Our Guild Mission

[Dan_Lehman]

Despite what Dan says, I think Ashley had the right idea.  Yes, the drawings need improvement, but ...

"Despite ... " ??  Recall that my response was mainly opposed to Jimbo's plea
for not using photos for the final, set knot!  --the most demanding drawing
task.
But do you think that Layhands & Grogano's sites would be better or even as good
with drawings?  Again, I challenged people to point to what they thought were
good presentations, in current documentation.  I just did so (though I'm still
taking shots at Grogano's images for various points ).  I have some of my own
drawings on the Bowline thread--the Locktight II & Lehman8 are done in somewhat
exploded form, but with an eye to giving good indication of the set form; a sort of
photo (p.copy) accompanies the latter (but that is NOT a good quality image!).

Now, to get back to the Mission - does any one know what went on this weekend at Shrewsbury?

Ah-uh, no hijacking the thread!

--dl*
====

[KnotMe]

Part of the problem is that photos aren't always better.  Constantini's (sp?) book was a good example of that.  The cord choice was poor and the resulting photos were not clear illustrations.  Sometimes a photo is just what you need, and sometimes the contrast and emphasis that can be produced by an illustration is the only thing that works.  

Even worse for people who are trying to plan is that sometimes an illustration may work for some people and not others.  Everyone learns differently, everyone sees differently.  The best you can do is provide as many different resources to people as you can and let them search amongst them to find what works for them.

[DerekSmith]

Yes, sometimes photos are poor, but I generally believe that this is due to lack of the photographers technique, rather than a failing of the techninique of photography.  Your own photos Carol and those of Dave Root are a testament to the fact that photography has the potential to well exceed the likely drawing skills of all but a few.

Perhaps what is needed is a little guidance from the like of yourself and Dave to give the rest of us a chance to replicate your results.

However, I would agree that there is a place for line diagrams, and that is in the embellishment of good photos by the addition of a line trace to indicate the path the cord will take in the making of the knot as utilised in a number of Dave Roots illustrations in his Knot Index site.  If the Guild decides to produce its own 'Master Index', then perhaps it should ask these two individuals to formulate a template for image production, covering issues they have found to be important in the creation of good images.

Cord selection,
Background contrast,
Lighting type and direction,
Image size and resolution,
Compression type and extent,
.......

I do not believe in enforced conformity, but I do believe in shareing the best knowledge and skills available.

[Jimbo_The_Kinky]

As this is now 2006 and the age of the TV and the Internet, why not utilise the tools of the age?

No problem there.  Can we agree to use "the tools of the age" (including an entire box of "old" tools) in an appropriate manner, with primary focus remaining on the GOAL, not the ego of the presenter of the information??  That might smooth a few ruffled feathers...

Let us utilise animation to show exactly how to tie the knots, then rotate the knot in 3D to let the reader 'see' the final beast.  Lets use voice over to assist in the comprehension and a few shots of the knot in use to drive home when and how to use it (and of course when not to!!)

Animation is not information.  Even CWA's cute little "voice-overs" (meaning the folksy paragraphs not specifically describing ABOK#xxx) don't really add much information, just entertainment.

For a case in point, look at Grogno for yourself.  You need look no further than his Bowline.  Once you get past the "gee whiz" (not to cross streams with a "haw whiz"   ) factor, how useful is it, really, to see an animated rendition of the "Rabbit & Tree" method for tying a Bowline?  Please, feel free to tell us all where to find some beautiful photo-animated graphics of the PABPRES-level "flippy-twist" method of Bowline tying!  I'll wait...

Animation is not information.  Computer technology is not as ubiquitous as Bill Gates would like for you to believe.  Learning requires a teacher, a student, and a method for exchanging ideas.  "What method" is the question at hand (for those not "reading back") and the more broadly accessible that method is, the more likely its influence will be broadly felt.  IMO, taking a lot of time shooting enough photos to make a valid static image -- with enough detail to be useful in teaching -- and that's nevermind the multiplied number required to animate the picture -- is great if the activity pleases you, but for teaching knots, 2 active, open minds and a piece of string is still the best we have.  Yes, Grogno's site is fun to watch, if you have the time.

