Are the colors produced by natural dyes more "beautiful?"
Dear folks -
The heading won't let me do it but the full title here
should be "Are the colors produced by natural dyes more "beautiful" than those
produced by synthetic dyes?
One thing that strikes me about the frequent
claim that the colors produced by natural dyes are simply more attractive is how
narrow the range of shades is that are in fact included.
I have told how
I went to a TM rug morning by a contemporary weaver and noticed that all of her
pieces were made in "day-glo" colors. When I cited the standard that we
collectors apply with regard to color, I drew blank stares, as if I had just
arrived from Mars.
And artists more generally (some of whom are likely
far more knowledgeable and skilled with regard to both seeing and using color
than we are) often seem to use a much wider variety of palettes with
approval.
We have a painter, Tom Xenakis, who is a member of our local
rug collecting community. He worked for a long time as a medical illustrator
(think wonderfully realistic, very "tight" drafting) and has painted some
traditional icons. Nowadays, his work features very modern (I don't pretend to
understand it) "cosmic" effects that include such things as gold foil hanging
off the surface of the painting.
Anyway, I have been pressing both Tom
and the TM to do a rug morning on "An Artist Looks at Color in Oriental Rugs and
Textiles." Tom clearly knows more about color than most of our advanced
collectors could ever aspire to. It would be interesting to hear what he has to
say. I know already that he doesn't buy the restrictions most usually cited by
those touting the virtues of the natural dye palette.
Regards,
R.
John Howe
Dear Turko Tek:
This discussion opens up many cans of a variety of
worms. I believe the issue of the synthetics/natural dyes addresses the question
of color balance, harmony, and intensity or vibrancy...yet beauty is in the eyes
of the beholder?? or is it really???
The relationships of analogous,
harmonious and complimentary colors etc etc are related to the interaction to
other hues and other colors and how they play off one another in a weaving.
Their relationships is imperative to the "whole" visual punch of a weaving etc .
A weaving most often is a mixed weaving where a natural is placed next
to a vibrant (possibly garish) synthetic. That disturbs the visual balance of
the whole piece of art. Akin to a bright orange dot in a black and white canvas.
The whole composition is disturbed by that orange dot and the "whole" is
reoriented, out of balance. The orange upsets the neutrality of the
relationships of the other colors
Another example, which is visually
acceptable to me, as a non-purist, is a fuchine dye in a Kurdish rug that has
turned gray or some neutral color of the wool before dyeing, blends and becomes
much more part of the rug visually with the wonderful natural dyes of late 19th
C Kurdish weaving. I do not find this less intensified fuchine, which has faded,
overly visually offensive.
Most purists might find the rug a loser....do we
look at the rug as a whole visual statement or at separate or individual knots?
Neuroses often step up to the plate at this point.
As seen recently in a
Textile Museum exhibition , most Central American contemporary weaving are all
synthetics, bright, garish and saturated colors. Their balance in the weaving is
usually maintained because the entire garment keeps it's visual "whole". No one
color grabs you by the throat or eyes. The whole garment is unified...for good
or for bad. Usually the characteristic of a sound weaving or visual
statement.
Another discussion has to address other compositional
variables such as hue, key, value (tonal) relationships, and contrast with the
natural and synthetic dye interplay phenomenon.
Thanks for the
opportunty to give some fuel to the fire.
Tom Xenakis
Hi Tom,
I can't help it:
I think the combination of
synthetic and natural dyes is a very common practice in nomad land.
It's
something I like about primitive textiles.
If everything blends in, in
perfect harmony, I get bored.
I agree. A shouting blue, faded into
silver/grey can be a relief sometimes. But......most readers will
Best
regards,
Vincent
Vincent -
Russell Pickering (a co-author of one of the first serious
books on flatwoven textiles), who has put together two noteworthy collections of
Moroccan rugs (something you likely cannot do if you are allergic to synthetic
dyes) has a position about them that seems similar to what you say
above.
He says about this "synthetic vs natural" dyes debate: "It's the
silliest thing I ever heard. The only issue is what do the colors look like. If
the colors are pleasing it makes no difference what produces
them."
Yes?
And you say, sometimes the fading of a synthetic color
results in a kind of "relief." Here again is one saf that Harold Keshishian
presented:
Consider the sort of
relief we (as observers) would likely be seeking if this piece retained its
original predominant purple.
Regards,
R. John Howe
Hi John
Russ Pickering's statement about the natural dyes issue,
It's the silliest thing I ever heard. The only issue is what do the colors
look like. If the colors are pleasing it makes no difference what produces
them would be correct if the only reason anyone cared about the colors was
aesthetic. But that isn't the case; we use color as a marker for date
attribution, and age is a very important factor in determining fair market value
of rugs from central and western Asia.
Regards
Steve Price
Hi Steve -
As has happened in other thread here different things are
being referred to under particular rubrics.
If you note at the top of
this thread I tried to focus this one on the aesthetic issue ALONE.
Given
that it seems to me that Russell has an argument.
At least it seems
difficult to refute.
Nothing about age or a tradition (although he
certainly did not neglect the latter in his examination of various facets of
Moroccan rugs in his two books) or market value here. Just what does it look
like?
Is it beautiful, regardless of the dyes that produced that
beauty?
Regards,
R. John Howe
Hi John
Russ's statement is pretty clear and includes no qualifying
clauses. It says, The only issue... in color is aesthetics. That isn't
correct, at least for those who collect western and central Asian antique
textiles.
Regards
Steve Price
Steve -
Then I've misquoted him. He doesn't take the position that
some of these other aspects are unimportant.
He is, for example, no Sam
Gorden (bless Sam's heart, anyway).
Regards,
R. John Howe