Calligraphy

[caliken]

  On 11/20/2010 at 11:09 PM, tomagig said:

Hello,

Does anyone know some good online calligraphy tutorials?

At the top of this forum look at "Handwriting aids and links to lessons" or "Chancery Italic Script instructions"

 

For Spencerian Script go to "www.Iampeth.com"

[Bronze]

- Here is a series of videos on Chancery Cursive.

 

http://monkeysee.com/play/8105-how-to-master-the-art-of-calligraphy

 

 

Easy to see the movements etc as the instructor uses a very wide nib. (Speedball C0 if I remember correctly).

[Renzhe]

Calligraphy and handwriting are the same thing to me. Therefore, no calligraphy section.

[Struthious]

if there was an I'm not sure choice I'd choose that one

[OdinLoki]

  On 11/19/2010 at 11:40 PM, caliken said:

  On 11/19/2010 at 3:26 PM, Paddler said:

If you were given the task of separating all of the posts in the Penmanship Forum into "Penmanship" and "Calligraphy" categories, you would quickly run into trouble.

Paddler

 

The 'Penmanship' forum is a wonderfully diverse depository for many types of 'beautiful writing' and we are lucky to have it.

 

Please leave it as it is.

 

Ken

 

+1!

[beak]

To some of us, the word calligraphy does carry conotations of something less interesting than does the word penmanship. Hense I, for one, tend not to follow those threads marked as ‘calligraphy’. For me the distinction in section would be useful, but I am also in agreement that it is not at all practical to split such threads away from the main run of ‘good writing’ (I don’t like the term ‘beautiful writing’ as this is too subjective) so must vote against it.

 

My personal distinction, the one that identifies ‘calligraphy’ or me, is that which is created to display the form rather than the content, those writings with a more decorative than informative aspect – but the definitions are breaking down already, you see, and this is why I think it can’t work. Beak.

[pen2paper]

  On 11/20/2010 at 1:31 PM, caliken said:

  On 11/20/2010 at 12:48 PM, tomagig said:

Plus with less sections every post reaches more people.

That's my point, exactly!

 

Thanks for being so understanding and I'm sorry if I appear to have come on a bit heavy!

 

(I do tend to go on a bit!)

 

 

Ken

With all due respect.. Please > Do go on!

And, since sincere thanks, for all you share here.. you are inspiring-just in case you've not been told so of late.

[Miranda]

While we are at it, I think the forum should be called Penwomanship, or Penmanandwomanship, or maybe Penpersonship.

Why is this antiquated gender-based word considered acceptable? {would insert smiley here, but hates emoticons]

 

I agree with everyone that Penmanship is broader and more enticing. There are so many ways to use pen apart from what most people call 'calligraphy' and there are some very talented people here sharing there work.

[beak]

  On 12/16/2010 at 12:22 AM, Miranda said:

While we are at it, I think the forum should be called Penwomanship, ...

Why is this antiquated gender-based word considered acceptable? ...

 

 

This word may not be gender-specific after all. The 'man' in such words is often derived from the French for 'hand', such as in the term 'foreman' - literally: leading hand. While not accusing the writer of this error (not sure of my etymology with the word in question anyway) I do oppose rejection of ordinary words such as 'foreman' for such reasons. I'm sure many disagree, but I suggest that we should know why we are changing things, if we decide to do so, and with many terms that reason is not that the word is offensive in any way, but that many people misunderstand it to be so - this does not seem sufficient reason, to me. Again, this is not directed at the previous poster (is that a noun?) but an aside in general.

 

Sorry to interrupt the flow of this post, about which I now feel sure we should not change. beak.

Edited December 16, 2010 by beak

[Miranda]

  On 12/16/2010 at 2:50 AM, beak said:

  On 12/16/2010 at 12:22 AM, Miranda said:

While we are at it, I think the forum should be called Penwomanship, ...

Why is this antiquated gender-based word considered acceptable? ...

 

 

This word may not be gender-specific after all. The 'man' in such words is often derived from the French for 'hand', such as in the term 'foreman' - literally: leading hand. While not accusing the writer of this error (not sure of my etymology with the word in question anyway) I do oppose rejection of ordinary words such as 'foreman' for such reasons. I'm sure many disagree, but I suggest that we should know why we are changing things, if we decide to do so, and with many terms that reason is not that the word is offensive in any way, but that many people misunderstand it to be so - this does not seem sufficient reason, to me. Again, this is not directed at the previous poster (is that a noun?) but an aside in general.

 

Sorry to interrupt the flow of this post, about which I now feel sure we should not change. beak.

 

Oh Dear, I shall try again:

While we are at it, I think the forum should be called Penwomanship, ...

Why is this antiquated gender-based word considered acceptable? ...:ltcapd::ltcapd::roflmho:

 

I was just trying to add to the conversation about the meanings words have. Do the emoticons make that clearer? [ three are overkill. It is not that funny. I do hate those things.]

