23.2.20 Bataille, form and formlessness
I was so delighted to find this article by Jonathan Faiers, which suggests a darker side to knitting. It’s the only academic writing I have found specifically about knitting that addresses this.
‘Drawing on Georges Bataille’s exploration of the informe or formlessness, this article will concentrate on the fundamental practice of knitting as an operation that attempts to produce form from nothing. The act of enclosing spaces or more precisely setting up temporary enclosures is after all what the practice of knitting consists of. The exploration of tension, both literally as in the tension of the particular knitting stitch, and emotionally, when conscious of knitting’s potential to unravel, seems to be what is at stake in Holly Golightly’s determination to continue producing her formless knitting.’
The idea of producing form from nothing is intriguing, and that is what knitting does. Also, that the language of knitting adds meaning – tension, most significantly, but also, unravelling, casting off etc.
This reminds me of what anthropologist Mary Douglas (1966, p94) says of disorder:
‘Order implies restriction…So disorder by implication is unlimited, no pattern has been realised in it, but its potential for patterning is indefinite…It symbolises both danger and power.’
I relish the idea that knitting differently can subvert its meanings.
I have written elsewhere about how I knit intuitively, my stream of consciousness knitting, and that I consider it to be ‘sloppy craft’. This I think, is linked to Bataille’s theories of form and formlessness. Also, it’s about borders, or boundaries; Kristeva talks about abjection being similarly about boundaries between self and other, Crossman about moveable borders between the private and public spheres. He states,
‘the boundary between the public and private sphere is not fixed; instead, it is flexible and permeable, and is always fluctuating and evolving’ (2019).
I know that boundaries bring certainty, security; removing them, or acknowledging them to be fluid, brings uncertainty, anxiety and as Douglas pronounces, not only danger, but also, power.
Crossman, A. (2019) Understanding Private and Public Spheres Available at: https://www.thoughtco.com/private-and-public-spheres-3026464 (Accessed 25 March 2020)
Douglas, M. (1966) Purity and Danger. London and New York: Routledge
Faiers, J. (2014) ‘Knitting and Catastrophe’, Textile: The Journal of Cloth & Culture, 12(1), pp. 100–108. doi: 10.2752/175183514x13916051793596.
I was so delighted to find this article by Jonathan Faiers, which suggests a darker side to knitting. It’s the only academic writing I have found specifically about knitting that addresses this.
‘Drawing on Georges Bataille’s exploration of the informe or formlessness, this article will concentrate on the fundamental practice of knitting as an operation that attempts to produce form from nothing. The act of enclosing spaces or more precisely setting up temporary enclosures is after all what the practice of knitting consists of. The exploration of tension, both literally as in the tension of the particular knitting stitch, and emotionally, when conscious of knitting’s potential to unravel, seems to be what is at stake in Holly Golightly’s determination to continue producing her formless knitting.’
The idea of producing form from nothing is intriguing, and that is what knitting does. Also, that the language of knitting adds meaning – tension, most significantly, but also, unravelling, casting off etc.
This reminds me of what anthropologist Mary Douglas (1966, p94) says of disorder:
‘Order implies restriction…So disorder by implication is unlimited, no pattern has been realised in it, but its potential for patterning is indefinite…It symbolises both danger and power.’
I relish the idea that knitting differently can subvert its meanings.
I have written elsewhere about how I knit intuitively, my stream of consciousness knitting, and that I consider it to be ‘sloppy craft’. This I think, is linked to Bataille’s theories of form and formlessness. Also, it’s about borders, or boundaries; Kristeva talks about abjection being similarly about boundaries between self and other, Crossman about moveable borders between the private and public spheres. He states,
‘the boundary between the public and private sphere is not fixed; instead, it is flexible and permeable, and is always fluctuating and evolving’ (2019).
I know that boundaries bring certainty, security; removing them, or acknowledging them to be fluid, brings uncertainty, anxiety and as Douglas pronounces, not only danger, but also, power.
Crossman, A. (2019) Understanding Private and Public Spheres Available at: https://www.thoughtco.com/private-and-public-spheres-3026464 (Accessed 25 March 2020)
Douglas, M. (1966) Purity and Danger. London and New York: Routledge
Faiers, J. (2014) ‘Knitting and Catastrophe’, Textile: The Journal of Cloth & Culture, 12(1), pp. 100–108. doi: 10.2752/175183514x13916051793596.
