MakingLearning & The Leuven Conference

MakingLearning & the Leuven Conference

A group of which I am a part (MakingLearning) recently ran a practical, art-therapeutic workshop at the Psychology and the Classics conference in Leuven. The workshop we ran is one we have run several times before: Hanging My Heart. In this workshop, participants create ‘votives’ - small art-object treasures mimicking the kind of votive offerings found from the ancient world. Such objects could represent prayers for help with a particular issue or illness, or perhaps even a prayer of thanks for something now over or completed. Obviously, in a contemporary context we (as in, we who run this workshop) do not make these votives with the intention of leaving them in a temple as an offering to a god. In our workshops, the value must be found in the process itself rather than the dedication of a finished item. 

One of the things I struggle with most as an artist, and in general as a person, is the idea that my activities and projects could be process-oriented rather than goal-oriented. I have always worked with the latter model. I make because I want to actualise something; I have an idea in my head and I want to turn it into a physical item that can be seen, held, and shared. The first few times I was asked if I enjoy the various modes of crafting I engage in in pursuit of this goal the question baffled me. It was so irrelevant to my goals that not only had I not considered it, but the question itself confused me. 

I still can’t answer the question. I can’t tell you if I enjoy sewing or knitting (etc.) or not, but I can at least explain that enjoyment of the process is not why I continue to do these things. 

  Perhaps it is odd then, that the group I work with and in - MakingLearning - is emphatically focused on the value and quality of the process: learning should be fun. Making should be fun. The process of making can be more important than the finished item. The process is the part in which learning, self-reflection and discovery happens. Everything of value to the maker happens in the process itself - it does not magically spring into our minds when an object is finally complete. 

  You can see the struggle I have with process-oriented thinking: even when trying to think with such a model my mind immediately grasps at the non-physical outcomes of the process. Goals, goals, goals. My mind remains stubbornly outside the process. And, perhaps paradoxically, this is precisely the reason I value MakingLearning’s approach. Every workshop is another chance for me to try and understand this other mode of thinking, to try again to just enjoy the process, without thought for any sort of goal: to try and engage in a making where success or failure are as irrelevant as enjoyment is to my usual way of working. 

  So when we run the votive workshop, in which participants make votives representing fears, hopes, sadnesses, etc. mimicking the ancient practices of votive giving, what do I make votives of? 

I make votives of anything I want, of things without outside meaning, I allow myself to play, to experiment with new techniques and not worry at all about what the finished item might look like, because this time, at least, it just doesn’t matter; it is the process of making the object, not the object itself, which constitutes my votive.

It's a little bit of a faff, but it works perfectly for me: when you get to the end of a needle, drop that needle and carry on knitting the next two or three stitches from the next needle onto your live needle as well, then pick up your empty needle, slip those two/three stitches from the old live needle onto this needle, and carry on.

Basically, always knit two-three stitches from the next needle without changing your live needle, then change to the next live needle and slip those two/three stitches onto it, so you're never having to knit any stitches on joins.

Hello! I have a question about laddering with DPNs because no matter what I keep getting ladders on my socks. I usually knit with three in the stitches and the fourth one to knit and I've tried using all five and I've tried putting more tension on the parts where the needles meet but I can't seem to get it right :/ should I give up and just do magic loop?

Hi there,

Unfortunately, laddering can happen with the magic loop method as well.  

You said you’re using more tension at the joins.  Are you putting extra tension on the first few and last few stitches on each needle?  

Also, another trick I use is moving the stitches around periodically to change up where the first and last stitches on the needles are.  This can make laddering quite a bit less noticeable because it’s not happening with the same stitches every row.

Aside from doing what she’s already doing does anyone else have other ideas for a-piece-of-pjorn on how to avoid laddering?

Well this sounds very interesting, and personally relevant. 

Something else amazing I didn’t realise I needed in my life.

Differences achieved by slipping knitwise/purlwise for an SSK decrease, for anyone who has ever wondered. Top left is traditional SSK - both stitches slipped knitwise. Top right is SSK with both stitches slipped purlwise. Bottom left is first stitch slipped purlwise and second slipped knitwise. Bottom right is first stitch slipped knitwise and second slipped purlwise. You can see that the traditional SSK gives the smoothest line. But that might not always be the best style for a pattern. If you're working something that emphasises corners and angles, try one of the other three. SSK with knitwise then purlwise completely hides the second stitch being decreased so it gives a simple step pattern in the decrease. The other two allow a leg of the second stitch to show through so could work with designs where you want to emphasise complexity or a 2-1 rib design, etc.

But yet it seems to me that translating from one tongue into another, unless it be from those queens of tongues, Greek and Latin, is like viewing Flemish tapestries from the wrong side, for although you see the pictures, they are covered with threads that obscure them so that the smoothness and the gloss of the fabric are lost.

Don Quixote, Part 2: (trans Water Starkie)

Oh, but Don Quixote, did no one teach you to marvel at the back of those tapestries, and see them as their own piece of art?