"Modern" Rugs

Dear Turkoteks,

Mr Keer [a well loved and respected long eared colleague] in the thread on the saf opened another discussion about modern rugs. He said :

"Modern rugs:
As always, modern means western. Modern western designs are translated into a medium that doesn't seem to fit in. An Andy Warhol rug? A Picasso? Think that's boring."

This is not quite true. There is a Persian designer who is not only modern but is also truly 'postmodern'.

I would like to suggest that everybody have a google at the name Rassam Arabzadeh.

Perhaps somebody with a knowledge of Persian city rugs would like to host a salon on the man's work. I could assist on some of the contemporary stylistic questions but I believe that to properly host a salon one should thouroughly know the various styles that he is quoting or departing from.

Sincerely


Richard Farber

Hi Richard,

An interesting subject.
Here is a good link to it:

http://www.salamiran.org/Magazine/BackIssues/October98/Theme.html

Regards,

Filiberto

Dear folks -

Thanks to Richard Farber for this suggestion. I think this artist's work would make an interesting salon.

But it does not seem to me that he moves very far from traditional usages. What he seems to do mostly is to use novel placements of traditional designs. His borders can occur anywhere. And his pictorial pieces seem to me to be very much in line with many traditional ones. The more photographic ones (e.g., of the mosque dome) seem to me similar to some Turkmen pieces based on photographs of political leaders during the Soviet period, about which there is some disdain among collectors.

I do not think that this is the sort of thing that Vincent has in mind when he seems to call for modern eastern weavings.

Richard, explain a bit why these designs seem "post-modern" to you.

Regards,

R. John Howe

Hi Richard, Hi John,

Think Richard has freed himself from all prejudice etc. Maybe he's one step ahead of me. When I looked at the images I felt the same as John. Like re-arranging granny's floral dress. But, trying to have an open mind for everything that comes on my path, and who am I? I picked one that had something extra for me.
The chains fixing the clouds.

"and now his accomplished daughter, Jila Rassam Arabzadeh, is ready to carry the torch. "
If she's a daughter like all daughters, she'll eat it, digest it, get it out of her system and go her own way.

Think we must be patient.

Best regards,Vincent

Dear Vincent . . .

you wrote "Think Richard has freed himself from all prejudice etc."

Wish I had . . . but in this case I think that there is something much more basic in the work that the "simple" rearrangement of elements.

To answer R. John's request would take an extended essay but let me just refer to one element, the breakdown of the hierarchy central field --- border. [and say that one of definitions of postmodernism has to do with the breaking down of hierarchies within a work.]

Mr. Arabzadeh has rethought the functions border field and in some of his work and has created new ways at looking at these elements.

[think about how we look at elements like the corinthian collumn and psuedo ancient egyptian features after they appear in seemingly unrelated or playful ways in contemporary archtecture]

I dont think that this is a trivial rearrangement of the elements border field, but a true 'postmodern' rethinking of what is a border might be and what a field isn't.

The way we look at the work assumes that we 'know" what a border and what a field is and then breaks down this knowledge - this thousands of years old way of organizing material and puts the border where no border has been before and has the field sometimes achieve the feeling of being borderless.

trying under time pressure to say something clear I remain

Sincerely


Richard Farber

I suspect that John and Vincent do not like Rassam’s rugs.

As for my opinion, I’ll diplomatically quote Rossini’s answer to an aspirant composer who had submitted to the Maestro his first composition:
"There is something new and something beautiful. But what is new isn’t beautiful and what is beautiful is not new".
Regards,

Filiberto

Dear Filiberto,

I am not a great admirer of the Persian city carpet, [the only time I ever bought one was to put under the drum set of one of my sons. It was cheaper than wall to wall]. But honestly I was struck by the images of much the work of Arabzadeh that I saw on various sites on the web. There were images that affected me as do the graphics of M.C. Escher.
[and I really mean that]

I am not refering to the hyper realistic images but rather to those that break down the structure of the Persian carpet.

