A theory of the loom as cosmology is not to be found in the mathematics of weaving variables (e.g., thread-net guides for large complex ikat patterns closely held by a familial or tribal group) or in dimensioning parameters (e.g., an arithmetic based on a 13-unit modular increment), but in mathematical metaphor of weaving variables and dimensioning parameters. Mathematical metaphor is more like numerology than modern number theory, more like theosophy than metaphysics. The loom is a universal cosmological symbol. Each cosmology/culture may codify its vision of reality, its cosmology, in, for instance, a unique theory of the loom -- which is to say a unique mathematical metaphor of weaving variables and dimensioning parameters. Each fabric design motif, in a given tradition, emerges out of the possibilities and constraints imposed by the given theory of the loom, and is, therefore, representative, not of the cosmology per se, but of the “forms of life” permitted by the cosmology. The motif is not a “picture” of the life-form, but a depiction of the collective psychic process (the spiritual agency) birthing the life-form from the “belly” of the cosmology.

It is likely that fullness of cosmological mathematical metaphors was lost at the end of the Neolithic Age when matri-system societies were all but replaced with patriarchal systems. Weaving continued, but the focus of meaning lost its cosmological aspect (now dominated by male-derived schemata) and focused upon representing systems of social relations, the realm of life-forms remaining the primary responsibility of women. With the rise of the modern state, even the setting of the terms of social relations was taken from the hands of women, and this is reflected in the rise of machine weaving where no metareference remains -- no cosmology, no codification of social relations.

Thinking in mathematical metaphor is not based upon analytical thought, but feeling. By “feeling” I mean “pure feeling” -- stripped of affect or emotion. By engaging in a practice (be it painting or meditation or weaving) one learns to think in connected chains of feeling-tones -- more and more free of concrete affect. This is what the painter Kandinsky meant by “pure feeling”. Affect-charge (emotion) is not “pure feeling”, which is aesthetic judgment. Mathematical metaphors are created by aesthetic judgment, not application of logic to a system of assumptions. If, therefore, a theory of the loom as cosmology is based on mathematical metaphor, it is a systematic codification of a collection of aesthetic judgements represented in weaving variables and dimensioning parameters. This systematic codification need not have a logical structure in the modern sense and this does not make it less rigorous. On the one hand, feeling-tone is a judgment not about the quantitative aspect of things -- as with analytic appraisals -- but about the qualitative aspect. On the other hand, “pure feeling” is a concentrated refined form of diffuse thought. So, according to this notion, the theory of the loom as cosmology was an expression of “pure feeling” -- empathy with the world, with all-that-is, i.e., animistic subject-object transparency -- projected into weaving as a metaphor for genesis of the cosmos.

But modern fabric scholar/weavers stepped into traditional weaving well after cosmological feeling-into, as weaving, had long since stopped. Just at the time when codifying social forms, as weaving, was coming to an end. These were the two frames of meaning the loom was set upon -- but they were largely lost, and in any event, not directly accessible to the scholar/weaver. So, in the scholar/weaver’s efforts to resurrect traditional weaving, what had she to rely upon? She had her gathering knowledge of the stylistics of traditional fabric motifs, her technical knowledge of weaving art, her international experience and/or knowledge of various weaving traditions, her cosmopolitan aesthetic sensibilities. Stepping into the middle, between tradition and an international clientele, she inevitably synthesized new forms by assembling chosen traditional motifs into patterns on the basis of what? All four of the above. But just as inevitably, problems arose.

The old way was to work within a tacitly held theory of the loom -- a pure-feeling empathic codification as mathematical metaphor -- to create meanings referenced to, originally cosmology and social forms, later only social forms. The modern way is to take “a sense of design”, based on fairly explicit formalistic and colorist notions, and draw inspiration from diverse sources to “make a statement”. This dichotomy seems to be a universal contemporary difficulty which the scholar/weaver encounters every day on a pragmatic basis. John Cage saw the same “difficulty” in music composition and said that music cannot represent reality and at the same time be creative. I believe he chose the easy way out -- as did most of the 20th century modernists in music and the arts.

