SHADING.

One arrives inevitably at gradation of colour in embroidery; the question is how best to get it. But, before mentioning the ways in which it may be got, it seems necessary to protest that shading is not a matter of course. Perfectly beautiful work may be done, and ought more often to be done, in merely flat needlework; the gloss of the silk and its varying colour as it catches the light according to the direction of the st.i.tching, are quite enough to prevent a monotonously flat effect.

Still, embroidery affords such scope for gradation of colour, not, practically, to be got by any process of weaving, that a colourist may well revel in the delights of colour which silks of various dyes allow.

And so long as colour is the end in view there is not much danger that a colourist will go wrong.

[Ill.u.s.tration: 74. PART OF A DESIGN BY WALTER CRANE.]

The use of shading in embroidery is rather to get gradation of colour than relief of form. As to the st.i.tch to be employed, that is partly a personal matter, partly a question of what is to be done. The st.i.tch must be adapted to the kind of shading, or the shading must be designed to suit the st.i.tch. It makes all the difference in the world, whether your shading is deliberately done, or whether one shade is meant to merge into another. In the best work it is always done with decision.

There is nothing vague or casual, for example, about the shading of Mr.

Crane's animals on Ill.u.s.tration 74. Everywhere the shading is _drawn_, either in lines or as a sharply defined ma.s.s. Given a drawing in which the shadows are properly planned and crisply drawn like that, and you may use what st.i.tch you please.

[Ill.u.s.tration: 75. SHADING IN CHAIN-St.i.tCH.]

The more natural way of shading is to let the st.i.tches follow the lines of the drawing, and so make use of them to express form, as with the strokes of the pen or pencil upon paper. Thus, in mediaeval figurework prior to the 15th century, the faces were usually done in split st.i.tch, worked concentrically from the middle of the cheek outward, and so suggesting the roundness of the face (Ill.u.s.tration 87). But just as there is a system of shading according to which the draughtsman makes all his strokes in one direction (slanting usually), so the embroidress may, if she prefer, take her st.i.tches all one way; and in the 15th and 16th centuries the fashion was to work flesh in short-satin st.i.tches always in the vertical direction (Ill.u.s.tration 79). The term "long-and-short-st.i.tch" is frequently used by way of describing the st.i.tch. It does not, as I have said, help us much. The st.i.tches are in the first place only satin-st.i.tches worked not in even rows, as in Ill.u.s.tration 40, but so that there is no line of demarcation between one row and another. And this, in the case of gradated colour, makes the shading softer. The words long-and-short apply strictly only to the outer row of st.i.tches. You begin, that is to say, with alternately long and short st.i.tches. If you work after that with st.i.tches of equal length, they necessarily alternate or dovetail. If the form to be worked necessitates radiation in the st.i.tching, there results a texture something like the feathering of a bird's breast (Ill.u.s.tration 85), whence the name plumage-st.i.tch, another term describing not so much a st.i.tch as the use of a st.i.tch.

No matter what the st.i.tch, one must be able to draw in order to express form: it is rather more difficult to draw with a needle than with a pen, that is all. True, the designer may do that for you, and make such a workmanlike drawing that there is no mistaking it; but it takes a skilled draughtsman to do it.

[Ill.u.s.tration: 76. SHADING IN SHORT St.i.tCHES.]

In flattish decorative work, where the drawing is in firm lines, as in Ill.u.s.tration 87, the task of the embroidress is relatively easy--there is not much shading, for example, in the drapery of King Abias, and the vine leaves are merely worked with yellower green towards the edges.

Even where there is strong shading, a draughtsman who knows his business may make shading easy by drawing his shadows with firm outlines. The taste of the artist who designed the roses in Ill.u.s.tration 75 is too pictorial to win the heart of any one with a leaning towards severity of design; too much relief is sought; but the way he has got it shows the master workman; he has deliberately laid in _flat_ washes of colour, each with its precise outline, which the worker had only to follow faithfully with flat tambour work. A design like that, given the working drawing, asks little of the worker beyond patient care: of the designer it asks considerable knowledge.

