Then, nobody put
me in charge. grin I mean, large corporations do that all the time
to allow the public to understand their "new" goals, products, focus.
Like going from "personnel department to human resources". There's a
period of adjustment.

I didn't look any further, so don't know where else they use the term
"needlepoint".

Please, I'm not condemning the organization, or its focus, or the use of
the word "needlepoint". I just wish that, if they're going to be more
clear, that they do that.

And actually, what I wish would be taught is the "original" technique,
so that rather than use canvas, let's do filet darning and learn how to
make the filet (or embroider the machine-made filet). And rather than
reticella on canvas, let's learn to make *real* reticella. Actually, I
taught myself a *tiny bit* of reticella from Ambuter's book - but I
didn't use canvas, just followed her general directions on high-count
linen. :-)
Dianne

Linda D. wrote:
I would think they define 'needlepoint' because that is the
word used in the name of their organization, *American Needlepoint
Guild" which was created many years ago. Canvaswork is a fairly new
term, is it not? They do not seem to use it anywhere in the goals for
their orgainzation...or did I miss it.

As for doing 'free stitchery' on canvas and being pretty much
relegated to the squares. I thought the same thing for many years
*until* I took a class with Betty Chen Louis. We used a #10
embroidery needle, a single strand of au ver a soie silk and split the
threads of the canvas to do long and short. It looked fabulous, but
was extremely time consuming. Needless to say, that is one class kit
in my pile of UFO's

As for EGA.... I've always been impressed with the selection
of classes they offer at their seminars...gorgeous work! A number of
the local guild members really got into Japanese canvaswork because of
EGA...absolutely beautiful!!! I couldn't justify the time nor the
expense, so stick to what I can handle on my budget

take care, Linda


On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:12:06 -0500, Dianne Lewandowski
wrote:


It says, " ANG defines needlepoint as any counted or free stitchery
worked by hand with a threaded needle on a readily countable ground."

You can do free stitchery on canvas, although you are pretty much
relegated to following the squares. That's not the same as free
stitchery on non-readily-countable grounds.

I just don't understand why they are redefining the word "needlepoint"
in this way. I like that the term is now "canvas embroidery" rather
than "needlepoint". But what I think they need to define is their
"organization", not the word "needlepoint". The word needlepoint has
been misused for eons, as has the sister word "tapestry" in the UK.
Such as: "ANG is focused on canvas embroidery and free stitchery on any
readily countable ground." There's better ways to word that, but you
get my drift. I don't mind the "mixed" focus of the organization. The
more the merrier.

EGA was almost entirely focused on counted embroidery, a little on
canvas embroidery, for a very long time and is now expanding, thank
heavens. Finally the message is being received. It is more
encompassing. Hooray!

As you pointed out, what is a "countable ground" differs. "Readily
countable ground" a slippery term. Is that 18-count? 32? And why
isn't that spelled out? I think I know why, but . . .

I have no quarrel. I have been tempted to join, but my focus has been
other places for a long time, and keeps expanding in that direction,
leaving little time to explore the counted world as much as I'd like. I
love it all . . . I'm just taking different roads.

Yes, EGA tends to use the term "silk and metal embroidery" when it's
those threads on a "readily countable ground" or on canvas.

I wildly vascillate between wanting things categorized and also in
disarray. :-) It's in the genes: French and German. How wildly
different can you get!

Dianne

Dr. Brat wrote:

Ok, 180 is also countable, but it's not "readily countable." In fact,
I'd argue that 40 count is not necessarily "readily countable" but at
least it would be a grey area.

Counted embroidery isn't the same as free stitchery, that's why it says
"or". Needlepointers today use both depending on need. "Random stitch"
for example, is often used but isn't counted.

And the EGA doesn't stop where there ANG begins. There's lots of
overlap between the two organizations. EGA teaches canvas courses and
counted work as does the ANG. I took a course a the EGA regional
seminar last may that I'd definitely call needlepoint (although the
instructor might argue). It was silks and metals on congress cloth and
included both counted and free stitches.

You wouldn't be wanting everything to be nice and neatly categorized,
would you? *evil grin*

Elizabeth

Dianne Lewandowski wrote:


Well, (and I'm not saying I'm *right* - just that I can't get a mental
handle on their definition) . . .

Needlepoint is a term borrowed from lace makers. It is generally
known as canvas embroidery.

Canvas embroidery can be anything, and in recent *history* (thinking
Armbuter especially, but UK designers did other things in the early
20th century) has included about every historical embroidery technique
you can think of.

If the organization would to say "broadened the definition" to include
any readily countable ground . . . .

But even that is a misnomer. To one person, the only countable ground
is 18-count . . . . to another person (I know one who did), a
countable ground is 180-count.

Counted embroidery also isn't the same as "free stitchery", so I'm
confused by that terminology, unless they're including the darning
patterns in filet lace, for instance.

I realize they're trying to change people's mind about the term
"needlepoint". And they perhaps don't want to *only* be stuck with
the term "canvas embroidery". But then, where does EGA stop and ANG
begin . . . .

