|
steve
|
 |
« on: July 22, 2008, 08:27:12 AM » |
|
Over the past couple of years I have tried to nudge the wikipedia article on tie-dye in the right direction.
Right now, it could really use some work.
In the name of tie-dye, could we get some volunteers to make that article better?
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ecilA
|
|
« Reply #1 on: July 22, 2008, 09:52:11 AM » |
|
What are your priorities? I assume by article you mean any every additional bit of info we can add and not something specific? Or maybe I should just ask: did you mean one specific article in particular?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 22, 2008, 09:53:47 AM by ecilA »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
steve
|
|
« Reply #2 on: July 22, 2008, 02:20:26 PM » |
|
Ha--I should have made it clearer--sorry. I mean the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tie-dyeIt needs serious help! We can make it better! Steve |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 22, 2008, 02:22:21 PM by steve »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
pburch
|
|
« Reply #3 on: July 23, 2008, 04:14:00 AM » |
|
There's a very weird reference to my site in the mudmee section. I didn't put it there!
Paula
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Darlene
|
|
« Reply #4 on: July 23, 2008, 09:24:46 AM » |
|
I'm wondering if it's just me, but that whole mudmee section smacks of advertising one specific business.
Paula... you're being highjacked!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
steve
|
|
« Reply #5 on: July 24, 2008, 01:38:13 PM » |
|
I'd have to agree about the mudmee. There are other blatantly commercial links.
It is a shame what it has degenerated to.
Paula, there has always been some link to your site at the bottom of the page (as there should be), but not elsewhere until this viewing (it has been awhile).
I have done some writing in the past (quite awhile ago). I can still see fragments of what I did.
I put in the links to the forum and wiki--but I think they are valuable non-commercial references. They have stood the test of time over many edits.
I encourage you to edit. I'll try too.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
pburch
|
|
« Reply #6 on: July 25, 2008, 04:44:51 AM » |
|
All right, I removed the offensively commercial mudmee paragraph. The beginning bothers me: Tie-dye is typically brightly colored, patterned textile or clothing which is made from ordinary cloth, usually cotton, through a resist dyeing process known as tie-dyeing. This is the modern version of a traditional dyeing method used in many cultures in Asia and Africa. Tie-dyeing was briefly very fashionable in the West in the late 1960s and early 1970s as part of hippie style. It was made popular in the United States by in large part from Mickey Hart and the Grateful Dead. I don't think that last sentence belongs there. What do you think? Paula |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
deb
|
|
« Reply #7 on: July 25, 2008, 05:35:49 AM » |
|
Well, the sentence if kept should read "by," not "from." I thought it was made popular in the US by the 60's in general, but despite my "advanced age" (as my OB called it last time I was pregnant LOL), I'm not old enough to remember that.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
pburch
|
|
« Reply #8 on: July 25, 2008, 06:19:20 AM » |
|
I also get a little tired of the assumption you always get from other people that everyone who wears tie-dye is a hippie. Some of us just like bright colors!
I've been working on adding references to the Wikipeida page this morning. What that page needs is more rigor!
Paula
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
steve
|
|
« Reply #9 on: July 25, 2008, 06:49:24 AM » |
|
What that page needs is more rigor!
Paula
Ya Think?  Not only that, it will really take a team to monitor it! Thanks guys! Steve |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
deb
|
|
« Reply #10 on: July 25, 2008, 07:40:30 AM » |
|
I also get a little tired of the assumption you always get from other people that everyone who wears tie-dye is a hippie. Some of us just like bright colors! Yeah, anyway! Most of the stuff I do is NOT-spirals and NOT-spiders.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
pburch
|
|
« Reply #11 on: July 25, 2008, 07:49:51 AM » |
|
Most of what I do is not even tie-dyeing, but rather low water immersion dyeing or dye painting, but everyone always thinks it's tie-dye. In a similar misunderstanding, everyone in Germany thinks that anything hand-dyed is batik, even if it's tie-dyed.
Paula
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
mustdye
|
|
« Reply #12 on: July 25, 2008, 12:25:27 PM » |
|
I just saw Mickey Hart the other week in Milwaukee He was not wearing a tie-dye... I do however like that "mudmee" style...it would be nice to know how it's done. If any of you need some Grateful Dead and are short on the bandwidth let me know and I'll hook you up  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
~Eric
|
|
|
|
tiedyejudy
|
|
« Reply #13 on: July 26, 2008, 02:28:02 AM » |
|
I also get a little tired of the assumption you always get from other people that everyone who wears tie-dye is a hippie. Some of us just like bright colors!
Thanks, Paula! I was wearing bright colors long before tie-dye became popular in the 60's, and I too still love bright colors! But thanks to your wonderful instruction on LWI, I am now a real LWI junkie! In fact, I rarely do much tie-dyeing anymore... too much trouble! Judy P.S. I would swear tie-dye was around before the Grateful Dead became popular... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
pburch
|
|
« Reply #14 on: July 26, 2008, 04:15:25 AM » |
|
A link to a 1909 article on tie-dye was posted by hcq on the Dye Forum, and yesterday I added it as a footnote to the Wikipedia article, which had been claiming that the hippies introduced tie-dye in America, with African inspiration. The article is well worth reading; it describes the tiny circles in Indian bandhani (which you also see in pre-Columbian peruvian tie-dye and in Japanese shibori) as being a lot of trouble to make, and describes large circles as being an American adaptation which is very beautiful and a lot less trouble. Any ideas about pre-Garcia tie-dye in the 1960s? Paula |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
