More on paint-by-numbers, because I tend to get a thought in my head and turn it around and around kind of like a stoneroller with a shiny pebble...

There is a website about the history of the whole "fad" here.

A quotation from the site: "paint by number had a peculiarly American virtue. It invited people who had never before held a paintbrush to enter a world of art and creativity."

I think that's perhaps part of why I like the concept of paint-by-number. But I think also part of it is the whole "middlebrow" ideal that seemed to exist in the 1950s.

I say "seemed" because I didn't make the scene until nearly 10 years after the 50s had ended, but from what my parents talk about from their early married days - which actually would have been the early *60s*, but still - they subscribed to classical-record clubs, they were interested in light opera, they learned to cook "ethnic" foods - there seemed to be this general attitude (again, this may be unique to my parents, who like me, have always had restless minds that get bored easily, and look for things to learn) of self-improvement. Or not so much self-improvement, but learning for learning's sake - that it was cool to know about great art and literature and to know the rudiments of philosophy and to generally be what was regarded as a "cultured" person.

Perhaps it was because "culture" was more monolithic in those days, or that "high culture" was what grown-ups partook of, and "pop culture" (rock and roll, teen movies..) were for adolescents and were something that one grew out of. I don't know.

It does seem now that there's more fragmentation in the culture. And there often doesn't seem to be a sense of "graduating" from the passions of youth to something more mature. Which I would argue isn't an entirely bad thing, unless you're talking about the fart-joke-studded "unrated version" movies that seem to be so common among the dvd offerings these days. (However, I will say that I rejoice that I can watch Miyazake and even Disney movies without needing to have a child as my cover-story.)

And yeah, I realize, there was stuff in the 1950s and 60s that wasn't so great. (But I don't think the much-vaunted, "It was a CONFORMIST HELL, especially for women" idea that seems to be the popular mindset now must be entirely true...I mean, my mom - as a woman - got her Ph.D. and while maybe she was UNUSUAL for doing that she does not report anyone being rude or shunning of her during the process.)

I think that the paint-by-numbers reflect the same kind of aspirational quality that the Everyman's Library concept I wrote about earlier. (Everyman's Library was established some 50 years before the popularity of paint-by-numbers). The idea that everyone could "better" themselves - or at least enjoy some really good literature - the idea that learning was not just for the elite. Those are all good ideas.

You probably realize, if you've read this blog for a while, that I do tend to be an elitist in the sense that I think it's silly to reject literature or high art or classical music as "boring" or "not for me" or "something those old farts do" or "not in touch with the way we live now" or "something the Rich Oppressors have generated" without actually giving it a try first. I tend to think that Bach's pieces are beautiful regardless of where, when, and by whom they were written. (If you don't like Bach after listening to his work, that's fine; that's figuring out your own taste. I personally do not like Stravinsky, though I have tried to. But I know many people who do. What I don't agree with is rejecting Bach out-of-hand because he IS Bach, or because of the things you've come to believe, second-hand, about classical music).

Heh. Second-hand beliefs. Not quite as deadly as second-hand smoke, but potentially dangerous none the less.

And actually - the idea I quoted earlier, about the sort-of-democratic nature of paint-by-number, that it put brushes in the hands of people who perhaps believed themselves "uncreative" (and maybe some of them went on to paint their own compositions later?). It seems to me that that's not unlike some of the ideas in the "New DIY" movement - the idea that we can all create, that we can all make stuff - stuff that is beautiful, stuff that is useful, stuff that amuses us.

Perhaps that's why some people are getting involved with collecting the old paint-by-number canvases, saving them, celebrating them - the whole idea that people can make stuff - that it's circling around again, and more people are getting interested again in creating (however they may create) rather than merely consuming.

Or perhaps, as is entirely possibly the issue, I'm reading too much into it.

But, I do know the pleasure of taking a pillowcase "blank" that has been stamped with a design, and slowly, inexorably, working the necessary cross stitches or stem stitches or satin stitches to transform it from a bland, blue-stamped piece of cloth into a garden scene or a picture of a cherub with a flowery wreath.

(I really should photograph the cherub pillowcases I made sometime. They please me immensely, especially the little cherubs - all those densely packed cross-stitches, it almost is like a beaded or a mosaic surface. There is something agreeable in both a visual and a tactile sense to it.)

And only part of it is the joy of having the finished product. A big part of it is the peace of working on it - of slowly filling that ground with "medium pink" or "light purple" or "gold" or whatever.

It - like quilting the quilt in the frame, like knitting a pair of socks - is one of my "happy places" that I can go to quite easily.