A yet more pictorial effect is produced in much the same way, this time in satin st.i.tch, in Ill.u.s.tration 76. The artist has for the most part drawn his shadows with crisp brush strokes, which the worker had no difficulty in following; but there is some rounding of the birds' bodies which a merely mechanical worker could not have got. In fact, there are indications that this is the work more of a painter than of an embroidress, who would have acknowledged by her st.i.tches the feathering of the birds' necks as well as their roundness.

[Ill.u.s.tration: 77. SHADING IN LONG-AND-SHORT AND SPLIT St.i.tCHES.]

You can embroider, of course, without knowing much about drawing; but you cannot go far in the direction of shading (not drawn for you, or only vaguely drawn) without the appreciation of form which comes only of knowing and understanding. There is evidence of such knowledge and understanding in the working of the lion in Ill.u.s.tration 77. That is not a triumph of even st.i.tching; but it is a triumph of drawing with the needle. The short satin and split st.i.tches are not placed with the regularity so dear to the human machine, but they express the design perfectly. The embroiderer of that lion was an artist, perhaps the artist who designed it. "It might be a _man's_ work," was the verdict of an embroidress. At all events it is the work of some one who could draw, and only a draughtsman or draughtswoman could have worked it.

This is not said wholly in praise of shading. Embroidery ought, for the most part, to do very well without it. The point to insist upon is that, if shading is employed at all, it should mean something, and not be mere fumbling after form.

The charm of shading in embroidery is not the roundness of form which you get, but the gradation of colour which it gives. This may be very delicately and subtly got by split-st.i.tch, which renders that st.i.tch so valuable in the rendering of flesh tints. But the blending of colour into colour which is universally admired is not quite so admirable as people think. One may easily employ too many shades of colour, easily merge them too imperceptibly one into the other, getting only unmeaning softness. An artist prefers to see few shades employed, and those chosen with judgment and placed with deliberate intention. If they mean something, there is no harm in letting it be seen where they meet: broad ma.s.ses give breadth: vagueness generally means ignorance. That is, perhaps, why one dislikes it, and why it is so common.

FIGURE EMBROIDERY.

To an accomplished needlewoman embroidery offers every scope for art, short of the pictorial; and the artist is not only justified in lavishing work upon it, but often bound to do so, more especially when it comes to working with materials in themselves rich and costly. A beautiful material, if you are to better it (and if not why work upon it at all?), must be beautifully worked. Costly material is worth precious work; and there should be by rights a preciousness about the needlework employed upon it, preciousness of design and of execution. To put the value into the material is mere vulgarity.

It seems to an artist almost to go without saying, that the labour on work claiming to be art should be in excess of the value of the stuff which goes to make it. What we really prize is the hand work and the brain work of the artist; and the more precious the stuff he employs, the more strictly he is bound to make artistic use of it. I do not mean by that _pictorial_ use. You can get, no doubt, with the needle effects more or less pictorial--most often less; but, when got, they are usually at the best rather inferior to the picture of which they are a copy.

Work done should be better always than the design for it, which was a project only, a promise. The fulfilment should be something more. A design of which the promise is not likely to be fulfilled in the working-out is, for its purpose, ill-designed. To say that you would rather have the drawing from which it was done (and that is what you feel about "needle pictures") is most severely to condemn either the designer or the worker, or perhaps both. Only a competent figure painter, for example, can be trusted to render flesh with the needle; her success is in proportion to her skill with the implement, but in any case less than what might be achieved in painting: then why choose the needle?

Admitting that a painter who by choice or chance takes to the needle may paint with it satisfactorily enough, that does not go to prove the needle a likely tool to paint with. It is anything but that. There was never a greater mistake than to suppose, as some do who should know better, that, to raise embroidery to the rank of art, figure work is necessary. The truth is that only by rare exception does embroidered figure work rise to the rank of art: the rule is that it is degraded, the more surely as it aims at picture. And that is why, for all that has been done in the way of wonderful picture work, say by the Italians and the Flemings of the Early Renaissance, the pictorial is not the form of design best suited to embroidery.

