Peer Review

Somebody said that any work I do on the revival of old knitting techniques needs to be peer reviewed.like an academic work, a science publication, or an engineering design.

Naw!  Its knitting.  If it is better, then it is better. If it is not better, then it is just more knitting.  The proof is in the knitting.

I went to some of the local textile judges, and asked if I could enter my fabrics in competitions that they judge (e.g., county fairs, fiber festivals .  Their response was that it was likely within the rules as written, but that the rules did NOT contemplate "gansey knitting" (or swaving), and such work belonged in a different class from hand knitting.  Entered in a "knitting" competition, my objects would be "ringers". I like and respect these judges and they know my work, so I was not about to go against their wishes.

Now, they know such objects are being produced, and they have had a couple of years to rewrite the rules. I can start entering the competitions.  And, now there are other knitters around using gansey knitting tools (long needles & knitting sheaths) so there should be some competition.

We have some very good knitters in the local spinning guild, and every "show and tell" produces a stream of "nice" and "very nice" objects.  If I do not get a reaction of  at least,"OMG, how did you do that?!" then, I know I need to go back to the drawing board and design something better.  If I get, "That is not possible! Nobody can knit like that!", then I know I am on the right track.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

0 comments:

Post a Comment

ban nha mat pho ha noi bán nhà mặt phố hà nội