I was am still am greatly impressed.

Sincerely

Richard Farber

Thank you for bringing these challenging and beautiful works to our attention.

We tend to become confined within canons of form dictated by our cultural past. Whether it be called modern or post modern, contemperary artists/designers challenge us to rethink accepted norms and expand our visions. Like the architect Frank Geary, with his Guggenheim in Bilbao or the Experience Music Project in Seattle, those who dare us to redefine our concept of beauty within the framework of a modern vision of how we live and see the world often offend the guardians of acceptability.

Few of us live in the compartmentalized squared-off world of a Victorian home with big walls and small doors. The modern home is more open and flows in a way that enhances a less formal life style. However, living less formal need not mean abandoning one's aesthetic sense or desire for a degree of refinement that retains ties to the past.

In viewing the represented works of Rassam Arabzadeh, I could easily imaging a fine modern home, with open sight lines and few straight lines being enhanced by a variety of these unusual rugs...and it was a pleasing vision I had a much more difficult time imagining one of these rugs amid an assortment of rugs with more traditional design. It is almost as if his work challenges one to leave the more formal past behind while echoing memories of fading visions.

Both a pleasing and at the same time, disconcering effect.

__________________
Richard M. Friedman

Hi

To Richard Friedman: You said, It is almost as if his work challenges one to leave the more formal past behind while echoing memories of fading visions.

You should give an hour or so to Richard Farber's music; specifically, the ballet "Five and a Half". You'll find the same phenomenon in another medium.

Regards,

Steve Price

Dear folks -

Richard Farber has tried gently to educate me a bit about Postmodern art on the side. He also mentions Escher favorably as one seeming instance of it in this thread.

The latter gives me the opportunity to demonstrate that perhaps I am not entirely immune to the potential charms of the Postmodern in textiles.

Here is an Escher patterned textile, I bought a couple of years ago in an uncontrollable fit of attraction, that overtook me as I merely walked along the street in Ann Arbor, Michigan.



I find this design very attractive. Here is a closer look at it:



As you may notice, the outside outline of the "fish" device functions as a true tesselation. That is, it covers the field area without either overlaps or gaps. The internal instrumentation of the different colored "fish" is different. Or maybe they only seem so, and in fact in full sunlight the darker ones will turn out, like some Balouch designs, to have identical internal drawings, perhaps in dark green.

An Escher tie is only marginally a textile in the context of our discussions here, but it was the best I could do to clothe the seeming nakedness of my ignorance of the Postmodern.

I think this might be a very interesting field design for a rug, but, of course, it needs a border.

Regards,

R. John Howe

Dear Mr. Howe,

You wrote:

"I think this might be a very interesting field design for a rug, but, of course, it needs a border. "

The answer to the unasked question would be -- Why ? Why must a carpet design have a border ?

I too like the tie.

Best

Richard Farber



n.b. I'll need a little time to think through the notes that I sent you [Mr. Howe] and when I organize them I'll post them on this thread.

Dear Turotekniks,

I mentioned earlier the question of hierarchy. What I mean is the ordering of materials - the feeling that certain materials are proper in one area and not in another. This element goes here and that element goes there.
This is the main theme, that is a secondary theme. This is a major border that is a minor border.

Another difference between classical, modern and post modern may be the relation of the artist towards the concept of new.

In a “classical” approach the artist created works with new motives but the structure and materials of the work were constant.

Modern tends to mean seeking something that has not been done before. Breaking the structure --finding new materials -- eliminating tonality
Change as a positive value whether in new techniques or in the use of use of new materials.

Postmodern might mean the use of all available materials and even styles - from the entire history of art - but in a new way unstructured as to chronology. This new way combines elements without the hierarchy of time. You may use a Greek column with an Egyptian frieze with Futurismo sculpture and whatever carpets you want. Your music can use stylistic elements from anywhere and any time and you, the composer is the determinate of what goes together. In carpets use any motives that you want in any order, put the “border” anyplace that you want and the same with the field.

