Textiles As Primary Sources In The Study Of Boundary Art: Hispanic Textiles Of Northern New Mexico

INTRODUCTION Wool, weft-faced textiles from the looms of Northern New Mexican Hispanic weavers (Figs. 1 through 7) are widely represented in museum collections and historical societies. Often, they are confused with Navajo and Mexican blankets and rugs although Hispanic weavings are the products of a unique weaving tradition and are produced within a distinctive cultural context. I view the history of Hispanic weaving in northern New Mexico as an example of boundary art, that art which is produced by one cultural group for purchase by another. This transaction often requires the services of an intermediary and takes place within a boundary art world. Focus here is upon the craft of Hispanic weaving during three newly-designated periods. The first I have termed the Transitional Period, 1860 to 1910. The second is the Early Chimayo Period, 1880 to 1920, the last the Revival Period, 1920-1940. These overlapping periods occur between what is termed the earlier Classic Rio Grande Style of Hispanic weaving and Modern Chimayo weaving found in northern New Mexico today. However, first a brief summary of what preceded these intermediate periods will be presented. CLASSIC RIO GRANDE WEAVING: PRE-1880 The first weaving technology in the American Southwest was a diffusion from Middle America to the settled peoples who were the predecessors of the modern Pueblo Indians during the centuries before contact with the white man. Later, after Spanish colonization the Navajo learned the art of weaving from the Pueblo. The history of Hispanic weaving in the Southwest began in the late 16th century, when Hispanic settlers colonized the northernmost frontier of the Kingdom of New Spain in the area now known as New Mexico. These settlers brought European weaving technology to the area and constructed looms of local materials (as shown in Fig. 8 in a late 19th century example) to meet a range of textile needs. Blankets produced on Hispanic looms from earliest settlement until the late 19th century have been known as Rio Grande blankets. Early examples were made of coarse, homespun wool in solid natural colors or with simple stripes (Fig. 1). They were popular with all manner of frontiersmen - traders, trappers, miners - who were the first consumers in the boundary art world

California and the Fiber Art Revolution

The 1960s and 1970s were critical years in the development of American fiber art. One of the major and most exciting centers of change was California. This paper will look at California’s transforming role in the fiber revolution. One noteworthy indicator of change in fiber art was the series of twelve exhibitions entitled California Design. They were held at the Pasadena Art Museum from 1954 to 1971 and at another venue in 1976. Exhibition catalogs were published for the last five exhibitions (1962, 1965, 1968, 1971 and 1976). The catalog pages document the movement within the fiber area - away from functional textiles and towards two dimensional wall pieces and sculpture, from design to fine art. For this presentation, the work presented in the catalogs is juxtaposed with social and political events in California and those in the field of fiber art to provide context

Trade In Hispanic Weavings Of Northern New Mexico And The Social Construction Of Tradition!

No discussion of late 20th century trade in textiles - particularly trade in what has been called regional or ethnic textiles - would be complete without a discussion of the terms traditional and authentic for these terms inform even a lay person\u27s evaluation of textiles on the market today. As textile professionals, we encounter terms like textile tradition, traditional textiles or even authentic traditional textiles in our everyday experience: a textile brought back by a collector from travel to a Third World nation or a textile on display in a museum. These textiles are subjected to discussions of their authenticity, of whether they represent a tradition. The authentic, traditional textile is often, either openly or implicitly, contrasted to the inauthentic, tourist textile. There is an assumption that we share a common understanding of the term traditional textile. However, a growing body of interdisciplinary literature from the fields of anthropology (Clifford, 1988; Dominguez, 1986; Handler and Linnekin, 1984 ), folklore (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, 1988; Bendix, 1989), history (Hobsbaum and Ranger, 1983) and sociology (Cohen, 1988) has challenged our commonsense understanding of what constitutes a tradition. In this emerging literature, traditions are viewed as negotiable (Cohen, 1988:374), invented (Hobsbawm and Ranger 1983) and socially-constructed (Handler and Linnekin:1984). Further, collected objects, formerly seen as the locus of interesting data about other cultures and their authentic traditions are now being reevaluated for what they can tell us about ourselves and our values. For example, the quest for authenticity in the objects we buy and study is seen as a sign of our own alienation (Cohen: op. cit.) or as a means of preserving our own historicity (Dominguez, 1986:548). As the terms tradition and authenticity have been scrutinized and deconstructed, long-held assumptions have given way. What is meant by the social construction of tradition? Rather than viewing a tradition as a natural phenomenon, which existed in the past, tradition is viewed as a symbolic process. Shils noted in 1981 (195) that tradition is capable of being retrospectively reformed by human beings in the present Later, Handler and Linnekin (1984) wrote, Tradition is a model of the past and is inseparable from the interpretation of tradition in the present...a symbolic process that both presupposes past symbolisms and creatively reinterprets them; tradition is ...a process of interpretation, attributing meaning in the present through making reference to the past (1984:276)

Museum Viewpoint: Fiber Art and the Struggle for Recognition

Museums are important repositories of culture and play a key role in shaping values concerning art. Indeed, museum acceptance can validate the worth of an artwork, and is often a prerequisite for an artist\u27s long-term success. Contemporary fiber, like textiles in general, occupies a lowly position within the hierarchy of large museums, where it constantly struggles for the position and recognition that other media are automatically granted. Smaller museums and those not focused solely on art can be more accepting, but they, too, discriminate against textiles. In order to challenge this status quo, it is essential to understand how museums operate. The panelists are curators who collect fiber art. Together we represent three different kinds of institutions -- art museums, interdisciplinary museums, and university collections -- but each of us has experienced, and sought to overcome, various challenges facing any curator trying to collect textiles. We will offer insiders\u27 perspectives on the way museums operate, and the obstacles faced by textiles/fiber art in our differing institutional contexts. Specifically, we will discuss the often arbitrary and haphazard hierarchies that museums have used to organize themselves and pigeonhole their collections, and the ways those hierarchies have shaped collecting. We will review how art world and museum politics and economics affect fiber, and explore the ways artists, collectors, historians, anthropologists, and critics can affect museum collecting. And we will discuss ways that curators can influence and expand institutional definitions of art and textiles, despite the financial, political, and bureaucratic boundaries museums impose