I have had a full response back by email from Marla Mallett today which she has kindly said I may quote from so, here I go, with my Marla Mallett hat on:
Quote:
Dear Pamela,
Since I had been teaching university textile classes and weaving for well over 20 years before writing my book on WOVEN STRUCTURES, I’m quite familiar with most ongoing terminology discussions in the field. There were, in fact, major controversies raging in the Oriental Rug community over terminology issues in the 1980s, and it was these, in addition to the prevalence of erroneous technical information in rug books, that prompted me to produce a technical publication for that community. Problems with proper identification of woven structures had made it difficult for many enthusiasts to describe and discuss West and Central Asian tribal textiles in an understandable way; this extended even to museum curators who were more often Asian art historians than textile specialists.
I’m not sure what you mean by altered meanings due to “colloquial” usage. There is quite standard terminology in general usage among serious textile producers and scholars, while careless, non-standard usage seems the norm among people who may talk or write about textiles but who don’t have substantial technical, hands-on backgrounds in textile production. I’m not aware of any recent evolution in what is considered “standard,” or “proper” textile language, due to the adaptation of commonly misused terminology. Textile people tend to be pretty stubborn in this regard. Unfortunately, incorrect usage in popular literature is not limited to simple, relatively unimportant terms; the miss-identification of basic textile structures is routine.
As for the simple terms you’ve mentioned, I can comment briefly. I’ve never come across a problem with the term “warp” being used as a noun to describe either the entire set of lengthwise yarns that are stretched on the loom and held under tension while a piece is woven, OR used to refer to a single one of those yarns—either on the loom or off. Likewise, the plural form, “warps,” can be used as a noun to refer to more than one of these longitudinal elements—either on the loom, or in the finished fabric. It’s perfectly normal and proper, as is the word “wefts” to denote interlaced elements. This is standard everyday usage among weavers. The singular form can also be used as an adjective, as in “warp yarns.” It’s also proper to speak of “warping a loom.”
“Warp threads” is problematic however, as in most standard textile lingo, “thread” is a product used for sewing or embroidery, while “yarn” is the more proper term for a woven fabric element (even very fine ones!).
“Warp ends” is also seen as a problematic term in some quarters. This is a term used frequently by Western hand weavers, but strenuously objected to by some people in the field. It seems to have developed in handweaving literature along with descriptions of the process of threading a multiple-harness loom—i.e. drawing the ends of individual warps through the heddles and reed. Threading diagrams for complex weaves show the position of “warp ends,” and the term “ends per inch” refers to the “warp sett”—the number of warps in each horizontal inch across the warp’s width. It’s a bit difficult to understand the logic of the term when applied to primitive looms set up in other ways. In any case, it is definitely improper to refer to elements in any woven fabric as “warp ends.” Warp sett is of course a crucial factor to note in any fabric analysis, and may be listed as “epi” if desired, though to me, this seems a little silly when applied to Non-Western primitive weavings. (One might refer to fringe on a woven piece as the warp ends, but that is of course a different meaning and usage.)
All the best,
Marla
PS Quote this if you like…M"
_________________
Pamela
http://www.tribaltextiles.infoon-line tribal textiles resource
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
