Blogging does take time away from weaving. Blogging does not take time away from weaving. Huh????
It is obvious that sitting at the computer means that I am not sitting at my loom. But weaving is a craft that comprises a lot more than just sitting at the loom and throwing the shuttle. And one of the main things that is involved in weaving is thinking.
My last post, Who Spotted the Threading Errors, illustrates a bit of one of my recent thinking activities. What I want to point out here, however, is that I am not sure I would have done all this thinking had I not also been blogging. Blogging forces me to write stuff down. Writing stuff down means I have to think. Thinking, for me, is facilitated by writing things down.
There is an irony here. The whole threading error that I was talking about earlier occurred because I did not write the ending and beginning threading out so that I could see the threads in black and white on paper (well, really on the computer screen......).
So, I am grateful to Leigh, who encouraged me to blog. And I am grateful to Sara, who posted a long and cogent argument for weavers to blog.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Who Spotted the Threading Errors?
When I looked at the pictures I had taken of this first 8-blocks crackle sampling, one thing immediately jumped at me. Something I had not noticed in the weaving. Something I had not noticed in the computer drawdown. Here it is, with the black arrows pointing to the problems that caught my attention:
Those arrows point to places where the weft yarn skips over more warp ends than it ought to. I went back and looked at the computer drawdown. These skips are not there. Clearly I made a mistake in the actual threading. When I looked at my threading and my notes, however, I threaded exactly as I had printed the threading out. However......and this is a big however....
The error appears at the point where I end the last block of the repeated group of blocks and begin the first block of that group of blocks. And since I repeated the group of blocks three times, that error occurs two times.
Here is the threading for the end of the repeat:
4 1 4 2
Here is the threading for the beginning of the repeat:
3 1 4 1
It had looked to me like there would not be a problem here when I entered the threading blocks into my computer software. What I did not do, however, is write out the last block and the first block as they would appear together. And this is what I would have gotten, had bothered to do this instead of thinking I "knew it all:"
3 1 4 1 4 1 4 2
Now the error is obvious to me. There is a repetition of the 4 1 pair. That repetition destroys the crackle block structure at the point and results in an extra bit of weft going over the warp ends. To correct the matter, all I have to do is leave out two warp ends, one on 4 and one on 1. Doing that gives me:
3 1 4 1 4 2
The first four numbers (3 1 4 1) give me one unit of the first block. The second two numbers give me the last two threads of the last block. The entire unit of that block reads 1 4 2 4. So, the last unit of the last block and the first unit of the first block, when written out look like this:
3 1 4 1 / 4 2 4 1
The slash indicates the division between the two blocks. All is well.
Now I know I cannot trust my imagination to see what is going on in the threading. I must write it down.
No, I did not rethread. This is only a sample. And seeing these two errors over and over again as I weave will reinforce what I need to do from now on. Hopefully................!
Those arrows point to places where the weft yarn skips over more warp ends than it ought to. I went back and looked at the computer drawdown. These skips are not there. Clearly I made a mistake in the actual threading. When I looked at my threading and my notes, however, I threaded exactly as I had printed the threading out. However......and this is a big however....
The error appears at the point where I end the last block of the repeated group of blocks and begin the first block of that group of blocks. And since I repeated the group of blocks three times, that error occurs two times.
Here is the threading for the end of the repeat:
4 1 4 2
Here is the threading for the beginning of the repeat:
3 1 4 1
It had looked to me like there would not be a problem here when I entered the threading blocks into my computer software. What I did not do, however, is write out the last block and the first block as they would appear together. And this is what I would have gotten, had bothered to do this instead of thinking I "knew it all:"
3 1 4 1 4 1 4 2
Now the error is obvious to me. There is a repetition of the 4 1 pair. That repetition destroys the crackle block structure at the point and results in an extra bit of weft going over the warp ends. To correct the matter, all I have to do is leave out two warp ends, one on 4 and one on 1. Doing that gives me:
3 1 4 1 4 2
The first four numbers (3 1 4 1) give me one unit of the first block. The second two numbers give me the last two threads of the last block. The entire unit of that block reads 1 4 2 4. So, the last unit of the last block and the first unit of the first block, when written out look like this:
3 1 4 1 / 4 2 4 1
The slash indicates the division between the two blocks. All is well.