Let me use the western orchestra as an example.

The “classical” orchestra add instruments as they were invented, the celesta for example . . a modern approach threw out the orchestra and composed the music directly on to the optical track of film or onto tape . . . . a postmodern approach uses the orchestra and tapes and optical track and anything else TOGETHER. and with any element being “important”.

I am not saying that one approach is better than the other but since Mr. Howe asked I am trying to answer.

And I surely don't want to be misunderstood as saying that ‘postmodern’ is the way to go in carpet or textile collecting. I am not going to trash my niche form collection in favour of collecting Missoni. I just wanted to share with the turkoteks the excitement I felt in seeing something which I thought was new.

I have experienced some “modern” textile art -- installations with fabrics -- three dimensional wall textiles but this is the first ‘postmodern’ oriental work that I have seen.

Sincerely


Richard Farber

Hi John

Your introducing a necktie into the discussion hits one of my favorite tweaks for collectors who romanticize over the meanings of motifs on antique tribal textiles. I'd ask them the following questions:
1. What do you say about the motifs, layouts and colors on 20th century American and European neckties if you are a collector from another planet in the year 2500?
2. If you don't see the motifs, layouts and colors as reflecting deeply held traditional secrets, as you now see the motifs, layouts and colors on what you collect, can you explain why?
3. If you do see the motifs, layouts and colors as reflecting deeply held traditional secrets, do you know more or do you know less about neckties than a more skeptical collector?

I think these simple questions are worth thinking about, and that the answers have some implications for those who fantasize about weavers in exotic cultures.

Regards,

Steve Price

Hi Richard -

This is a useful, interesting thread.

About my suggestion that the tesselated tie design "needs a border," I was being provocative and deliberately left out my usual smiley. (And I think I caught you. )

Steve -

I think there are some social meanings conveyed by ties. Just try not wearing one in most traditional work organizations. There may not be socially important secrets or hidden meanings in the designs, but there is a clear range of designs seen as most appropriate and folks who want to be "far out" deliberately violate them.

I think your point can be stated even more broadly. For example, inscribed textiles are often of particular interest to collectors and one of the most frequent sets of questions about inscribed pieces at the TM rug mornings is "What does the inscription say?" As I point out in the section of Turkotek where some of us have posted photos of ourselves, the labels on some textiles may well be the focus of both interest and of hermeneutics of the future. My synthetic running shirt is likely to survive far longer than most textiles made with natural fibers, and the inscription "Duofold" may be the occasion for learned speculation of the future.

I think your general point, that we project assumptions onto the designs in the items we collect that we don't notice might either apply also to our own contemporary textiles, or might alternatively suggest that such activity may often be mistaken if not laughable, is something to notice.

Regards,

R. John Howe

Hi John

Of course there are social meanings associated with neckties. In fact, there are social meanings associated with wearing clothing at all. But those meanings are not encoded in layouts, colors and motifs handed down over centuries and containing mystical properties.

As you note, projecting mystical meanings onto the colors, layouts and motifs of antique textiles in the absence of evidence that such meanings even exist (which is still far from knowing what those meanings are) ranges from self-deception to hype with intent to defraud, depending on who's doing the projecting and the motive for doing it. Just as there are neckties with university crests, there are "ethnographic" textile genres where it seems justified. But these, like neckties with university crests, are the exceptions.

Regards

Steve Price

Dear Mr. Price

you wrote

"As you note, projecting mystical meanings onto the colors, layouts and motifs of antique textiles in the absence of evidence that such meanings even exist (which is still far from knowing what those meanings are) ranges from self-deception to hype with intent to defraud, depending on who's doing the projecting and the motive for doing it. Just as there are neckties with university crests, there are "ethnographic" textile genres where it seems justified. But these, like neckties with university crests, are the exceptions."

I agree with you but think that a little appendum might be in order in case some people think that you are against systematic study [as opposed to hype]. . .

there aint nuttin wrong with the systematic study of costume or parts thereof.