For teaching knots, two active, open minds and a piece of string are the best tools we have.

The technology is here now.

Non sequitur.  The technology is NOT "here" at the forecastle, nor "here" on the docks, nor "here" in the branches of the trees outside.  How, pray tell, will we spread our high-tech, photo-realistic, animated knot-knowledge in this fashion without laptops & battery chargers & expensive insurance to cover the inevitable "Ooops, I forgot to put a lanyard on my PC!" claims?

It's one thing to slog your way through a method illustrated by animated photographs, but I can put in an entire Bowline between the frames of Grogno's animation, and by the time the animation has run once, my niece has seen the "PABPRES" method 8 times & can do it "the PABPRES way" & now Grogno's "rabbit & tree" method is of no use to her whatsoever.  Wonderful.  Thanks for all the fish.

KC is showing us how powerful this tool is.  We have asked the Webmistress for guidelines on the use of Flash in order to comply with regs, but so far there has been no reply - Heads up there Webmistress!!

No, KC (et al.) are telling us now powerful this virtual tool is!!  And I'm not disagreeing!!!  But I'm also not seeing much "power" in "the real world" where I spend most of my time, and where I tie (and teach) ALL my knots!

Perhaps we could even convince cartoon makers to create a new character to teach kidds the value of cord and knots ?

Like "Jasper the Mule" who's drawn to look exactly like a Donkey?  Like the (demonstrably incorrect) cartoon handouts the Game Wardens in my State use because they don't have the "wetware" to understand the actual Law itself?  Like the cartoon interface on Windows XP?  Okay, I know you were joking.  I hope...

Don't try to create the one perfect solution from go - it is not likely to actually make it beyond the drawing board.

I agree completely!!!  See, I'm not as antagonistic as I seem sometimes!  But I'm actually doing the work (promoting the art, craft & science; undertaking research; barking loudly to herd "you people" into implementing Mission Initiative III --  "M-I-III"...), and I can't afford the "horse" to carry this new technology "out in the paddock" where I need it.

At the risk of overflowing this post, the Very Best tool I've found after the piece of string in my pocket is a deck of Tarot-sized "flash cards" depicting a knot per card, something like a couple dozen cards.  The whole deck fits in my pocket, the cards are waterproof, and the box holds a bit of string & a wee dowel.  Let's see Macromedia beat that!

(PS: I'm not picking on Grogno!!  For the people I meet who want animated tutelage, his and the Ropeworks animations are the only places I send them.)

[Jimbo_The_Kinky]

"Despite ... " ??  Recall that my response was mainly opposed to Jimbo's plea for not using photos for the final, set knot!  --the most demanding drawing task.

Okay, first of all, I didn't object to photos, just the use of a picture as "the final reverence".  I enjoy G. Budwort's Complete Photographs, with their quaint "settings" of salty souvenirs & such, but I'd hardly expect a "Rabbit & Tree" -level tyer to fully appreciate the subtlties of (e.g.) the "LH Bowline" vis-a-vis a "normal" Bowline, just from pix.

As someone who has actively studied the learning & teaching processes (not to mention Data Communications) for several decades, I don't appreciate seeing the "giants" upon whose shoulders I stand denigrated by egos with agendae who know them not.

Of course, as always, I will gladly sacrifice my life to assure your right to denigrate anyone whom you choose!!

But I'm a tough sell.  I just don't "just believe it" when someone asserts something as if it were fact, without first checking to make sure it really is a "fact", not just a regurgitation of "cultural prejudice".  It's amazing how often this happens.  Examples:
Fact: Today is Thursday.
Cultural Prejudice" "Freedom of Speech doesn't mean you're free to say whatever you want."
Cultural Prejudice: "The Bowline is the King of Knots"
Fact: The Bowline will untie itself if you don't set it right.