Now I know I cannot trust my imagination to see what is going on in the threading. I must write it down.
No, I did not rethread. This is only a sample. And seeing these two errors over and over again as I weave will reinforce what I need to do from now on. Hopefully................!
Monday, December 3, 2007
8 Crackle Blocks on 4 Shafts: First Sample
Here is a photo of the first sample on the loom.
The weaving is very simple. I simple treadled on opposites. This means that when I treadled such that I raised shafts 1 and 2 (treadle 3), that treadle was followed by a treadle which raised shafts 3 and 4 (treadle 8). On the first treadle I threw brown weft; on the second I threw weft. I repeated this for a total of 6 times (2 shafts treadled constituting 1 time). Then I moved on to the next set of opposite treadles (4 amd 7) and repeated throwing the wefts for a total of 6 times. I continued with treadles 5 and 6, then 6 and 5, then 7 and 4, and finally 8 and 1.
One thing visible is a slight M's and O's effect. Zielinski warned about this in overshot style treadling. If you continually repeat the pattern treadle with the opposite shed for the binder, you will get this kind of effect. Apparently it happens even when the opposite shed is not used for a binder but for a second pattern shot. Perhaps the effect would be more apparent with a finer binder thread? One thing I will look for is whether or not this effect washes out in the washing and pressing.
Because I am using only 4 shafts, treadling on opposites can produce only three blocks. At first glance it might look like 6 blocks are being produced. The effect, however, is an illusion. The illusion is created by the handling of color.
The second set of three blocks is really nothing but a repetition of the first three blocks, only in reverse order. The order is reversed because beginning with the 4th treadling sequence and continuing with the 5th and 6th treadling sequence, the treadling is the same, only in reverse. Since I continued to throw the brown weft first and the red weft second, the colors are reversed.
Looking on the third group of shots and the fourth group of shots shows this clearly. The red weft floats in the third group (treadles 5 and 6) and replaced by brown weft floats in the fourth group (treadles 6 and 5).
The drawdown shows something interesting going on between the third and fourth set of blocks.
There is an awkward repetition of two treadles in a row. The red arrow points to the problem. This happens because treadles 5 and 6 are the last set of treadles of the first group, while 6 and 5 are the first set of treadles for the next group. I have moved from having the first treadle of each group being first 3, then 5, then 5. When I get to 6 (and 7 and 8), the opposite treadles turn out to be the first treadles of the first three groups.
When I saw this on the draft, I realized I needed to figure something out to get away from that awkwardness. But then I looked at the fabric.
The fabric is fine. The doubled treadle is virtually invisible. Drawdowns are not the last word.
The weaving is very simple. I simple treadled on opposites. This means that when I treadled such that I raised shafts 1 and 2 (treadle 3), that treadle was followed by a treadle which raised shafts 3 and 4 (treadle 8). On the first treadle I threw brown weft; on the second I threw weft. I repeated this for a total of 6 times (2 shafts treadled constituting 1 time). Then I moved on to the next set of opposite treadles (4 amd 7) and repeated throwing the wefts for a total of 6 times. I continued with treadles 5 and 6, then 6 and 5, then 7 and 4, and finally 8 and 1.
One thing visible is a slight M's and O's effect. Zielinski warned about this in overshot style treadling. If you continually repeat the pattern treadle with the opposite shed for the binder, you will get this kind of effect. Apparently it happens even when the opposite shed is not used for a binder but for a second pattern shot. Perhaps the effect would be more apparent with a finer binder thread? One thing I will look for is whether or not this effect washes out in the washing and pressing.
Because I am using only 4 shafts, treadling on opposites can produce only three blocks. At first glance it might look like 6 blocks are being produced. The effect, however, is an illusion. The illusion is created by the handling of color.