I think that experts in the field will be able to say something about the user by quality of material color and design . . . much can be said about a textile and meaning understood or hypothesised about without being mysitical . . .

sincerely

Richard Farber

and Mr Howe . . . you did 'get' me on that one

"About my suggestion that the tesselated tie design "needs a border," I was being provocative and deliberately left out my usual smiley. (And I think I caught you. )"

lack of eye contact on the web !!!!

Hi Steve,

In the year 2500 even an earthling might say "The only knot rug collectors in the "Post-Modern" dark age could tie was this noose they put around their neck." Sue

Hi Richard

I don't disagree with you - I hope my post didn't give the impression that I think systematic study of textiles is a waste of time. My comments were directed at those who believe (or claim to believe) that they know what was in the mind of a weaver who lived in a different time and place, spoke a different language, thought in ways that are foreign to us, in a society about which our information is barely beyond outline form.

Those people are deceivers of themselves if they believe what they say, deceivers of others if they don't.

There are, of course, some genres in which we do have good anthropological and/or ethnohistorical information.

Regards,

Steve Price

Hi Richard,
and all,

"Breaking the structure"

Maybe that's my problem with the oriental Art of this day and age.
The structure can be broken down. Techniques can be re-invented, an extra twist in the yarn, different materials etc.
The designs can be re-invented, re-arranged etc. Like has been done in painting, music, sculpture etc. But isn't it all about communication?
If the viewer doesn't relate? If the audience doesn't comprehend what the message is?
By this, I do not mean that the audience first has to study Art before they can feel! Isn't it all about the emotions?
Like Dali made all "time" useless. Even a child can feel what he means.

If I see a painting or a sculpture that grabs me by the balls, it happens because it sends a message. A strong visual message.
If in the museum, I'll make four, five, six rounds through the museum. Next week I go back. I look around. Nobody there?
I'll grab it from the wall, go home and feel the luckiest man in the world! Shehe has made it for me...didn't shehe?
It was meant to please me...only me. And maybe 4,500,000,000 others, but that's another subject. Now it's mine.
My emotions, my frustration, my life, my doubts, my private utopia...for this one special moment.

But now I was talking about my western understanding of the Art.
What about the oriental Art?
See posted image.
"I'm fixing a cloud, so it won't rain on me."
This is my personal western Dutch view and I like the concept.
But now it happens. Some Joker will come and tell me. "You have it all wrong! It means: I'm fixing a cloud, so it will rain on my garden of paradise."
Shoot! I'm not allowed to see it my way?
No.
And now I feel silly............

That's our oriental art up to this day.

It lacks antithesis
It lacks consolation.
It lacks anger.
It lacks sex.
It lacks love.
It lacks brains.
It lacks courage.
It lacks an open debate.

Personal emotions? Not allowed.
No freedom? No Art.

So, breaking down the structure and re-arrange all existing parts will not do the trick I'm afraid.

Thanks for letting me sweat it off.

Best regards,
Vincent

Dear Vincent . . .

I am the first who will agree with you that an intellectual - academic change of structure or form or technique just for the sake of experimenting is not what we are looking for.

Our disagreement - if we have one - is simply that I was very very moved when I saw the digital images of some of the carpets by Arabzadeh - not intellectually tickled but grabbed by the heart the balls and the eyes. I really liked what I saw not what I thought.

And as to "communication" --- many modern techniques communicate on an intellectual level . . . I can understand how they are done . . . . I am concerned with the communication of emotion that feeling of this is it this is right this is something real and not concocted


sincerely

Richard Farber

Hi Vincent et al -

I think I experience "peacefulness," a kind of restful removal from activity, in many Turkmen rugs.

And as an unavoidably Western person, I think I like their order, something about the spaced medallions is very attractive to me. And I've have admitted long ago to being a sucker for many compartmented designs. (I also like logic and in my professional life found that I was convinced that "distinctions" could always be made. Probably have a taste for finding or imposing order on things.)

