Dianne's comment, "Galleries, what can we do to have you appreciate our fibre (sic) art??" keeps me pondering a cluster of thoughts I have about handweaving.
In one respect, I was seriously disappointed/discouraged/disheartened I got no deal out of the Expo. The way I saw it before the Expo, my work may be different from what gallerists might have imagined, say, compared to something off of their grandmother's loom, using natural-colored, handspuns, (or what do they expect in modern handweaving, anyway?). On the other hand, sitting amongst painters and sculptors and jewelers, I thought even in their eyes handweaving might merit some kind of a vicarious artistic credence, albeit temporarily. Well, apparently not, at least not my stuff.
Nowadays fiber art seems to point firstly to impractical objets d'art using fiber as primary materials, and a distant second to felted or handpainted articles. Successful Golden Bay fiber artists Morag Dean (go about 1/4 way down from the link to view her delicate work) confided a year ago, quite honestly and bluntly, that the moment she mounted her pieces onto frames, they started selling.
There is possibly a perception utility takes something away from aesthetics or artistic merit; consider the perceived "class" difference between potters and ceramic artists. Likewise, fiber art, good; weaving, bad.
So, where do we go from here? Lloyd once mentioned the hard work ceramicists and jewelry makers put in to elevate their crafts' status in the eyes of the consumers; maybe I am part of a group on a long and arduous path to elevate the perception of and appreciation for handweaving?