But do you think that Layhands & Grogano's sites would be better or even as good  with drawings?

Uh...

Yes.

Vastly, indescribably Better.

But not if it meant they removed the pixtures!!!

I challenged people to point to what they thought were  good presentations, in current documentation.

I'd like to see that myself!!!  Hellooo???  Are you listening, IGKT???  "M-I-III"??

I have some of my own
drawings on the Bowline thread--the Locktight II & Lehman8 are done in somewhat  exploded form, but with an eye to giving good indication of the set form; a sort of photo (p.copy) accompanies the latter (but that is NOT a good quality image!).

From your own fingers...

You Dan_Lehman, have just shot yourself in the foot over this one!!  Your own drawing is one of the best knot drawings I've ever seen!!!!  I especially liked the little annotations you added to allow us to more effectively describe & discuss its aspects, qualities & attributes!!  But the picture that accompanies it is "lubberly and not to be countenanced"!!!  Not "proof", but certainly "evidence for the Defense" as to the power of CAREFULLY DRAWN drawings over most photographs.

And I'll even "twist the knife" by beating you over the head with Clifford Ashley's own words:
"...[D]rawings also have certain definite advantages over photographs."
    ~ABOK, p9
"...[F]or any shortcoming [...] an author should hold himself responsible."
    ibid.

So, at the risk of abusing my "freedom", I'd like to take this opportunity to weigh in my vote for:

"ALL THE ABOVE", if that's what it takes to tie more knots better & teach same to all who ask to learn.

Sho 'nuff!

[Jimbo_The_Kinky]

Beg pardon, Dan, not that you "deserve" it, but you toss up the softballs, I just smack 'em into the field:

("the camera doesn't lie")

If you really believe that, tell me why there are so many UFO photographs?  Why are there so many photographs of Ghosts, Gods, Saviors & their Mothers and other "invisible friends"??  If you want, I'd be glad to give you an "unretouched photo" of your own bedroom window, with a properly-exhibited ghost of your own.  It's not obvious, or it'd be "debunked" by now, but it's not hard to do either.  A film camera can be made to "lie", especially if one takes the time to build their own bellows camera!

One thing the camera really does not do is to eliminate the texture(s) and color(s) of the cordage being photographed.  It also does not peer into the depths of a bulky knot to show some important aspect "inside".  It also does not add nifty little annotations to help discuss the aspects & attributes that might be important.

Show me a photograph of a Short Splice fully opened.  CWA drew it, over a half century ago.  On that note...

Do you see many artists' work in knot books?

I admire your nerve, making a bold splash like that in front of the "Clifford Ashley Appreciation Society"!!!

So, at the risk of overstating the obvious, "no, not 'many', just one".
 

Which one(s) should we follow?

The one which can be proven correct, by pragmatic, peer-reviewed, unambiguous, apolitical, rigorous examination in The Real World.  Duh.

Point is, the knot in its in-use/set form is going to often be ambiguous; it can be difficult to discern even with images from different sides.

That's the "standard" argument against pixtures, dude!  As DaveRoot's "Granny Myrtle's Loopknot" -- one of the simplest forms I can find -- proves concisely.  Look how well DaveRoot photo-documented it, and yet how difficult it was for the rest of us to "learn", and we're (supposed to be) the "experts"!!

I think that Des Pawson's Handbook of Knots[/u] did a great service by giving photos (blown up) of anglers knots, which have typically been shown as mere squiggles (possibly because few knew what they actually looked like, tied properly--hard to see, etc.!).

I condur, but only because there are already a zillion & six different "typically" drawn renditions of them all, leaving photos as the only remaining "undiscovered country" for DP to explore.  And I still believe his artistic skill plus his knotting skill are the only contributing factors to the success of his photography.

