The Costumer's Manifesto (original) (raw)
This was actually the original Ribbonology catalog, and was meant to be a one-off publication–hence the absence of a listed publication date. It was so popular, though, that it became a semiannual publication–the Fall 1920 and Fall 1921 editions are also available to view and download through the site. As far as I know, we don’t have the Spring 1921 edition in the archives–yet.
Continue reading Ribbonology, Spring 1920 →
The first page spread isn’t complete–I only just noticed that my sleeve got in the way of the Quaker Puffed Rice ad, and there’s supposed to be a poem or quote on the first content page that’s been excised. I’ve reached out to a cross-stitch artist in Illinois who has a copy in hopes that she’d be able to provide the missing information, and will update as needed.
Update Aug. 2: Have replaced the sleeve-tainted scan with a fresh one in the slideshow and gallery, but have realized that this scan is missing at least two page spreads. Further updates will be made once I’m next able to access the original material in-person.
Continue reading Needlecraft magazine, July 1925 →
Fair warning, some of the pages are out of order in this one. Pages 14/17 are facing each other, and pages 15/16 are facing each other in reverse positions. This is what us archivists call a “hot mess”.
Continue reading Ribbonology, Fall 1921 →
Now to round out the pair, here’s the second of our two Heminway tie books. I’m not entirely sure what year it’s from, but after scouring the Internet and copyright records I’m reasonably sure it’s from between 1920 and 1923–my educated guess is 1922 or 1923, but don’t take that as expert opinion.
Continue reading Heminway Tie Book No. 2, 1920s →
This is the first of two Heminway Tie Books in our collection. I’m actually attempting to make one of the ties, but boy howdy it’s slow going! Who could’ve ever thought that following a 101-year-old pattern book wouldn’t be the best way to learn to crochet?
Continue reading Heminway Tie Book No. 1, 1920 →
Shakespeare would be shocked if were able to see the artistic liberties taken with modern stagings of his plays, say the pearl-clutching traditionalists. Would he even recognize his own work filtered through four centuries of bastardization? Would he despair at the state of what passes for entertainment? I actually rather imagine he would–why is the audience so passive?, he may wonder. How come they’re only laughing at the really obvious sex jokes? And are those women onstage? Cultural norm shifts aside, the postmodern “bastardization” of Shakespeare’s and his contemporaries’ plays may be more comfortable and familiar to him than one would expect. When directors–usually film directors–set out to recreate the original stagings of Shakespeare’s plays, their design decisions are informed more or less by historical fact. We know what Elizabethan theatres looked like, and that sets were sparse if they existed at all. We also know that the costumes reflected the fashions of the day…or do we? After all, we only know of a single contemporary image that depicts said costumes. Is it accurate? Maybe, maybe not–but it’s all we have.
Staging of the “lost play” Love’s Labour’s Won from Doctor Who “The Shakespeare Code”, broadcast 2007