http://www.newyorkminknit.com/2007/03/04/ugly-knitters-anonymous/ knitting and complaining in New York Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:10:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 http://www.newyorkminknit.com/2007/03/04/ugly-knitters-anonymous/comment-page-1/#comment-1060 jenny Sat, 10 Mar 2007 16:26:51 +0000 http://www.newyorkminknit.com/?p=132#comment-1060 I think part of the problem is that, as knitters, we tend to pick patterns based on their merits as a project rather than on an objective assessment of how attractive they will be (on us, in our house, on our friends). And when it comes time to display them, we're guided by showing off their attributes, not showing of our attributes. For instance, I disagree somewhat with Knit and Tonic on the shawl issue--I think bulky, heavyweight shawls tend to look bad on pretty much everybody. If you're going to wear a shawl, I think you're best off with a light, lacy one that you can bunch up and drape casually around your neck. However, most people who take the time to make a lacy shawl wear the shawl like a cape so that they can show off all their handiwork---often leading to the "granny" look that K&T mentioned. In this case, I don't think it's that the shawl is destined for frumpiness, but that the knitter values showcasing the knit over showcasing herself. The same thing happens with pattern selection. At a clothes store, I try on many clothes to find the most flattering fit. With patterns, I often gravitate towards interesting knits, with complete disregard with what is flattering on me. Case in point: I just cast on on the Nora Gaughan cover pattern of the winter Vogue knitting because I thought it was awesome. Even though it is bulky and cabled and pretty much guaranteed to make me look like a linebacker. I just couldn't resist. I guess the point is that wearing attractive clothes gratifies my vanity, but wearing interesting knits (even those that are unattractive on me) also gratifies my ego, which I must find valuable on some level. Even if my boyfriend doesn't. I think part of the problem is that, as knitters, we tend to pick patterns based on their merits as a project rather than on an objective assessment of how attractive they will be (on us, in our house, on our friends). And when it comes time to display them, we’re guided by showing off their attributes, not showing of our attributes. For instance, I disagree somewhat with Knit and Tonic on the shawl issue–I think bulky, heavyweight shawls tend to look bad on pretty much everybody. If you’re going to wear a shawl, I think you’re best off with a light, lacy one that you can bunch up and drape casually around your neck. However, most people who take the time to make a lacy shawl wear the shawl like a cape so that they can show off all their handiwork—often leading to the “granny” look that K&T mentioned. In this case, I don’t think it’s that the shawl is destined for frumpiness, but that the knitter values showcasing the knit over showcasing herself. The same thing happens with pattern selection. At a clothes store, I try on many clothes to find the most flattering fit. With patterns, I often gravitate towards interesting knits, with complete disregard with what is flattering on me. Case in point: I just cast on on the Nora Gaughan cover pattern of the winter Vogue knitting because I thought it was awesome. Even though it is bulky and cabled and pretty much guaranteed to make me look like a linebacker. I just couldn’t resist. I guess the point is that wearing attractive clothes gratifies my vanity, but wearing interesting knits (even those that are unattractive on me) also gratifies my ego, which I must find valuable on some level. Even if my boyfriend doesn’t.

]]> http://www.newyorkminknit.com/2007/03/04/ugly-knitters-anonymous/comment-page-1/#comment-1055 Kim Fri, 09 Mar 2007 19:46:12 +0000 http://www.newyorkminknit.com/?p=132#comment-1055 mmm, ugly floppy man-sweaters. also, that sock isn't ugly! i love green! mmm, ugly floppy man-sweaters. also, that sock isn’t ugly! i love green!

]]>