Needlework, like any other decorative craft, demands treatment in the design, and the human figure submits less humbly to the necessary modification than other forms of life. Animals, for instance, lend themselves more readily to it, and so do birds; fur and feathers are obviously translatable into st.i.tches. Leaves and flowers accommodate themselves perhaps better still; but each is best when it is only the motive, not the model, of design. If only, then, on account of the greater difficulty in treating it, the figure is not the form of design most likely to do credit to the needle, and it is absurd to argue that, figure work being the n.o.blest form of design, therefore the n.o.blest form of embroidery must include it.

The embroidress entirely in sympathy with her materials will not want telling that the needle lends itself better to forms less fixed in their proportions than the human figure; the decorator will feel that there is about fine ornament a n.o.bility of its own which stands in need of no pictorial support; the unbia.s.sed critic will admit that figure design of any but the most severely decorative kind is really outside the scope of needle and thread; and that the desire to introduce it arises, not out of craftsmanlikeness, but out of an ambition which does not pay much regard to the conditions proper to needlework. Those conditions should be a law to the needlewoman. What though she be a painter too? She is painting now with a needle. It is futile to attempt what could be better done with a brush. She should be content to work the way of the needle.

Common sense asks that much at least of loyalty to the art she has chosen to adopt.

Wonderful and almost incredibly pictorial effects have been obtained with the needle; but that does not mean to say it was a wise thing to attempt them. The result may be astonishing and yet not worth the pains.

The pains of flesh-painting with the needle (if not the impossibility of it for all practical purposes) is confessed by the habit which arose of actually painting the flesh in water colour upon satin. Paint on satin, if you like. There may be occasions when there is no time to st.i.tch, and it is necessary for some ceremonial and more or less theatric purpose to paint what had better have been worked. The more frankly such work acknowledges its temporary and makeshift character the better. Scene painting is art, until you are asked to take it for landscape painting.

Anyway, the mixture of painting and embroidery is not to be endured; and it is a poor-spirited embroidress who will thus confess her weakness and call on painting to help her out. It does not even do that, it fails absolutely to produce the desired effect. The painting quarrels with the st.i.tching, and there is after all no semblance of that unity which is the very essence of picture.

[Ill.u.s.tration: 78. CHINESE CHAIN-St.i.tCHING.]

An instance of painted flesh occurs upon Ill.u.s.tration 91. Can any one, in view of the bordering to the picture, doubt that the worker had much better have kept to what she could do, and do perfectly, ornament? An example, on the other hand, of what may be done in the way of expressing action in the fewest and simplest chain st.i.tches (if only you know the form you want to represent and can manage your needle) is given in the wee figures in the landscape above (78).

[Ill.u.s.tration: 79. FIFTEENTH CENTURY FIGURE WORK.]

In speaking of the necessary treatment of the human figure (as of other natural form) in needlework, it is not meant to contend that there is one only way of treating it consistently, or that there are no more than two or three ways. There are various ways, some no doubt yet to be devised, but they must be the ways of the needle. The flesh, of course, is the main difficulty. A Gothic practice, and not the least happy one, was to show the flesh in the naked linen of the ground, only just working the outlines of the features in black or brown. Another way was to work the face in split st.i.tch, as already explained, and over that the markings of the features, the fine lines in short satin-st.i.tches, the broader in split-st.i.tch, as shown in the figure of King Abias in Ill.u.s.tration 87.

The general treatment of the figure there is of course in the manner of the 14th century, better suited, from its severe simplicity, for rendering in needlework than later and more pictorial forms of composition. That needlework can, however, in capable hands, go farther than that is shown in Ill.u.s.tration 79, a rather threadbare specimen of 15th century work, in which the character of the man's face is admirably expressed. It is first worked in short, straight st.i.tches, all of white, and over that the drawing lines are worked in brown. The artist gets her effect in the simplest possible way, and apparently with the greatest ease.