Sometimes when I make a knot drawing, I try to capture the final look and yet have the knot unambiguous, and either cheat a little in showing some parts that actually aren't visible when set (but which help clarify ...), or numbering the segments in sequence (SPart = 1, ...) so the viewer can follow the flow of the rope through the knot.

And how, pray tell, do you propose we accomplish all that with photographs??  Or are you, like our late Nautile, merely "playing devil's advocate" to make us all realize the folly of either the "photo only" camp or their "drawings only" counterparts?

It helps in photos ...   geesh

All that was quite correct and quite irrelevant to a knot-drawer.

Nautile presented some couple of sets of photographed knots from explorations on a beach & by the Seine; I'd hate to have had to sketch all of those

As would anyone!!  And why would a sketch be required of a field discovery, unless the discoverer lacked a camera??

We're "blurring the lines" here between "input" "output" and the "reverence" in between.  When you discover an odd kink in a cord, you should capture it for the rest of us using whatever means you have at your disposal.  And you should share it with the rest of us (speech-police aboral pores notwithstanding) in like fashion -- any way you can!!

But when the "Reference Standard" for all knots is composed, I can guarantee you its value will be severely diminished by every single effort made to suppress any form of expression (verbal, artistic, photographic, etc.) at all, likewise any contribution made by even "non-members".  The IGKT is dancing on the edge of nothingness, IRL, unless all the "wet blankets" are loaded up with smallpox & given to the Indians as God intended.

Jimbo still says that the only hope for success is to incorporate all input from all sources, even the one(s) you find "offensive" or "outcast" in any way.  Drawings are not enough, pictures are not enough, text is not enough, and the undercurrent, in this forum, of "exclusivity" will wash the whole rig over the taffrail, and the World will soon forget what the acronym "IGKT" stood for.

[/bark]

[Dan_Lehman]

Part of the problem is that photos aren't always better.  Constantini's (sp?) book was a good example of that.  The cord choice was poor and

As I noted previously, one can do stupid things with a camera (as well as with
a pen or drawing software, or, in Co[n]stantino's case, the keyboard).  This isn't
an argument relevant to the issue:  one can chose cords that contrast with any
other objects/cords in use and the background, just as one could choose such colors
for illustration by other means.

Since you've mentioned Maria's book, I'll vent over that too typical situation for
knots books:  written by a contracted author devoid of knot knowledge; copied from
a few other knots books (THIS is the typical research one sees!).  I esp. loved
her botching of Budworth's Complete Book of Knots[/u] (also Ultimate) which read
"The Double Bowline [ah, touching another thread here, too!] is stronger than the
Bowline (about 70-75%), and ..." which Maria paraphragiarized as "is 70% stronger
than the Bowline" (!!--would make it about 104% tensile).  (And yet when they got
to giving a bibliography for a later issue, not a single one of GB's books is listed!)

Same thing re Jimbo's point on the Dbl.X photo:  drawing it in the same angles
would be no better (numbering can be Photoshop'd if you want).
And no I didn't shoot myself in the foot in ref. to my images, which I also anticipated
by pointing out that the pseudo "photo" was a photocopy re-presented on-line
(heck, might've been a photocopy of a photocopy, but that usually takes the image
to Hades in a hurry!).
.:.  Pretty much the best way to show a knot set /in-use is by camera, and digital
cameras make the connection from generation to on-line presentation; Photoshop
further aids their use (I understand, not yet from experience).

One thing the camera really does not do is to eliminate the texture(s) and color(s) of the cordage being photographed.  It also does not peer into the depths of a bulky knot to show some important aspect "inside".

Again, again, (1) one can choose the object in the photo about as well as for some
drawing, and the point was to have a photo of some actual, set knots--not for all
of the intermediate steps of construction.

You need look no further than his Bowline.  Once you get past the "gee whiz" (not to cross streams with a "haw whiz"   ) factor, how useful is it, really, to see an animated rendition of the "Rabbit & Tree" method for tying a Bowline?  Please, feel free to tell us all where to find some beautiful photo-animated graphics of the PABPRES-level "flippy-twist" method of Bowline tying!  I'll wait...