It just confuses me.
Dianne

Dr. Brat wrote:


Dianne Lewandowski wrote:


For those interested ANG defines needlepoint as any counted or free
stitchery worked by hand with a threaded needle on a readily
countable ground.

I take issue with their definition, but then, who am I?


Ok, Dianne, I'll bite. What's your issue?

Elizabeth




Vancouver Island, bc.ca (remove 'nospam' to reply)
See samples of my work at: www.members.shaw.ca/deugau

Dianne Lewandowski wrote:
There's so much canvas work that I haven't seen, and I know from posts
like yours that some of it is astoundingly beautiful.

I think, from what I've gathered from talking with people here and
elsewhere, that the new term is "canvas embroidery". Might be canvas
work. I don't know for sure.

I've always heard it called canvaswork.

When you say, "split the threads of the canvas", do you mean penelope
canvas? You don't actually split the ground threads? Or do you?

Yes, one actually splits the threads of the canvas. I've done this on
congress cloth with a chenile needle.

And actually, what I wish would be taught is the "original" technique,
so that rather than use canvas, let's do filet darning and learn how to
make the filet (or embroider the machine-made filet). And rather than
reticella on canvas, let's learn to make *real* reticella. Actually, I
taught myself a *tiny bit* of reticella from Ambuter's book - but I
didn't use canvas, just followed her general directions on high-count
linen. :-)

More power to you, but I *like* working some things on canvas. Purism
has its place, but so does innovation.

Elizabeth
--
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~living well is the best revenge~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The most important thing one woman can do for another is to illuminate
and expand her sense of actual possibilities. --Adrienne Rich
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 16:50:25 -0500, Dianne Lewandowski
wrote:

There's so much canvas work that I haven't seen, and I know from posts
like yours that some of it is astoundingly beautiful.

I think, from what I've gathered from talking with people here and
elsewhere, that the new term is "canvas embroidery". Might be canvas
work. I don't know for sure.

The term I've heard is 'canvaswork'.

When you say, "split the threads of the canvas", do you mean penelope
canvas? You don't actually split the ground threads? Or do you?
Actually, from Ambuter's book, that's a technique used often when using
canvas as a ground for what was normally not a canvas "technique", such
as filet lace darning.

We actually pierced the threads of congress cloth using a #10
embroidery needle that is threaded with a single strand of au ver a
soie silk. The design was/is called "Blue Peony Fan" and is a fan
filled with clouds. The clouds are various blackwork fillings done in
blue, and another area has the blue peonies done in long and short.
There is also Jap gold couched into the design. I can send a scan of
the design if you wish. It is very beautiful.

Yes, I think they're trying to redefine the word "needlepoint", but to
me, if they are going to redefine their "mission" (which I don't
disagree with), they should rename their organization. Then, nobody put
me in charge. grin I mean, large corporations do that all the time
to allow the public to understand their "new" goals, products, focus.
Like going from "personnel department to human resources". There's a
period of adjustment.

I think renaming an orgainzation is not an easy task, so I'm
sure they would leave that alone.

And actually, what I wish would be taught is the "original" technique,
so that rather than use canvas, let's do filet darning and learn how to
make the filet (or embroider the machine-made filet). And rather than
reticella on canvas, let's learn to make *real* reticella. Actually, I
taught myself a *tiny bit* of reticella from Ambuter's book - but I
didn't use canvas, just followed her general directions on high-count
linen. :-)
Dianne

I've tried reticella lace...not my thing, and to me, it is not
needlepoint, but "needle lace"...different thing altogether. If one
wants to pursue the laces then the orgainzation to contact is the
International Old Lacers. I have a lot of their newsletters in my
stash. Heaven help my family if I die and they have to go through all
this stuff...eek!

take care, Linda
Vancouver Island, bc.ca (remove 'nospam' to reply)
See samples of my work at: www.members.shaw.ca/deugau

I said:
And actually, what I wish would be taught is the "original" technique,
so that rather than use canvas, let's do filet darning and learn how
to make the filet (or embroider the machine-made filet). And rather
than reticella on canvas, let's learn to make *real* reticella.
Actually, I taught myself a *tiny bit* of reticella from Ambuter's
book - but I didn't use canvas, just followed her general directions
on high-count linen. :-)

Then Dr. Brat replied:
More power to you, but I *like* working some things on canvas. Purism
has its place, but so does innovation.

No quarrel, but as always, I like to open up the "question". It amazes
me when I ask the "question" how so many glom on and protect their turf.
Much like world affairs.

To answer Linda D's post in the same breath: Reticella might be
technically "lace", but there are some easier patterns, done at the
corners of drawn thread (for instance), and it would be nice to have
this taught in its "pure" state and not have so many afraid of it.

Now, I'll just have to pick up some mono canvas and see what it's like
to split the threads. grin

The longer I am involved with embroidery, the more I see the correlation
to "life".