[Ill.u.s.tration: 80. SIXTEENTH CENTURY ITALIAN FIGURE WORK.]

More like painting is the head in Ill.u.s.tration 80, worked in short st.i.tches of various shades, which give something of the colour as well as the modelling of flesh. This is a triumph in its way. It goes about as far as the needle can go, and further than, except under rare conditions, it ought to go. But it may do that and yet be needlework.

Equally wonderful in their miniature way are the faces of the little people on Ill.u.s.tration 81, about the size of your finger nail. They are worked in solid satin-st.i.tch, and the two layers of silk (back and front) give a substance fairly thick but at the same time yielding, so that when the st.i.tches for the mouth and eyes are sewn tightly over it they sink in, and, as it were, push up the floss between and give relief. The nose is worked in extra satin-st.i.tch over the other, and the slight depression at the end of the st.i.tch gives lines of drawing. This trenches upon modelling, but, on such a minute scale, does not amount to very p.r.o.nounced departure from the flat. The method employed does not lend itself to larger work.

The last word on the question as to what one may do with the needle is, that you may do what you _can_; but it is best to seek by means of it what it can best do, and always to make much of the texture of silk, and of the quality of pure and l.u.s.trous colour which it gives--in short, to work _with_ your materials.

[Ill.u.s.tration: 81. CHINESE FIGURES.]

THE DIRECTION OF THE St.i.tCH.

The effect of any st.i.tch is vastly varied, according to the use made of it. Satin-st.i.tch, it was shown (38), worked in twisted silk, ceases to have any appearance of satin; and it makes all the difference whether the st.i.tches are long or short, close together or wide apart. More important than all is the direction of the st.i.tch. By that alone you can recognise the artist in needlework.

The DIRECTION of the st.i.tch deserves consideration from two points of view--that of colour and that of form. First as to colour. It is not sufficiently realised that every alteration in the direction of the st.i.tch means variety of tone, if not of tint. Take a feather in your hand, and turn it about, so that now one side of the quill now the other catches the light; or notice the alternate stripes of brighter and greyer green on a fresh-trimmed lawn, where the roller has bent the blades of gra.s.s first this way and then that. So it is with the colour of silken st.i.tches. The pattern opposite (82) looks as if it had been embroidered in two shades of silk; in the work itself it has still more that appearance; but it is all in one shade of brownish gold: the difference which you see is merely the effect of light upon it. The horizontal st.i.tches, as it happens, catch the light; the vertical ones do not. Had the light come from a different point, the effect might have been reversed. If there had been diagonal st.i.tches from right to left, they would have given a third tint; and, if there had been others from left to right, they would have given a fourth.

[Ill.u.s.tration: 82. INFLUENCE OF St.i.tCH-DIRECTION UPON COLOUR.]

Suppose a pattern in which the leaves were worked horizontally, the flowers vertically, and the stalks in the direction of their growth, all in one st.i.tch and in one colour, there would be a very appreciable difference in tone between leaves, flowers, and stalks. In gold, the difference would be yet more striking. And that is one reason why gold backgrounds are worked in diapers; not so much for the sake of pattern as to get variety of broken tint.

In the famous Syon Cope the direction of the st.i.tching is frankly independent of the design. That is to say, that, while the pattern radiates naturally from the neck, the st.i.tches do not follow suit, but go all one way--the way of the stuff. This, though rather a brutal solution of the difficulty, saves all afterthought as to what direction the st.i.tches shall take; but it has very much the effect of weaving. The embroiderer of the 13th century was not afraid of that (aimed at it, perhaps?), and was, apparently, afraid of letting go the leading strings of warp and weft.

When st.i.tches follow the direction of the form embroidered, accommodating themselves to it, all manner of subtle change of tone results. You get, not only variety of colour, but more than a suggestion of form.

That is the second point to be considered.

[Ill.u.s.tration: 83. MEANINGLESS DIRECTION OF St.i.tCH.]