I am reading "Samplers" (Cambridge University Press, 1997) by Carol Humphrey which is a handbook describing the Fitzwilliam Museum's collection of samplers. I read through the 'Preface', which describes how the collection was bequeathed, etc (an interesting story of two very different collectors. But it wasn't till I started reading the 'Introduction' chapter that I got this funny little furrow in my brow?.
Let me quote from the very first paragraph.
"At the end of the twentieth century the story of the sampler is far from over. Surprisingly, at a time when virtually all textiles are mass-produced and women are increasingly employed outside the home, there has been a revival in embroidery. Of course embroidery can never again be one of the great decorative arts that flourished prior to the Industrial Revolution."
I would be very interested in others' opinions here....why would embroidery have ceased to be one of the great decorative arts, and just when did that occur. Embroidery is by default decorative in all its forms......now, it's not one of the "great" decorative arts? I find this statement disturbing to say the least. I still consider it the greatest of the decorative arts, perhaps someone forgot to tell me of its decline.....Yes, I know its popularity has declined, but I just can't agree with that statement. Perhaps the practice of 'hand' embroidery has dwindled, but even modern machine embroidery is still decorative is it not?
The book however, is a great reference and is full of gorgeous pictures and very detailed histories and descriptions...a must for any sampler lover.