The second set of three blocks is really nothing but a repetition of the first three blocks, only in reverse order. The order is reversed because beginning with the 4th treadling sequence and continuing with the 5th and 6th treadling sequence, the treadling is the same, only in reverse. Since I continued to throw the brown weft first and the red weft second, the colors are reversed.
Looking on the third group of shots and the fourth group of shots shows this clearly. The red weft floats in the third group (treadles 5 and 6) and replaced by brown weft floats in the fourth group (treadles 6 and 5).
The drawdown shows something interesting going on between the third and fourth set of blocks.
There is an awkward repetition of two treadles in a row. The red arrow points to the problem. This happens because treadles 5 and 6 are the last set of treadles of the first group, while 6 and 5 are the first set of treadles for the next group. I have moved from having the first treadle of each group being first 3, then 5, then 5. When I get to 6 (and 7 and 8), the opposite treadles turn out to be the first treadles of the first three groups.
When I saw this on the draft, I realized I needed to figure something out to get away from that awkwardness. But then I looked at the fabric.
The fabric is fine. The doubled treadle is virtually invisible. Drawdowns are not the last word.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Warping with Handspun
The other day I finished knitting a sock and needed to cut off the yarn. I was a passenger in the car and had forgotten to bring scissors. So I broke it. That is, I tried to break it. With my bare hands.
I've broken knitting yarn before, even yarn with acrylic in it. But this sock yarn would not budge. So I untwisted the yarn enough to get at the 3 single plies. Individually, each of the singles broke with practically a feather touch.
I have always known that singles yarns could be problematic on the warp because they are not as strong as plied yard. And even more problematic would be handspun singles, especially if the handspun is softly spun. I have known for a long time that a two-ply yarn is stronger than a singles. I have known for a long time that a three-ply is stronger yet. I had learned these things when I was weaving with linen and when I started spinning. But I didn't really "know" any of this until I tried to break the sock yarn with my bare hands.
Now I really know in my bones why my plied handspun does not break when I use it as warp.
I've broken knitting yarn before, even yarn with acrylic in it. But this sock yarn would not budge. So I untwisted the yarn enough to get at the 3 single plies. Individually, each of the singles broke with practically a feather touch.
I have always known that singles yarns could be problematic on the warp because they are not as strong as plied yard. And even more problematic would be handspun singles, especially if the handspun is softly spun. I have known for a long time that a two-ply yarn is stronger than a singles. I have known for a long time that a three-ply is stronger yet. I had learned these things when I was weaving with linen and when I started spinning. But I didn't really "know" any of this until I tried to break the sock yarn with my bare hands.
Now I really know in my bones why my plied handspun does not break when I use it as warp.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Ready to Weave
The warp is lashed onto the front rod. And the front rod is attached to the front apron rod with Texsolv loop cord. I decided to try the Texsolv for joining the 2 rods in an attempt to keep the rods an equal distance from each other. This was hard to do just with tying them with pieces of string. The Texsolv keeps the two rods perfectly spaced.
And here is a picture of the trick I borrowed from Leigh. To support the two front rods while lashing on, Leigh had put a ruler on either side of the warp. The ruler rested on the beater lip and the front beam. Onto this the rods were slipped. I couldn't quickly find any rulers, but I did have pick-up sticks, so I used one of these on each end. It worked like a charm. It was much easier for me to get even tension because I wasn't fighting the waving around of the front rods.
This picture also shows more clearly how I used the Texolv loop cord to join the two rods.
I then decided to try a tip I had learned from Sandra Rude. When I had the warp evenly tensioned, I left it overnight. The idea was to get any soft spots to declare themselves in the dark hours of the night. Perhaps also the idea was to come back to testing on a good night's sleep. I discovered that it had softened up a bit on the right hand side so I tightened up the lashing cord there.
Then I proceeded to throw shots with blue 20/2 weft. I discovered a crossed thread on the right-hand side. Strangely, it was the last warp end on the right. Instead of sleying it in the dent with its partner, I had sleyed it one dent to the left. So I cut the offending warp end and rethreaded and sleyed a temporary end in the correct spots. Hence the pin you see on the right hand side of the warp. The pin is holding that warp end in place. The pin is visible on the right side in the following photo.