As I said above, I find some less than conventional designs appealing. The large oversized piece I posted above is about 20 feet long and must be very powerful when experienced "in the wool."

But for some reason I have no particular yearning to see the world of rug design "stretch" itself to do new things. I have not, myself, exhausted my enjoyment of traditional designs that I find attractive.

I'm 67 and may not be looking much now for the excitement of the new. Change, I've discovered, is now not uniformly welcome. Perhaps one's taste in rug and textiles is a kind of extended Rorschach test, with unavoidably, and potentially public, embarrassing results, displayed on one's walls for all visitors to see. (Maybe that's part of why we don't have many folks "in." )

I would not, of course, legislate for others.

Regards,

R. John Howe

some thoughts ...

Hallo everybody,

an interesting thread, indeed. Some thoughts :
- "modern" must not mean "Western". I guess it means from today ... from the
behaviour to the age of a textile I propose to separate two groups of
collectors:

(a) collectors sensu strictu - they collect , may this be carpets,
match boxes , whatever - the more rare an item is, the older it is the
better. Thoughts about "merits" are not necessary. A 2500 years old piece
( even if it comes without any story to tell, without "software": we do not
exactly know from where it is, in which environment it was made,
even it is ugly ... ) is eo ipso a better piece than a 500 years old one.

(b)collectors ruggie-kind - they love textiles as such and think and
discuss a lot about these "merits". For them age is an interesting
additionialfeature , not less, but under any circumstances not
more ! With the 2500 years old piece that is ugly they would accept that
neverthelessit might be an important "missing link" and from this point of view
have a highadditional value though it is ugly - but they would insist to learn
what its"story" is, why it shall be regarded as a "missing link" ... they would
not accept some dealers fairy tales about that.

Collectors ruggie-kind are as rare as good pieces !

- the underlying principle of most of M.C. Escher graphics you find in any good
early kilim and my personal opinion is that there this principle is even more
sophisticated ..


- "I think this might be a very interesting field design for a rug, but, of
course, it needs a border. "

The answer to the unasked question would be -- Why ? Why must a carpet design
have a border ?

Well, Richard, I have no straight answer for that but I can tell you that any
Oriental weaver who I asked for that instinctively demanded that the carpet or
kilim should have a border !
Another fact ( though this may lead to
speculations of a kind that I do not like !): in the Karaman area all weavers
call the border "su" ( ~ water , in Turkish ) but they can never tell you why...

"As you note, projecting mystical meanings onto the colors, layouts and motifs
of antique textiles in the absence of evidence that such meanings even exist
(which is still far from knowing what those meanings are) ranges from
self-deception to hype with intent to defraud, depending on who's doing the
projecting and the motive for doing it."

Steve Price : in Germany we have the concept of "Lebensluege" which I find very
difficult to translate. What you say here is a brutal attack on this Lebensluege
of 99% of the antique textile's trade and no wonder you will get adequate strike
backs even from people who never were able to deliver any checkable "evidence
that such meanings even exist" - no, you even
got them...

Your statement is a kind of "how to avoid having friends" !

Regards,




Michael Bischofexactly additionial not more Lebensluege

Dear folks -

To follow the question of "Why must an oriental rug have a border?" one answer is that there are a number of traditional oriental rug designs that do not include borders.

There are Tibetan pieces of this sort, for example, the "checkerboard" design. (There are also Tibetan pieces that have no side borders and rather odd "borders" top and bottom that do not seem to follow usual rules about border design.)

The Turkish Siirt pieces with "faux pile," do not exhibit borders. Nor do some Central Asian "julkhir" type pieces.

If one moves to flatweaves, the Turkmen mixed technique juvals have only horizontal stripes of design. Some Shahsavan flatweaves are also simple horizontal stripes of color. And there are also Turkish kilims with bands of horizontal design but no side borders.

There are even among rugs that do have recognizable borders some historical violations of seeming usual conventions of "what a border should be" in the "broken border."

