[january acknowledgment]

Almost a half year has past since the talk of a simple unit was mentioned. The answer to this thought was revealed somewhere between the two bags of possibility; the skunk and the bag which became emblazoned with the NFCO image. The first of the two was the basic black model, which after building was not quite basic enough. Then came the second, the vehicle to freedom, which was both more simple and more complicated. Each a success, and each a failure in their own right. Following these shoulder bags, sometimes referred to as “messenger” bags, was the rattle of the Brother, rattling away as we pulled scraps of material between the feed-dog and the presser-foot. This; however, was the faint cry of preparing to exhibit smocks in Berlin. Per usual, as these posts are often well behind schedule in terms of the physical making, January was used to build smocks of a shorter and more defined manner. The new garments were based on a mens shirt hem suitable for tucking in, but to be worn out (not to be confused with worn out, like wear-out, although the materials used were of a more suitable sub-system/structure for durability and comfort to the user, as the previous smocks lacked a certain user function, the new ones would be built to re-invest the wearer with the garment, completing and or creating a “true” architecture between the biological body and the fiber/textile body-system-structure-equivalent) in a more casual manner. Needless to say, this is the second month without a post – a sans’post month.

The Borg – Hive Mind – AI

In these acknowledgments we want to make our best attempt to clarify what has happened over the time slot which came up missing (as always the recording of this, is in itself, elusive and meandering, maybe due to looking back [into the hazy time], or because the actual events which occurred were elusive in themselves. Sometimes it seems that our best intentions are simply to create movements and connections between the anthropomorphic body and the other; these links and organizations are projecting thoughts in an abstract manner as there is no specific goal in mind to hold them to. With this the activity which follows becomes its own process – whether absorbed first-hand or second – creating and leap-frogging a new type of grammar less susceptible to hierarchies and imperialistic tendencies). January saw smocks and boots primarily, along with travel plans, and massive outside forces coalescing into a tumult of action and resistance. The boots, which became known as Boots [built for berlin] would be an intense lesson in leather, shoe-making, and stitching; along with material handling, representation, and path building. Much, or some, of this info – is being and has been – put into words within a few posts documenting the boots and their lineage. Some of the latter thoughts still simmer away. What stands out most is the direction in which the materials travel between user/activator and user/user. At what moment do the joining of the materials together – which form the idealized shape of a shoe – idealize the idea of the foot in motion with this particular shell that has superseded our natural apparatus. Which came first the chicken or the egg? In this sense we are going to go with the egg. Well, in all fairness, it probably was the egg. Either way; is the shoe and/or the idea of the shoe, stifling the ability for the foot to evolve and adapt? At what point do the materials which we breathe so many of our thoughts into take over natural occurrences? And if/when this happens is our making involved with creating things – in the likeness of our self? Or is it actually a pointed deviation from the anthro-us? It is hard to say, that when someone develops a product, that they are thinking through their body, or if their body is thinking through them. It would be wildly fascinating if there were a way to see this ability of the body thinking through us in the flesh (of course this is a horrible pun of sorts, is it not strangely determined that many, if not most, of us tend to see the world as it can be compared to our mirrored image? Is it not the other-way-around? Looking into the world around us inevitably has the most resolve of how our bodies came to be, thus does the world around us also point in the direction of how certain objects – human’made – came to be?). An example of the body thinking through us is difficult to conjure, and even more so it forces us to step backwards and ask what is the driving force in out decision making. The matter comes down to two sides (well, actually many many sides, but there is not enough room to dive into anymore at the moment) do we build to fulfill representational requirements (i.e. can we only see value in those objects which can relate to ourselves, necessitating connecting (any)things in a visual manner)? Or can, or do we, build things that possibly stem from an impulse deep inside of us which we do not understand until we can make the visual definition of such, whether in the first dimension, second, third, fourth, etc.. In other words, do the things we make, have to do with searching for “answers” or at best “solutions” to “problems” that we run into during our lives, in the most expansive sense – or, are we somewhat blinded by our vision, in the sense that it is very difficult to step away from our visual acuity when we design and build, and therefore are the results of our productive searches only slight variations and simulations of the environment around us which we see before we do anything else with it? Are our specific objects only appendages of the natural and built world, or can we build something truly unique, or from a truly unique source? And if we can, is there any source other than our own body to build from, can someone tap into the thought pattern of animals, or plants, or galaxies; and then build according to the systems those employ to “solve problems”?

[august acknowledgment]

At this moment, needlefeed is bound to extraneous matters. Having been consumed with the move of the Brother DB2-B791-015 from it’s location on Ohio St. to the new address on Elston, the sewing has taken a back seat. Of course this is not without proper excitement of what the future may bring. We just completed moccasins, and a couple of small bags; note’ably the Mini Messenger and the Dow Pack. What is to come are the Foot Wares (Which, although they are written up in September of 2008 – were made prior to that – thus explaining why imagery of them was used for the 1 year anniversary post of needlefeed.com [which was posted in July]), and then dollops of continuing ideas for the craft which is sewing. Some of these thoughts concern a simpler bag, one which is as basic on the outside as it can be whilst making up for that with organizationally expanding aspects on the inside. Part of this stripping comes from a semi-deluded sense of necessity. For one, the idea of the “bottom boot” on a messenger bag is perhaps more than necessary. There is a great desire to find the line between needs, wants, and warrants. The “bottom boot” is a want, not a need. Of course when we get into this a little further, the question of needs and wants becomes more and more abstract, as most of this is not needed at all. With that said, needlefeed is growing in a direction that has become suspect to it’s own intentions, for both the enactor and the user. It is obvious now that addressing the mechanical end of the Brother DB2-B791-015 is becoming less and less crucial to the development of this site. As the new motor has been added and the machine has been tested time and again stitch for stitch, we move into the territory of making because the logistics of repair have been sussed out and finalized (at least for the time being). In the future, if and when the machine comes under extreme stress we will again speak of the peculiar matters this sewing mass is. In the meantime, we look at making, and the making of this website. One thing that is apparent is the recording-of-progress within a particular project (presented within the site). As the site grows, so do the notes within; outlining movement and the things which have directed this movement. And, with this word direction comes odd vocabularies and textual sets, writing, and diagramming. The site sways to and from the farthest reaches not within the thing shown, or the suspect maintenance executed, but instead within the text used. Thus far, and much further beyond it will no doubt be scrutinized for its severe dialogue. Sometimes the words move in a fluid context – streaming ideas and concepts in a thoughtfully quick manner, other times it moves even more quickly raising questions and exposing faults of the conjoined duration of sewing’s physicality and the etheral quality of the site itself, other times it is simply a cluster of thoughts spread about in no particular order, and not necessarily with any remorse (presenting the ideas in a “non-linear” manner would go without saying, and possibly make plenty of sense, but these scattered diagrams are more like the spatial equivalent; disregarding language’s ruling structure for a drawn-linguistic as opposed to written (albeit short) dissertation. The site must apprehend this discursive rambling and fluctuation, as its preeminent function was to work through sewing not only as a tool for product development to be consumed by the masses, but as a thing which is unto itself capable of bringing together histories of many sorts, citing and questioning multiple use values. By this, needlefeed is a chaotic place displayed in the simplest format. And while it may appear too flush and too transparent to some, it has no choice but to continue on, extraordinary or not because when the words are written and the content ingested the fact of the matter is, it can never be deciphered the same way twice. This is caused by the frailty of language, but, if, needlefeed truly engages the nomadicism of procedure, the flexibility of making connections within the scope of materials, it will be the things itself – of the site – which dissuades this confrontation of transferring actions/movements from our side to yours.