Hi People
Cassin, whose capacity for
absurdity seems to be unlimited, made remarks about the pieces in the
Mini-Salon essay on his "discussion forum" (his post briefly appeared on
Turkotek because I forgot to set the software to direct posts from
unregistered readers into the moderator queue). Here, abridged for brevity
and civility, is the gist:
... price's piece is an airport-art
rendition of earlier, truly indigenous, weaving. ... The other examples
... are equally as unimportant and tainted by the disintegration all
Turkmen groups experienced beginning as early as the mid-18th century. ...
even though price's chuval, and the others, are surely made prior to the
mid-19th century they are ... late, ungainly representations of earlier
work.It's obvious enough that nothing woven prior to the
mid-19th century (he's sure that's true of all three pieces) could have
been woven with the intention that it would be sold at an airport gift
shop - there were none. But apart from picking that nit, what did he mean
by the phrase "airport art"? I assume that he means that the three pieces
were woven with the intention of being sold as souvenirs or curios. At
least, I can't think of another interpretation that even comes close to
making sense.
All three pieces are in the hands of westerners now,
so they must have been exported at some point. The two pieces that aren't
mine show obvious stretching, almost certainly indicating that they were
used as containers. This is reasonable evidence that both of them were
woven for use within the local community.
The assertion that
Turkmen weavings made after the mid-18th century are "unimportant and
tainted by the disintegration of all Turkmen" weavings is interesting. For
one thing, it implies that it's possible to reliably distinguish mid-18th
from mid-19th century stuff. And if post-1750 Turkmen work is degenerate,
what reason is there to believe that Turkmen work done in, say, 1700 isn't
degenerate relative to Turkmen work of 1600? And, by extension, that
weavings done in 1600 aren't degenerate relative to those done in 1500
(and so forth, all the way back to the Pazyryk rug, perhaps bought by
Scythians at a Turkmen going out of business sale)?
Regards
Steve Price