So some of the available "moves" with regard to rug borders can/should be have been made long ago. I do think that Rassam Arabzadeh's usages "push" things a bit. But some of this ground has been traveled to some extent before.

Regards,

R. John Howe

more thoughts ...

Hi everybody, hi R. John Howe,

facts first : even in areas where they weave in fact pieces without borders they would claim instinctively that a weave must have a border !

Do not ask me why this is so - it is like that.

Regards,

Michael

Really? Quite odd...

So how come that at least half of the 100 Anatolian Kilims in Petsopuoulos’ book is without borders? (I say at least because a few of them are too worn and the sides are gone.)
If you don’t believe it, check the book.
Regards,

Filiberto

I have the Italian version of the book: original title is "One Hundred Kilims", translated in Italian as "100 Kilim" - with commentaries on the illustrations by Belkis Balpinar. I think the book has also a different English edition with another title.

no borders ...

Hi Filiberto,

a misunderstanding on your side:
you do not mean the book of Petsopoulos but the catalogue of the Munich exhibition "100 kilims". In this book a lot of early pieces are pictured that are fragments.

( Sorry , I just realize that in this book Petsopolous wrote one forword. When we, the kilimaniacs, say "Petsopoulous" we mean this thick book ... )


The borders are missing then in many cases ! But, as well, there are pieces, early and late, without any borders.
What I wanted to stress is that people if you ask them refrain from thinking of a weave that has no borders - even in case in their environment such things are there.
If there is an explanation or not is unimportant - first one has to pile up the facts. This is just one.

And this is kind of astonishing. At least this is my opinion - as we have some people around who dare to interprete symbols of pieces more than 150 years old where they even do not know where they are from ( no A-pieces ) nor did , therefore, even try any extrapolating effort starting with the contemporanous people in question !

So such a position is lighter than a windbag.

Regards,

Michael

Hi Michael,

Well, I quoted the title in English and Italian, so the misunderstanding is yours. And, sorry, I am not a "kilimaniac" so I do not know what "kilimaniacs" think at the mentioning of a Petzopoulos’s book.

Anyway, speaking about that book, I counted:

14 Kilims of the "hard to say because there aren’t sides" category
49 Kilims without borders
37 Kilims with borders

Striking, isn’t it?

And, what the "A-pieces" business has to do with all of this? I mean design, borders and Rassam Arabzadeh’s rugs?
Regards,

Filiberto

Hallo everybody, hallo Filiberto,

"14 Kilims of the "hard to say because there aren't sides" category
49 Kilims without borders
37 Kilims with borders"

Sorry, my book is in Turkey - I must look first on how many pieces the original
borders "should have been" there ...
What this "A-pieces" - business has to do with this thread ?
Well, the question came up whether there are certain meaning of motives in old
pieces - and it was even written :

"As you note, projecting mystical meanings onto the colors, layouts and motifs
of antique textiles in the absence of evidence that such meanings even exist
(which is still far from knowing what those meanings are) ranges from
self-deception to hype with intent to defraud, depending on who's doing the
projecting and the motive for doing it. Just as there are neckties with
university crests, there are "ethnographic" textile genres where it seems
justified. But these, like neckties with university crests, are the exceptions."
( Steve Price )

A modern, educated designer like Rassam Arabzadeh you may ask why he decides to
execute this detail in this particular form. A contomporaneous village weaver
you cannot ask for that - she does it ... it is kind of underconscious and you
would need to find a suitable "research tool" to estimate the potential that
cannot be expressed in oral descriptions - and in the moment we speculate or
research what might have been the meaning in old times we must first
define or identify the piece in question. As old pieces are not
anonymous but made anonymous without this "identity card" such research
simply would not even have any starting point - and therefore I mentioned this
"A-piece" proposal. Research on unidentified material is a waste of time as this
has nothing to say - but we are free to load any associations into it. But,
please, let us go on to mark associations as such. This is what I read from the
contribution of Steve. The border example I contributed here to show how
difficult to resolve even such a relatively easy task is.