Visible in the photo also is a correction I had to make to softening ends on the right side. This time I couldn't simply pull the lashing cord tighter. The knots were just too tight to loosen up easily. So I got out a bamboo double-pointed needle and stuck it through the two end loops of the lashing cord. Then, to keep it in place, I pushed the ends of the needle into the holes of the Texsolv.
The warp is looking good. I am ready to start weaving.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Inspiration
"Inspiration is found in the studio while you are working."
This is one reason I find it so important to weave every day. Weaving, by the way, does not mean just sitting at the loom. It also means things like warping, mending cloth, working on drafts. Most of my ideas come during these times. The remaining ideas generally come in the middle of the night. But without the actual weaving activities, they probably would not have come either.
Sometimes they come at fiber shows and art museums as well. A painting can just get me somehow and I dig out my notebook and pen from my purse and write frantically.
And this is why it is important always to have paper and pen/pencil at the ready. When my ideas come in the middle of the night, I can hold onto them till morning without writing them down. But if they come in the midst of weaving-related activities, or at galleries and art museums, the ideas are likely to be lost if not written down fairly quickly.
Source: Art News Blog
This is one reason I find it so important to weave every day. Weaving, by the way, does not mean just sitting at the loom. It also means things like warping, mending cloth, working on drafts. Most of my ideas come during these times. The remaining ideas generally come in the middle of the night. But without the actual weaving activities, they probably would not have come either.
Sometimes they come at fiber shows and art museums as well. A painting can just get me somehow and I dig out my notebook and pen from my purse and write frantically.
And this is why it is important always to have paper and pen/pencil at the ready. When my ideas come in the middle of the night, I can hold onto them till morning without writing them down. But if they come in the midst of weaving-related activities, or at galleries and art museums, the ideas are likely to be lost if not written down fairly quickly.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
More on Sett
The figures I gave on sett from the Osterkamp book are rather typical figures for her. In her tables she frequently has very peculiar numbers such as 19, 27. The only way I could achieve these kinds of setts is through uneven sleyings. Uneven sleyings occur when you do not put the same number of ends in each dent. The sleying might be, for example, 2-3-3-3-2-2-3-3.
I do not like uneven sleyings. First, I am much more apt to make a sleying error when I have to change, even in a regular fashion, the number of warp ends in a dent. Worse still, I would find it much too easy to miss a sleying error until I was in the process of weaving.
Also it is my experience that fabric weaves better with equal numbers of threads in each dent. There is less possibility of ends slipping around in the final fabric or, perhaps even worse, of the whole fabric simply not evening out in the final finishing. In this case, the warp ends would not be evenly spaced.
Uneven spacing of warp ends can be a design feature, but if it is, it ought to be intentional. Uneven spacings, skipped dents, crowded dents, are all ways of achieving this kind of design feature. But right now my concern is obtaining a regular cloth.
The result of this rejection of uneven sleying is that I have a large number of reeds. I would like more, but I would have to have them made to order. I don't consider this particularly a problem, but whenever I think about it, I cannot make up my mind which of several possibilities I would get the most use from. Reeds do not come cheap!
I do not like uneven sleyings. First, I am much more apt to make a sleying error when I have to change, even in a regular fashion, the number of warp ends in a dent. Worse still, I would find it much too easy to miss a sleying error until I was in the process of weaving.
Also it is my experience that fabric weaves better with equal numbers of threads in each dent. There is less possibility of ends slipping around in the final fabric or, perhaps even worse, of the whole fabric simply not evening out in the final finishing. In this case, the warp ends would not be evenly spaced.
Uneven spacing of warp ends can be a design feature, but if it is, it ought to be intentional. Uneven spacings, skipped dents, crowded dents, are all ways of achieving this kind of design feature. But right now my concern is obtaining a regular cloth.
The result of this rejection of uneven sleying is that I have a large number of reeds. I would like more, but I would have to have them made to order. I don't consider this particularly a problem, but whenever I think about it, I cannot make up my mind which of several possibilities I would get the most use from. Reeds do not come cheap!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