Dianne

Is Reticella not taught in it's 'pure state'? Does EGA never
offer it as a class? When I belonged to the local needlework guild
all it seemed to take is one person to start doing a different or
unusual technique and some would get interested. We would offer a
different technique as a mini-class at each meeting...some would love
it, some wouldn't even finish the small project, but that's fine they
were still exposed to it. Our goal was to expose members to as many
needlework techniques as possible and then hopefully have them
continue on with them.

We were very fortunate to have some incredibly talented
members with a broad knowledge of needlework. One member was a crewel
embroidery expert, you name it, she did it. Another was not only very
good at crewel, she was excellent at smocking and other free-style
embroidery., yet another was very talented at metal thread. As you
can guess, myself and a couple of others were the counted thread
instructors.

When you say, "The longer I am involved with embroidery, the
more I see the correlation to "life" . Are you referring to 'right
brain thinkers' vs. 'left brain thinkers'? If so, there is no doubt
that I like things perfectly counted and logical, so counted thread is
my thing...no argument there I can do other freestyle techniques,
smocking, etc., but always returne to counted thread or canvaswork.

Heck, I've recently got back into quilting and what pulled me
back into it was finding a pattern called "Tessalating Star",
again...very symetrical, and very pleasing to my eye Take a peek
at my website, there is a photo of it there...

take care, Linda


On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 08:19:20 -0500, Dianne Lewandowski
wrote:
snipped
To answer Linda D's post in the same breath: Reticella might be
technically "lace", but there are some easier patterns, done at the
corners of drawn thread (for instance), and it would be nice to have
this taught in its "pure" state and not have so many afraid of it.

Now, I'll just have to pick up some mono canvas and see what it's like
to split the threads. grin

The longer I am involved with embroidery, the more I see the correlation
to "life".

Dianne


Vancouver Island, bc.ca (remove 'nospam' to reply)
See samples of my work at: www.members.shaw.ca/deugau

No quarrel, but as always, I like to open up the "question". It amazes
me when I ask the "question" how so many glom on and protect their turf.
Much like world affairs.

Well, that's more than just a little dismissive.

To answer Linda D's post in the same breath: Reticella might be
technically "lace", but there are some easier patterns, done at the
corners of drawn thread (for instance), and it would be nice to have
this taught in its "pure" state and not have so many afraid of it.

And so is this. Why do you assume that if some choose not to persue a
technique that they must be afraid of it? I'm not afraid of anything,
but there are plenty of needlework techniques out there that I don't
like and plenty more that I can tell I would or wouldn't like based on
how fiddly they are.

Elizabeth
--
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~living well is the best revenge~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The most important thing one woman can do for another is to illuminate
and expand her sense of actual possibilities. --Adrienne Rich
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Dr. Brat wrote:

Well, that's more than just a little dismissive.

I didn't mean to be dismissive at all, furthermore, that's one-sided on
your part. It is interesting to me that when I open up a question (such
as the new mission of ANG and why they are defining needlepoint the way
they are defining it), there are turf wars, just like in real life. I
didn't say anything about not liking needlepoint, not wanting anyone to
do needlepoint, not enjoying raising canvas work to new heights, etc.
etc. I merely pointed out:

and it would be nice to have
this taught in its "pure" state and not have so many afraid of it.

To which you again came back:

And so is this [dismissive]. Why do you assume that if some choose not to persue a
technique that they must be afraid of it? I'm not afraid of anything,
but there are plenty of needlework techniques out there that I don't
like and plenty more that I can tell I would or wouldn't like based on
how fiddly they are.

Because that is often the case: fear. Remember, I didn't say
"everybody". I said "so many". Now, that might be a minority, but a
minority of 10,000 could be 3,000 and that's "so many" in my eyes.

If you're not afraid of it, fine. Do what it is you like to do. But as
a music teacher, I know all too well how people (students) are often
fearful and will stick to what they know because it is "comfortable" and
that "other stuff" is fearful. Plus, I've seen plenty of posts here and
other places wherein people have said, "Oh, I don't think I can do
that." So, that's fear.

You can couch "fear" in any number of rationalizations, but the basics
of the not doing can often be "fear". Fear of failure, looking stupid,
not getting it readily, having it turn out less than successful, being
laughed at, not knowing how to follow (or readily understand)
directions, even fear of giving up, fear of having to practise. What is
that famous line: Yes, it might take you 5 years, but if you do it, in
five years you'll have it. If you never do it, in 5 years you won't be
able to.

I've not directed my post at any single individual. If fear isn't part
of YOUR problem, then don't worry about it. Fear IS a part of lots of
people's problems. So is group dynamics: if "this" group does "this",
then those who join the group better do "this". Counted stitching has
been a huge dynamic in the U.S. for a long time. It is slowly, like a
snail, opening up. I think that's wonderful. That doesn't mean I am
demeaning counted embroidery, or think less of it. However, I do detect
a note of the "opposite" effect.

Now, we can have a difference of opinion on this, and that's fine
because in this case, I don't feel intimidated by your (Elizabeth's)
higher education and understanding.

I merely asked a question - and opened up a discussion - on the
definition of needlepoint. I expressed my views. Perhaps not as
eloquently as I should have. But it's a "view" which is open to debate
and not necessary to attack as dismissive.

Dianne