Regards,

Michael Bischof

Hi Michael,

quote:

---

Sorry, my book is in Turkey - I must look first on how many pieces the original borders "should have been" there ...

---

The One that Has It All

Everyone-

It has yurts from the central Asian steppe, 1-2-1 color usages, clearly defined borders, reciprical use of color and design, and geometrically rendered elements.



While made in Turkey these were purchased in Morocco and hence clearly exported, as if to say "Yes, We Are Turks!", for all the world to hear. Utilitairian artifact, modern art, contemporary artifact, extremity of a continum of a Central Asian artistic heritage, or garbage?

Dave

why garbage ...

Hi everybody,

sorry, Filiberto : for sure there quite some numbers of early kilims that do not have borders at all. Certain types , of which there are quite some in this book, cannot have a border as their design principle does not admit that. A pity that hitherto I did not learn the "art of scanning" ...

David: why garbage ? The amount up to which traditional motives are used in Turkey today is astonishing. Those that resemble carpets the most one finds in mosaic technique on the frontside of modern houses. This fashion started at about 1990 in Karaman.

What I personally find irritating is how the colours are used. These motives do not "work" with these colours, creating a (slight) kind of headache as it offends ones "visual habits" ...

Thanks for showing it !

Michael Bischof

Hi Michael -

About the question of whether there are eastern rugs/textiles that do not have borders, there seems no debate. There are.

BUT you seem to argue that if we quizzed the makers of such rugs/textiles about the absence of a border they would likely say that rugs should have borders normally.

It seems to me that you treat these reports as seriously as you treat the evidence of the actual patterns that can been seen in the pieces. Perhaps even more so.

You refer in this context to your "A-piece" strategy in which you seem also to treat contemporary weaver reports (for example, about attribution) as very heavy evidence.

My own tendency would be to weight the evidence of the designs actually used in the rugs most seriously, and the reports of contemporary weavers about whether their fundamental "picture" of a proper rug is one that included borders, as at a distinctily less certain evidential level.

I'm not clear about how you decide to treat the reports of contemporary weavers and village inhabitants so seriously. Surely many forces could affect such reports greatly.

Regards,

R. John Howe

Hi Dave,

IT'S MODERN ART!!!
If you stick on them a label signed "R. Mutt 2003" I think you can try to sell them as a posthumous Duchamp.
Regards,

Filiberto

how serious ...

Hallo everybody, hallo R. John Howe,

how serious can one treat such statements ?

I do not know:

more serious than any other I would propose.
As in any other field work one has to be careful, of course, that the situation of putting questions is not somehow disturbed by other considerations.
For example:
- in a selling environment they tend to tell you what you apparently want to hear or on what you focus on. - No, this I do not mean here. I speak of situation where I know such weavers
for years , having lived there, or where a weaver lady from this environment questions them ( and later or in this moment "translates" it to me ) .

The same I do with reports from a picker. One has to counter-check this, of course. But when it is cleared that a certain piece was found here ( may it been woven by other people who had dropped it for some reason 200 years ago, may it been woven in this village by people who nearly got extinct because later other people came ... ) this is in fact the most hard and more often than not the only information that one has.

But whatever: it is the hardest evidence that one can get - by this statement I dismiss nearly all carpet books, I know that. What can you expect from a posh printed catalogue that states "Nomadic cuval. Western Anatolia, vicinity of Sivas" ?

What can you expect if people that once did a short companionship with a carpet dealer's son in Turkey 20 years ago now come and assure you about the "real", the "essential" meaning of certain motives in 200 years old kilims. My Turkish friend and partner has the right answer for such a case: "Come on, I show to you her place on the graveyard. Dig her out and question her !"

A pity that many such things I cannot communicate as I might want for several reasons. But I normally never fail to inform trustworthy "third parties" ( including the editor of Turkotek ) about such things.

It moves, as I see, to a hierarchy of facts-stories-associations, kind of grading
informational sources. But of course such statements at the source rank top.