... for Godot?
If you "look no further" you'll see no further; otherwise, you should try his
One-Handed animation--plenty flippy twistiny enuff for PABPRES or anyone.
(But his confusion of HH.s w/Overhands reveals itself at the end--another *bug*
to be cleaned up.)  But it is better to flippy twist in the opposite way, so that the
Bowline shows its opp. face on the finish, IF there's some further tying to do, such
as making any of the secured Bwl.s I presented.

But all such concerns should be able to be put to rest if the work gets good critical
review (something lacking too often ... ).

--dl*
====

[squarerigger]

Hello Dan L and Hello Jimbo,

Boy, when you two go at each other you pull no punches do you?  Out of the many diatribes between you it looks like we have a consensus that photos and drawings are both good, particularly when carefully done by someone who (would that be Dan or Jimbo?) is fully aware of all the nice and naughty things about knots that should/could/must be included about one or other knot.

OK already!  There is definitely a level of passion about the subject of the Guild's Mission that I wanted to know about and, in my ignorance (pardon me for having tried to bring this back on topic Dan!) I referred to the Guild Mission discussion in England (Shrewsbury) and asked if anyone knew about it.  I was smartly told to get back on topic (the Guild Mission) and so now I am:

What about the Mission?

There seems to be agreement that we should have a Mission of some sort, yes?
That Mission needs to reflect what we do, yes?
We educate people about knots, yes?
We educate using all appropriate means, yes?
We observe how knots are used, yes?
We record our collective observations, yes?
We try to analyze our records, yes?
We publish something that tells others what we have recorded, yes?
Did I miss something?

OK, that's enough of the agreement - what about possible disagreements?
Should we educate the public and ourselves about ropes and ropemaking as well (that is a question that has not yet been addressed in this thread)?
Should we seek funding (possible donation to our charity for training/educational classes +/- possible funding body +/- do part of our dues go to fund knotting projects defined by whomever)?
What will our records look like (electronic +/- paper +/- art +/- scientific +/- distributed +/- etc.,)?

SIGH!  And I thought we were coming to a conclusion....

SquareRigger

[Fairlead]

Lindsey,
Do you bake bread without knowing that you use flour, water and yeast ? And that depending on which flour, water and yeast you use will determine the type of bread and in some cases those who can and cannot eat it.  So too I think we should know as much about the materials with which we tie our knots - or we could be in trouble.  Therefore I think we should learn and teach ropes and ropemaking.  
One of my talks to 'groups' 'clubs' and 'meetings' is based almost entirely on ropes and rope making - with a few knots introduced here and there for completeness.
Here in the UK, I can almost guarantee that where an IGKT member(s) attend shows, festivals, fetes etc that there will be a rope making machine of some sort.  Firstly it is a good audience puller (action going on), the kids love to turn the handle or walk the dolly - they learn something (as do many of their parents!) and go away clutching a piece of rope to tie knots in or to skip with - delighted with what THEY have made.  Isn't this what we are all about?  Many of our members contribute to the Ropemaking forums too.
Gordon  
PS - I HOPE to get a rope braiding machine set up and working at the 2007 meeting in Fareham

[squarerigger]

Thanks Gordon,

Great analogy - not just from the point of view of what goes into making the rope twisted or braided, but also what goes into the actual fibers that are used to make the rope with.  I take a clutch or sheaf of fibers with me and leave them on the table for people to ask about or for me to tell them about, so that kids especially get the idea that the ropes don't get picked from trees ready-made!  I also use a stick to twirl a piece of rope (getting kids to do that in the US you are asking for a lawsuit!)and the leather over the thigh to demonstrate how to make rope the Native American way (and presumably other parts of the world too) so that kids get the idea of just how difficult it was to get rope when you couldn't just go to the store!  Next, I'll have to think about a braiding machine in addition to a spinning machine - hmmm?

Thanks for the feedback!

Lindsey