Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Something interesting occurred to me today. It can be assumed on many levels that the attitudes of the people we attempt to recreate are different than they are today. Have we considered in what ways? Many have indicated that patterns for clothing, how the material was utilized, were used in such a way as to save material. But why? Because it was expensive? I'm doubting if we compare our cultures, this time frame and whichever we've chosen to portray, that material is any more expensive honestly (I'm not doing a straight comparison, I haven't studied that aspect by any means). I think on some level that there was a completely different attitude where material and other objects were concerned. I have a feeling they had a greater respect for the individual who wove the material in the first place, since in many cases it could have been their mother or grandmother who did the initial weaving, or the person who spun the thread, cultivated the wool, raised the sheep. If you've ever done the weaving yourself, it's easy to determine that you have a greater tendency to hesitate over cutting it without making sure that cut is what you're needing. Why? Because we don't want to waste all that hard work? I'm sure that's part of it, but I believe there was a greater respect for the ability of the artisan than we tend to have now. With that in mind, though today they tend to use massive machines to weave the cloth we tend to use, there are still the initial people that go into making that cloth all the way back to the farmer who grew the flax or cotton at the beginning. Imagine all the hard work that's been put into making the cloth to begin with, each process, each step, and perhaps the respect they deserve will allow you to see the material you're cutting from another angle, not just monetary.
Posted by Khaentlahn at 5:30 AM