Date Attributions and their Bases
Hi All
In this very beautiful exhibition, rugs are attributed to
specific centuries between the 15th and 18th. I suppose there is documented
provenance on some, but for the rest,I pose the following question: on what
foundation do the fairly specific date attributions rest?
The reason I
ask is that it's hard for me to see how it can be done. If there's a documented
record on a particular rug that says it was donated, say, in 1654, we can be
pretty confident that it's a 17th century rug. But without such documentation,
it seems to me that the best anyone can do with a rug is compare its properties
with those of rugs that are documented to have been made during relatively
narrow periods between, say, the 15th and 19th centuries, and see what matches
up. This approach can only be useful if there are enough rugs during each of the
various points in time to create a database in which the characteristics of each
period can be specified with some assurance.
To use a simple example. We
know that the Pazyryk rug is about 2500 years old. Could we use its
characteristics to date some other piece to the same period (or to eliminate
that period from consideration)? I think the answer is, not very reliably. One
rug isn't enough to use as the database for such an approach.
Yet, I
often see relatively precise attributions, and even debates about whether one
guy's attribution is better than someone else's. My question isn't, Which
characteristics define something as, for example, 16th century Turkish?.
It's, What is the reason for believing that those characteristics define
something as, for example, 16th century Turkish?
My compliments and
thanks to Stefano for organizing this exhibition and allowing Horst to present
it here, and to Horst for doing so. It's a very special
treat.
Regards
Steve Price
Steve,
It's a heck of a good question. There aren't many analogs to
the Pazyryk carpet, and there are plenty for Anatolian production over the
years. Precisely how the experts parley the indicia into proposed production
dates, however, is over my head. I've always assumed that "they must know what
they're talking about." I'm glad you asked.
__________________
Rich
Larkin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Which
characteristics define something as, for example, 16th century Turkish?'
vs.
'What is the reason for believing that those characteristics define something
as, for example, 16th century
Turkish?'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi
Steve,
Hi Richard,
It’s the end of a long day here and I am not
hundred percent sure I am getting this right (perhaps also due to the finer
points of English language), are you touching on the triangle of method, its
foundations, and the results it yields? I have to admit, I never have given it
much thought in this context and assume it is a combination of high level
heuristics, cross-references to other decorative arts etc. , good library,
networking, extrapolation, a touch of natural science … that helps people to get
it right very often.
To use another figure of speech, perhaps it is
comparable to preparing a good bouillabaisse, involving knowledge of which fish
to use, where to get it, how long to cook it – and not the exact knowledge of
the chemistry behind it, that makes it taste
good?
Regards,
Horst
It must be like the dating of Byzantine or post-Byzantine icons.
In
Byzantine art the variation of style aren’t so evident like in western art...
Besides, the painters had no trouble in copying older icons (actually icons of
the Christ, the Virgin and of the Apostles Peter and Paul should be
copies of the originals traditionally attributed to St. Luke).
Byzantine
art also tends to be anonymous, but there are some icons that are signed and/or
dated. Some of them have also a documented origin, so dating an anonymous and
undated icon is an exercise of cross-reference with known data and
styles.
Regards,
Filiberto
Hi Guys
Am I correct in assuming that the answers I've read can be
summarized as, "I don't know, but I'm confident that the people who make these
attributions do know, somehow?"
That sort of works, right up to the
moment we get confronted with differences of opinion. It happens, sometimes with
attributions differing by centuries, and there's got to be a better basis for
judging such disputes than who yells loudest.
Regards
Steve
Price
Hello
all,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are
I correct in assuming that the answers I've read can be summarised as, "I don't
know, but I'm confident that the people who make these attributions do know,
somehow?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No
sorry, you are not, Steve.
Yes, I am confident that the people who make
these attributions do know, but let me stress the bouillabaisse again. If its
taste is within the expected, I can spoon along merrily, I may exclaim if the
soup is delicious.
But I also know about bones and toxins – that is why I
stay vigilant.
Is there any incident right now that you are bringing it
up, with the Transylvanian rugs? The Karapinar attribution of Cat. 4 could give
me a bit of tummy trouble if my stomach was more sensitive than in fact it
is.
Regards,
Horst
Hi Horst
No, I have no special suspicions about any of the
attributions in your presentation. It's more of a general concern.
The
real age of a rug is a fact, the same for you as it is for me. For each rug,
there is a day on which weaving it ended. Nobody pretends to know what day that
was, of course, or even which year it was in. But we usually have expert opinion
that will place it within a particular century, half century or quarter century.
My question is, on what properties of the rug does the expert base his opinion?
And, much more significant (I think), how does he know that those properties are
associated with that point in time?
The bouillabaisse analogy isn't very
satisfying, since its deliciousness isn't a fact, it's an opinion, not subject
to external evidence. If it's delicious to you, there's nothing to debate, even
if it's not delicious to me. In that way, it's unlike the age of a rug, which
has an objective reality even if we don't know what it is. To say, this one
looks to me like it's 16th century because it resembles others that I think are
16th century sidesteps the issue: how firm is the foundation on which you think
the others are 16th century? I don't see how this can be answered without
knowing what that foundation is. That's why I asked.
Regards
Steve
Price
Gentlemen:
A fellow diner once smuggled a small potato into my
bouillabaise in a prominent Boston restaurant. I thought it was a little
flourish of the chef. But that's another story.
I agree with Steve's take
on this. Dating is an attempt to zero in on an objective fact by indirect means.
Steve asks about the basis for relying on the indirect means. I would ask what
are the various characteristics relied upon, how reliable are they on an
individual basis, and how was the analysis carried out with regard to any
particular rug? To the extent that a particular feature of the weaving is
thought to be diagnostic of a certain weaving period [a design component,
format, color, use of material, etc.], based on cross referencing to known
quantities, or any other objectively valid method, it must be true that some
analyses along such lines are more compelling and convincing than others. That
dynamic must be a function of the certainty regarding the known quantity and the
strength of the link to the entity being analyzed. In the reality of the matter,
one gets the impression that much of the dating syndrome consists of speculation
built upon speculation.
__________________
Rich
Larkin