Deanna Burditt: A Practical Look At Her Work And Approach
I first came across Deanna Burditt's pieces at a small gallery showing in Chicago around 2014. She had these layered textile works that weren't immediately striking — they required you to stand back and let your eyes settle before the patterns resolved into something coherent. That's pretty much the entire philosophy behind her practice. She doesn't throw details at you. She builds them slowly, almost like a puzzle you're meant to solve by looking longer. Burditt works primarily in mixed media textiles, combining fabric, thread, paint, and sometimes found objects. Her background includes formal training in fiber arts, which matters because a lot of people dismiss textile work as decorative when it's actually one of the most technically demanding mediums you can work in. The difference between decorative textile art and fine art textile work usually comes down to intentionality — whether every stitch and color choice is serving a conceptual purpose or just looking nice. She grew up in the Midwest, studied at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, and has been showing internationally since the late nineties. Her work sits somewhere between abstraction and representation. You'll see forms that suggest landscapes, architecture, or the human figure, but never quite committing to any of them. That ambiguity is intentional and it's what makes cataloguing her pieces challenging for institutions.
When I started studying her technique more closely, I ran into a specific problem: her surfaces have this particular kind of depth that photographs simply don't capture. I tried multiple lighting setups in my studio — side lighting, diffuse overhead, even raking light at different angles — and the results were inconsistent. What finally worked was scanning individual sections at 600 DPI and then reconstructing them digitally. The scans captured the raised texture of her stitching in a way photography couldn't. This isn't a problem unique to Burditt, by the way. It's a well-known issue with any artist working heavily in textile or relief mediums. The workaround is always going to involve some combination of scanning and computational photography. Her process typically involves building up layers over weeks or months. A single piece might have forty to sixty distinct layers of fabric, each one stitched and painted before the next goes down. She's mentioned in interviews that she works slowly because she needs to see how each layer responds to what's underneath it. Rushing that process breaks the work. I've seen young artists try to replicate her surface quality by applying materials quickly and then distressing them afterward. It looks flat because it is flat — you're simulating accumulation rather than actually accumulating. One thing most people miss when they're getting started is the underdrawing. Burditt does extensive preparatory sketches, often at small scale, before committing to the final piece. These drawings map out not just composition but the color relationships and textural zones. Skipping this step and jumping straight into the work is probably the most common mistake I see. The drawings serve as a roadmap, and without one you end up spending far more time making decisions mid-process, which slows everything down and usually produces weaker results.
Another counterintuitive detail: her palette is actually quite limited. She tends to work within a narrow range of values and saturations, letting the texture and layering do the visual heavy lifting. Beginners often respond to this by adding more color, assuming they're missing something. They're not. The restraint is the point. If you look at her early work from the nineties, there's more chromatic variety. As her practice matured, she stripped it back further. That's a pattern you'll see across a lot of serious artists — the move toward economy over time. Her pieces have been collected by institutions including the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, and the Textile Center in Minneapolis. Private collectors tend to gravitate toward her smaller works, which tend to be more intimate in scale and detail. The larger pieces, sometimes five feet or more, require significant wall space and can dominate a room. I'd recommend viewing them in person when possible. Gallery reproductions and online images compress the work in ways that lose a lot of the surface information. If you're interested in her methods and want to study them practically, the most useful resources are her artist statements and the few instructional interviews available. She's not extremely prolific in that department, but what exists is substantive. The Corcoran Gallery put out a decent catalog raisonné-style publication a few years back that includes detailed process notes alongside the images.
Get the Full Details
One practical consideration for anyone trying to work in a similar vein: textile art carries real physical demands. Large pieces are heavy. They require proper mounting and framing systems that can support several pounds without warping. Standard museum mounting tape degrades over time and can damage the work. Archival H-seams and Japanese paper hinges are the standard approach, but they're labor-intensive. Budget accordingly if you're planning to display anything at a significant scale. Burditt's work doesn't follow trends. She's been doing roughly the same kind of thing for thirty years with incremental refinement. That consistency is something to respect, even if it makes writing about her harder. There's no dramatic style shift to anchor a narrative. The story is in the details — the patience, the restraint, the willingness to spend a hundred hours on a surface that might only get a minute of focused attention from a viewer.
