Medallion or Motif?

Back in post #9 I was temporarily thrown off by a description of the sequence by which the medallion was tatted -- (I identify several sequences that work, and choose the one that works best for me, regardless of the original order).

What was most helpful to me were the numerous examples... the more the better, Once I get my own brain to recognize them automatically, then I can begin to sort by characteristics and arrange the logic relationships. First, I must dislodge from my brain all references to medallion and motif as used in other arenas -- music for one. The word "Gothic" used to describe art, design, clothing, literature, music, means something different in each arena, I am interested in how far the tatted medallion usage continues into other lace making areas. Crochet, knitted, needle lace, bobbin lace, are of interest. Then, into a general design area.. but not yet.

Like recognizing letters of the alphabet in wildly varying fonts and scripts, to say nothing of the scribblings of students,.. after a bit my brain can identify an "a" even if I cannot articulate what it is that I see that makes a letter an "A" without some difficulty.

I am not helped by descriptions of medallions that contain motifs.. Not that they're wrong, but its like I'm still on the Capital A, not ready for the lower case. And the logic? If all A are B, is true, and also all B are A, then A and B are logically equivalent. Not the case for Medallion and Motif. Are either If A then B or If B then A true?

in reply to Judy's post:

It looks like not all motifs can be medallions, nor can all medallions be motifs. So far, the distinction I make to myself is that medallions have a centre of symmetry - whereas the non-medallion motifs have only an axis of symmetry, or no symmetry at all. Though I must admit that the oval medallion doesn't have a centre of symmetry...

in reply to JudithConnors's post:

@GraceT gets the credit . I respect her tatting instincts. That meant, when her answer was different than my initial choice, a closer look was required. I agree with @Judy that the examples were really helpful! I needed both the written descriptions and the photos, but I think the analogy of learning to recognize letters in different fonts is spot on! @JudithConnors, do you, perhaps have other practice examples?

in reply to GraceT's post:

The oval medallion example helped me get unstuck. I initially had the idea that medallions couldn't have more than one round. That logic didn't stand up in light of the oval medallion. The oval was also not symmetrical on all axis (yes,when folded on both a north/south and east/west axis, but not northeast/southwest or northwest/southeast like the other medallions), but neither were either of the triangles. So fun to formulate and test theories! I'll be looking at patterns differently now . At the same time, I think if I had been presented with this discussion when I was new to tatting, my response would have been more along the lines of, " uh...... , can I just work these ds and get back to you later?"

@GraceT, the oval one starts with a ring and the shape is built out from there. It is very basic. Most medallions may be used as motifs in larger creations.

This end of my table runner/ribbon shows Mary K's 'Patchwork' used multiple times to create a fabric. Then I adapted a matching triangular motif for the end itself.

@jmjtat, I agree that there is such a lot for new tatters to learn at the start. We've all been there, and sometimes forget that experience. But with the tutorials and information available at the click of a mouse these days, it pays to guide new tatters correctly so that they become informed and discerning from the beginning.

@Judy, you would find Elgiva Nicholls' "Tatting: technique & history" informative. Her chapter on Medallions goes into great detail. Anne Orr's "Classic Tatting Patterns" (Dover) has pages of medallions for use in other designs.

As one interested in calligraphy, I appreciate your alphabet analogy.

Shapes can have symmetry without an axis. Axis symmetry is line symmetry. The line may be horizontal or vertical, or any other slant. But consider an S shape. It has polar symmetry: symmetry about a point, the pole, in the middle of the curve. From any point you go to the pole and continue for the same distance. So, medallions would usually have this polar symmetry, and may have both horizontal and vertical symmetry,.

in reply to JudithConnors's post:

The last time I looked at my copy I was trying to figure out some of the techniques and skipped over the descriptive stuff. Time to go back to it and re-read, now that I have a fresh perspective to view from.

Last night I had another re-learning/correcting task. It was a discussion on classifying a new book. Was it fiction, or non-fiction? I thought I knew one from the other... not so much. Poetry, plays, autobiographies, biographies,.. memoirs? Humor? Satire? Religion? Culture? And, when do you move something from one category to the other? Are there works that are neither? No, no, I don't want that discussion here... Just making the point that I have some un-learning to do, and its harder than learning, like un-tatting.

in reply to Judy's post:

Yes, Judy, I agree. But all of @JudithConnors' examples of non-medallion motifs had one axis of mirror symmetry! On the other hand, your example of "S" has a centre of rotational symmetry, but it is certainly not a medallion.

Judith, I take your point that the oval medallion is built outwards from a ring. Strictly speaking, it only has two axes of mirror symmetry and only twofold rotational symmetry (so I was wrong in my previous statement; it does have rotational symmetry after all). But, I would say, it's highly regular - more regular than the strict geometrical data would suggest...