When hand weavers from traditional backgrounds are brought into a contemporary commercial environment in regards to their weaving, they are often asked to “be creative”. But how can they learn to “be creative” except by assimilating “contemporary formalist and colorist notions”? Don’t just copy this design, create something new! Make a statement. But on the basis of what should they do that? The scholar/weaver is their primary access to contemporary formalist and colorist notions, and the old meaning-basis of aesthetic feeling judgements has been sundered by culture change.

I believe that both ways are not only right, but necessary today, given the pace of culture change -- and not only necessary, but necessary to the fruition of each. That’s why I talk about the concept of metaculture. Because I don’t think this difficulty, the scholar/weaver faces pragmatically every day, can be resolved without it.

A theory of the loom codifies a world view construct in the meta-language of weaving. Changes in the given theory of the loom are expressions of an alteration in the world view construct -- which result from culture change. To change the pattern of relations of motifs is to make a mild statement; to create a new motif is to make a profound statement within a given world view construct; to alter an element of the theory of the loom is to make the most profound of statements, that of altering the world view construct itself.

But today a multiplicity of world view constructs interact over global satellite TV and the Internet -- throwing a multitude of tacit aesthetic frameworks into direct juxtaposition. Solution to the creativity “difficulty”, I feel, can come only by jumping to the next level of abstraction -- from that of codifying a given world view construct (in a theory of the loom, for instance) to that of codifying the rule-framework of world view propoundment per se, in the general case. This could be done in weaving by discovering the prerequisites of any possible theory of the loom. And then building a meta-loom which incorporates only those prerequisites. If theories of the loom are based on mathematical metaphor, this is not an engineering problem, but one of applied empathy. With this theory of the meta-loom in hand, there would be a weaving context that mirrored the full complexity of the culture-change context faced in hand weaving studios globally -- and the various levels of aesthetic activity would organize themselves accordingly.

The conflict between those who advocate cultural preservation and those who advocate a technologically-driven global monoculture is very much like the conflict in the 1930s between the socialist realists and the art-for-art’s-sake modernists. Socialist realism forbid changes in FormSystemMeaning, because art was an extension of propaganda. Realist FormSystemMeaning (this is not a reference to “semiosis” in the French deconstructionist sense, but possibly in the sense of Marcel Duchamp, Lancelot Law Whyte, and the early Unified Science movement) lent itself to socialist message mongering, and changes in FormSystemMeaning (alterations in the “form” of the Sonata Cycle, for instance) are how changes in world view are registered by a culture. Culture change is processed in art on the level of FormSystemMeaning. Socialism wanted no cultural processor other than the party committee. A culture that does not process on the level of FormSystemMeaning is dead, crystallized-out, in the midst of autoanaphalaxis. Contemporary preservationists are worse culture destroyers than were even the socialist realists; preservationists want not only a frozen FormSystemMeaning (which they completely ignore), they want to make culture identical to a frozen surface-shape-of-style. Tradition is banished from the living culture. This means the traditional value framework and world view construct can find no form-language through which to carry themselves into contemporary life: they are fenced off, separated, isolated, monument-ized, killed, made no longer living expressions related to existing daily life patterns. At best they can spawn cultural parks, memorial battlefield parks, human zoos, and other cartoon environments.

Preservationism makes the tragedy of a uniform global monoculture ever more inevitable. By stripping the life out of a tradition, preservationism removes all real defenses against the uniformization which mass-produced artifacts impose. Uniformization can be attacked only with metareference, but a dead tradition cannot carry referential activities into modern life-forms or living culture. Codification of reality needs to be metareferenced on every level of cultural processing, from the most concrete to the most abstract; it’s the only way cultural diversity can be sustained. In hand-weaving, this requires a theory of the meta-loom.

---

Return to:

•Top

•The Chiang Mai Papers -- Abstracts

•Home page