Convergence Yardage

This shows the coloured warps on the back of the Megado. I have got further. The black cotton is present. All the cotton is wound on to the back beam and the cross-sticks are in. The silk warp needs to go on the second warp beam. So there is progress.

And in the garden is Iris unguicularis, four inches high and doing its best. There are lots of buds coming on this plant and also on the plant you can see at the top right of the photograph. I cherish these. This plant has been with me for 30 years. We moved it to this garden 24 years and it took 5 years to get over its miffedness. But that always happens so I just waited. I tell it I love it when I pass it by.

But what has been exercising me mentally  is Stacey Harvey-Brown's blog in which she talks about judging the entries for the Convergence Yardage Exhibition 'Enchantment' and I got to wondering how you carried out the judging. Clearly if a piece is very badly made, it can be discarded at once but I bet that does not happen much. So you have to devise a way of marking/ranking them. And that is quite difficult. What percentage of the marks go to 'fit to the title' and 'artistic design'? Well it is a yardage exhibition so less than half, say 30% . But then what? The Grand Rapids yardage show had a piece which was a fantastic fit to the title but 'Enchantment'? Fairies and elves? Twinkly lights? Wands? Hmmph.

Re-reading the rules, the fabric has to be 'constructed or embellished' and will be judged on 'concept, design, technique and overall suitability of technique and/or materials. Creative exploration is encouraged'. 

There is nothing to say the piece has to be woven so there is no point in allotting points for difficult of draft or anything like that and I guess that you would have to allot points according to the attributes listed by HGAso it might read

Fit to Title 10%
Concept 20%
Overall Artistic design 20%
Technique 20%
Suitability of technique for concept 15%
Suitability of materials for concept 15%

But I bet that, if I were doing this, I would mark every piece and then realise that the marking scheme was not suitable for certain pieces, devise a new scheme and re-mark them. Unless of course, HGA has set up a marking scheme which the juror has to follow. I can't see the jurors liking that. I am prepared to bet also that a few pieces will be obviously outstanding and the problem will be which of the rest to accept. There must be a limit on the number of acceptances. I would love to know how many entries there were. I do know that the acceptances are around 27->35 at the last three Convergences (I counted). I was interested to realise on looking at these that I actually knew (to speak to) or knew of (read the book) at least 75% of the entries makers. Is it only the really expert who go in for this or is the really expert who are going to get accepted and the rest of us have no chance?

Interesting, is it not? I have never done anything like this - but I have spent decades (more than three) refereeing papers for Journals and Conferences and it is not unlike this which is why I am interested.