At what point does a medallion become a doily? Is there a limit on the number of rows before the classification changes? Or are all multiple row doilies a medallion?

There was a post on this but I didn't see the answer to this question -- If a medallion is used several times in order to make a table runner, does the medallion then become a motif within the table runner?

In the end we decided that there was no real answer. A doily is a decorative item originally designed to protect a table surface from, for example a vase. If you take a small doily pattern and render it in size 20 thread it may be perfect but if you take the same pattern and render it in size 100 - you may end up with a pendant and you probably wouldn't call it a doily.

It's an interesting question however and one I'm happy to explore further

The definition of "doily" is "a small mat like ornamental napkin, used under dishes, as a decoration, etc." quote from Websters Dictionary.
So it appears it is the function of the item, not its size, shape or number of rows that determines it's name.

in reply to LaurieE's post:

Laurie, medallions are usually smaller than, or about the same size as a coaster. Anything larger is 'mat' and 'doily' territory, which Craftree will deal with.

Recently I was involved with a show class requiring 'a table centre/runner'. Entries varied from small doilies to large lacy pieces. So to make the playing field more even in the future, a dimension will be given for the table centre - 'minimum diameter of 30 centimetres (12 inches)'. Table centres are more showy and decorative than small doilies.

See #29 above for an example where multiple square medallions have been used as motifs in a larger fabric.

I hope this helps, Laurie.

in reply to GraceT's post:

The 'motif' examples above could have been any shape, even without an axis. There are several more in this composition.

in reply to JudithConnors's post:

Thanks, Judith. So, a motif may or may not have a centre or axis of symmetry. I suppose the flower is still a motif but not a medallion, because it doesn't have an enclosed space or central ring or shared picots in the middle, or subunits that could be called motifs?

@GraceT, I think you've got it.

Hi, I hope my comments aren't silly; I haven't been here for a while and just read a whole lot at once.

I am finding this discussion deeply bewildering :-) The original definition seemed straight forward; a medallion is a standalone project, a motif is an element which is made a number of times and joined together to make a project. Okay, no problem.

My first question was 'why isn't a medallion a doily?' This has now been answered - thanks - medallions are smaller than coasters, which are smaller than doilies. Table centres are bigger than doilies. Okay, great.

So far the definition has been functional, not structural. So how did this morph into a conversation about different types of symmetry, and motifs versus medallions being defined by types of symmetry? I thought the definition was purely that a medallion was a standalone project.

Also, people seem to be using motif in two different ways. Relating back to my knitting/crochet experience, a motif is like a granny square and all the other motifs in crochet; you make a bunch and join them together in different ways to make an afghan or a bedspread or maybe a vest, whatever. The first definition of medallion vs motif agreed with that.

But then people also started using motif as more what I would call a pattern repeat; a repeating design element that repeats along an edging, say. This is different to me from a motif, since motifs are seperate pieces of fabric that are joined together (either afterward or as you go) whereas pattern repeats are just the shape you make again and again as you make one piece of fabric.

You wouldn't make one shell in crochet be its own separate pattern and classify it as a motif, you'd have a pattern for a shell edging (classified as an edging), and a bag made out of repeating shell stitches as a pattern (classified as a bag).

I'm guessing the same is true in tatting; you don't have one repeat of the Hen and Chicks pattern as its own pattern under motif, and then the repeated version seperately under edging, you'd just have the edging (which happens to be composed of a repeating pattern) as a pattern under edging. Right?

Sorry for the huge essay :-) it's just that I thought I understood, then I didn't :-)

in reply to lindanicolette's post:

I agree with you regarding your confusion. There are two issues: both have to do with overall perspective. This is similar to using a microcsope and a magnifying lens.

• In the smaller perspective, a medallion has a specific construction, be it circular, square, etc, with pattern repeats around mainly three types of centres. Its composition features recurring smaller elements known as motifs.

• In the larger perspective, e.g. runners, table centres, table cloths, medallions themselves may be used as design motifs. Sometimes they could be joined together, other times they may be placed in specific sections of the design.

Did you notice the post by Kersti, #17, where different pronunciations have been used to differentiate 'motif'? While this helps, it is more important that you have the perspective application sorted in your mind's eye.

in reply to JudithConnors's post:

Thanks, Judith. Useful summary. I guess tatting is more flexible than, say, knitting, in whether you make things separately or use them as part of an overall larger design. Since in a sense tatting is always more separate eg motifs that have more than one round often have each round started and ended separately with the thread cut. So it blurs the definitions more than knitting and crochet.