I’m sitting on the banks of the river Tarn in Southern France. It is a sunny Saturday afternoon and the sky above is cobalt blue, the river is this olive green grey that rivers have and the breeze is just right so it cools here in the shadow under the trees and adds life to the river by rippling its surface.

Now that the girl who served tea and these delicious small crisp almond cookies has disappeared into the shadows of the house there are only us, Inge, myself and the birds and the wind in the trees and the lazy flow of the river to add life to the scene.

Indeed a very tranquil scene.

When checking out of the city this morning we had as an option for the day to check in early and then drive around in this historic region, which we do not know very well – actually our knowledge is limited to a few brief transits – and then return to the hotel towards the evening.

But then this thing happened! We arrived at the hotel before noon and got this feeling instantly that here we could stay for a week. And why hang around in a car for most of the day when we could integrate ourselves in this setting – be part of the deep shadows under the trees and watch the river and the time flow by at a lazy pace?

These deep shadows that summer brings to the French countryside from late morning well into the afternoon are magnificent. They contribute to sculpturing the landscape in a solid way which works so well with the countryside and underpins the feeling of being in places with traditions and lifestyles rooted deeply back in time – be they ever so simple or be they spots with historic highlights dating back to medieval times as here in the department of Tarn.

Inge and I are now two dots in this river-scape, hard to spot, because we are well integrated in the deep shadows that model the scene. And what has all that to do with art? Well, if not for anything else it has something essential to do with the concept of art de vivre.

Sitting on the plane from Manchester I reflected a little on the week I’d just spent with Roland walking in the Pennines.

Although the daily walks could be long and sometimes arduous the week seems to have passed very quickly indeed. This is kind of a contrasting opposite: days passing slowly vs. the week passing quickly. As I sat there with my thoughts meandering in the experiences I’d had on the walk, it appeared to me that this was not the only case of contrasts.

There were other cases, like the following ones:

The joy of meeting Roland again and looking forward to walking with him for a handful of days – contrasted by the touch of sadness when saying goodbye.

The overwhelming beauty presented by nature in both its prime and mature states – contrasted by the little I could do with all that beauty. I could basically only try to take it in as we passed by phenomenally beautiful road- and riversides, or being presented with stunning vistas from hilltops.

The fauna and landscapes pressing on their effects of “zen” – contrasted by the latency of my mind to absorb it all and let it take precedence in my lines of thought.

A seemingly desolate and run down place for accommodation – contrasted by the nice evening meal it provided for, a beer on the bedside and a good nights sleep.

The multitude of photo ops inviting to stay in a place a little longer – contrasted by the necessity to press on to make the end of the day’s walk.

Asking Roland: “What made us do this?” when being absolutely exhausted on a steep slope – contrasted by the brief moments of satisfaction for every hilltop passed and the great satisfaction at day’s end.

The mounting fatigue as the final day lingered on – contrasted by the surprising amount of resources we could mobilize at the end of that day to take on the challenge of the more difficult high route.

And now back in Paris the whole period in the Pennines with all its zen and beauty and calmness and distances stands in sharp contrast to my everyday life. But if contrast is important in a piece of artwork why shouldn’t it be important in life itself?

Our participation in a closed dinner party on a Parisian river boat Friday evening gave reason to a very interesting reflection. Not on the food or the wines or the live music or the river boat traffic on the River Seine or how the appearance of the Eiffel Tower changed as the day turned into night. So what was it then?

It was the sculptural embellishment of the bridge Pont Neuf. When approaching the bridge we noted the series of carved faces or masks – mascarons – that run all along the bridge on both sides. There were hundreds of them and we noted that although they were of the same size, they were all unique in facial traits and consequently not being made according to the same and only model.

It was just like our party with participants originating from several European countries. Their faces were also all wonderfully individual and rich in features and characteristics. It appears that irrespective of how many people are gathered in one place, individuality will always prevail.

Having just updated our lecture “About Us & People in Our Quilts” we can only nod in recognition to that. In view of the luncheon lecture we will be giving at the Quilt Market & Festival in Houston on Monday 27^th of October the update includes additional recent works which we believe will add further interest to the content.

It is all about people and faces – and who knows, perhaps some of them may have similarities with mascarons.

In recent weeks we have been filling in application forms for juried exhibitions in different places around the world. From our portfolio of available and eligible works we thoroughly assessed where which would fit best – as we always do. And again we experienced a little frustration and a dilemma. Now, why is that?

Well, one exhibition identifies 2 primary groups each with a range of categories into which the works have to land, according to their features. So our works land in the overall group “Art”, which is ok. But then frustrations set in, because of the way we implement our works. Our works are implemented as a combination of painting and quilting where the artistic expression is obtained through the interaction between paint and thread within the overall composition of the work.

If accepted our works will in the exhibition we are referring to by definition be exhibited in the category “Art – Painted Surface”.

Fair enough, you may think. But hearing that the same exhibition also will include the following categories: “Art – People, Portraits and Figures”, “Art – Naturscapes”, “Art – Abstract” and “Art – Pictorial” you may find cause to reflect a little on the “Art – Painted Surface” category and how this in all likelihood will cannibalize the other sub-categories and end up as an incoherent mix of works.

Well, we have learned to live with it, but we nevertheless feel pity on the curators and in particular the viewers. It must be frustrating for the curators of the other categories if “Art – Painted Surface” include portraits which would contribute formidably to the category “Art – People, Portraits and Figures”, or if it included lovely land or seascapes which would complement the other works in the category “Art – Naturscapes”.

The visitors to the exhibition are likely to be puzzled about the “Art – Painted Surface” category. Where the other categories appeared coherent in motifs the visitors will here find themselves in a section of the overall exhibition that from a motif point of view is absolutely incoherent. They will likely experience a mix of motifs representing People, Portraits and Figures, Naturscapes, Abstract and Pictorial – all motifs they have seen in the other categories. The only common denominator here will be the fundamentals on how the works technically have been implemented.

Anyways, we learned to live with this, but it nevertheless does not seem to be an optimal utilisation of the works that land in the “Art – Painted Surface” category and leads inevitably to reflections on whether that category should not be discontinued.

The funny thing is that the two works we intend to propose could without any problems fall in 3 of the other categories – were it not for the criterion “painted surface”.

The dilemma we experienced related to another exhibition in a different part of the world. Here the categories were defined by their titles only and the work we intend to propose would fit right into 3 of them: “Contemporary Quilts”, “Pictorial/Memory/Message Quilts” and “Machine quilts”. Which one to choose?

We connected our reflections on this dilemma with the reflections on the frustration about the abovementioned technically based category and moved our thoughts forward to somewhat that almost takes the shape of an introductory lecture for a debate on exactly these issues. We believe over the years to have accumulated some very thought provoking opinions and questions to throw into this debate.