 

According to the OED, penman is the man who holds to pen. Pen via French for quill, and Man as Man, not from Manus so my comment is accurate.

But of course I wouldn't expect the title to change I am allowed, however, to discuss the gendered nature of language. Man don't often have a problem with 'man' being the default word to describe activities, but women are tired of being men by default.

[beak]

  On 12/17/2010 at 1:06 AM, Miranda said:

  On 12/16/2010 at 2:50 AM, beak said:

  On 12/16/2010 at 12:22 AM, Miranda said:

While we are at it, I think the forum should be called Penwomanship, ...

Why is this antiquated gender-based word considered acceptable? ...

 

 

This word may not be gender-specific after all. The 'man' in such words is often derived from the French for 'hand', such as in the term 'foreman' - literally: leading hand. While not accusing the writer of this error (not sure of my etymology with the word in question anyway) I do oppose rejection of ordinary words such as 'foreman' for such reasons. I'm sure many disagree, but I suggest that we should know why we are changing things, if we decide to do so, and with many terms that reason is not that the word is offensive in any way, but that many people misunderstand it to be so - this does not seem sufficient reason, to me. Again, this is not directed at the previous poster (is that a noun?) but an aside in general.

 

Sorry to interrupt the flow of this post, about which I now feel sure we should not change. beak.

 

I am allowed, however, to discuss the gendered nature of language.

Well dear me, How difficult things can become when one's post is not read properly, but instead assumptions made about their intentions. 'If you must misunderstand me...'

Edited December 17, 2010 by beak

[caliken]

deleted

Edited December 18, 2010 by caliken

[ru32day]

  On 12/17/2010 at 1:06 AM, Miranda said:

Man don't often have a problem with 'man' being the default word to describe activities, but women are tired of being men by default.

 

...all women? not me. I'm perfectly happy with terms such as penmanship, history etc.

[Daisy]

  On 12/18/2010 at 8:43 AM, ru32day said:

  On 12/17/2010 at 1:06 AM, Miranda said:

Man don't often have a problem with 'man' being the default word to describe activities, but women are tired of being men by default.

 

...all women? not me. I'm perfectly happy with terms such as penmanship, history etc.

 

Ditto. If I had to be upset every time I silently changed a pronoun, I could never read a book.

 

But I understand what Miranda was getting at, and Beak, you're a sweetheart to be so sensitive and I appreciate it. True, male-orientation in language does occasionally get tiresome, but for me -- especially when considering words that have been used unchanged for hundreds of years -- it's just not a big deal. To me, there's a huge difference between female-excluding language and historically male-oriented language.

 

But just in case there's anyone seriously considering this gender-neutral thing as an option here -- as grateful as I am to all the women who went before me to open doors and opoportunities that were previously held by men, I gotta say frankly that if the name of this forum were changed to "Penpersonship" or something equally cloying, I'd find myself sniggering every time I visited.

 

Interesting discussion, though.

[Miranda]

Please! I was joking about the name change! I was just trying to make a point about the meaning of words, not be the feminist wet blanket. You do all realise that the phrase 'political correct' was invented by those who enjoy that sort of thing to send themselves up? I was making a valid point but jokingly.

 

I had to respond to Beak as he was incorrect about the etymology of the word. 'Man' is as in the male of the human species like horsemanship, where it is clear that the 'man' there is not a 'hand'.

 

Actually 'horsemanship' provides a good analogy about why, to me at least, 'penmanship' is a better word than 'calligraphy' as it encompasses the whole experience of 'penning'. We know the qualities of good horsemanship are more than the elements of each little movement of dressage or whatever.

 

I support what Caliken has said.

[Daisy]

  On 12/19/2010 at 3:05 AM, Miranda said:

Please! I was joking about the name change! ...I was making a valid point but jokingly.

 

I am aware of that, thanks.

[beak]

The penMANship discussion:

I've started another thread ('Do people often misunderstand you...') where this might better be continued, if those involved (including me - sorry for that) wish to thrash it out further, but I think we're interrupting the flow of this thread.

Admired Miranda and I have resolved our differences.

Thanks to all, beak.

 

PS I don't know how to provide a link to that thread - can some kind soul inform me?

Edited December 19, 2010 by beak

[beak]

I'm interested to know whether or not the voting bar-graph at the head of this subject will decide the matter, or is it just for interest's sake? Moderators please inform. Thanks, beak.

[Jamesiv1]

  On 11/19/2010 at 9:16 PM, tomagig said:

Calligraphy is a form of penmanship so it should have a subforum.

 

I would say the opposite is true - that penmanship is a form of calligraphy.

 

"Calligraphy" means "beautiful writing", and can mean writing done with pen, reed or brush. Calligraphy is multi-cultural.

 

"Penmanship" is a fancy word for "handwriting", and as far as I know is mostly a Western term.

 

James

[caliken]

deleted

Edited December 19, 2010 by caliken