First, please check out this link-
Pat on her hill sent the link to me. The quilts are fabulous- just gorgeous, BUT.... how far is too far??? I would be happier with calling these "quilts" if the scenes in the quilts were of fabric and appliqued. I would greatly admire the maker for searching out just the right fabrics and turning and manipulating the fabrics to make a scene of this magnitude and intricacy. I realize searching out a beautiful scene and photographing it properly is an art in itself, but..... is it what we generally think of as making a quilt top? Running fabric thru a computer- is *that* making a quilt top?
I appreciate the quiltmakers who stretch their quiltmaking to the limits and are always looking for something new and different. But at the same time I have a problem with using printing and painting and some other techniques. For me quiltmaking means piecing or appliquing- with fabric- a quilt should have pictures that are appliqued if you want a face or a flower or a scene- not printed or painted. (I know "embellishments" have been around forever- where do you draw the line???) Painting a flower on a piece of fabric and then quilting it just doesn't seem like a "quilt" to me- altho if it has the layers and the quilt stitching, I guess it's technically a type of whole cloth quilt. And some fabric artists take raggedy chunks of fabric and toss them together and call that a quilt- it's just not what I expect in a "quilt".
*IF* you were The Honorary Quilt Police for a day how would you define "A Quilt"? What would be a process or "substance" which would put it over the edge? What are the basic "requirements" to define a "quilt"??? Where does quiltmaking end and "textile artist" begin?Leslie & The Furbabies in MO.