Regards,

Michael Bischof

Hi Michael -

But surely not "higher" than what one can see (or not) in the pieces themselves.

I would have trouble crediting the report of a weaver, who wove a rug without borders, that her "picture" of the universe of rugs was restricted to rugs WITH borders. Her weaving behavior would give the lie to her verbal indications.

Regards,

R. John Howe

ethnomusicology and carpet research

Dear Turkotekians [ I am still experimenting with the name]

In the thread on "modern" rupgs Mr. Bischof wrote:

“Research on unidentified material is a waste of time as this
has nothing to say - but we are free to load any associations into it."



I have some difficulty understanding this.

Perhaps if I may I can relate to a field which I know something about -
Ethnomusicology. I studied with Prof. Edith Gerson Kiwi who was a student of Curt Sachs - one of the pioneers in the field in Germany before WWII.
I write this not to pat myself on the back - I decided not to be an ethnomusicolgy - but rather to say that perhaps I have an iota or two of understanding in the field.

The basis of ethnomusicological research is the study of musical examples from informants recorded usually but not always in the field. Often the musicologist will compile information about the informant but this is not always possible and in many early archives of material this material on the informants in sketchy or lacking. Labels like woman's song village square, name of village. Or song of Sara daughter of Leah to her granddaughter.
Or often a pile of shellacs made on an expedition with no documentation surviving at all.

What does the ethnomusicologist do ? He or she transcribes the music into a notation. Analysis it, defines it categorizes it, compares it asks questions about it, develops hypotheses, challenges them, creates theories and eventually might even have something to say about the area studied.

For example Prof. Kiwi spent years studying the music of Yemenite women. I can assure you that not all of the material that she had to was documented to a degree that we might want in a perfect world. Yet she was able say important things about the music of Yemenite women in their various roles in life, and about all women and their music. And she even had something to say about mankind and music in general on the basis of many hundreds of recording many of them lacking in perfect documentation.

Think for a moment about the recording made in the Mississippi delta and later in store front recording studios in towns like Chicago or Kansas City.
We don't know the names of all the performers on all of these recordings. We don't even know the real names of many of the performers on commercial discs of the post second world war period. But ethnomusicologist have been able understand something about the blues and its various manifestations and about the people who created it without knowing very much about those that created the individual tunes. Sometimes just blues names Big X or Fat Y or Mamma A or . . you know what I mean or just a disc cut next to a car in a field without surviving documentation. We are lacking in detailed biographies of the creators but a lot of very important insights have been made about the music and musicians and the human psyche without this information.

Perhaps a parallel might be made between this field and others ?

Sincerely

Richard Farber

Hi Richard

I think your points are cogent and relevant. Like Michael, I believe that rug people pay far too little attention to the problem of epistemology (How do we know the things that we believe are correct?) - I've done one or two Salons on variations of this topic.

It seems self-evident to me that the more certain we can be of the time and place a piece was made, the more we can learn from it. So, Michael's notion of what he calls A-pieces appeals to me. No doubt, there are some things that cannot be learned except from A-pieces. But I don't share Michael's opinion that nothing can be learned by studying anything except A-pieces.

It reminds me a little of the kind of debate that went on between anatomists and physiologists in the 19th century. The physiologist position was that nothing about how a live organism works could be learned from studying dead ones. Everyone agrees today that there are some things that can't be learned from nonliving material, but that the 19th century position was overstated.

Regards,

Steve Price

Ties

Hi All--

Really interesting discussions up right now.

I think the tie analogy is wonderful. Ties convey (to the initiated) an amazing amount of ethnographic information. They convey a great deal about socioeconomic status both through material, and through iconography, and about personal identity. There is the obvious--the college crest, the regimental stripe (perhaps not anymore), and then there is the not so obvious. The initiate can 'size up' another, based on (the other's) knowledge of quality--in terms of material or cut--and choice of style.

A quick e.g., two men I know well: One is given to wearing ties with embedded (usually bawdy or disrespectful) meanings. He believes that when he wears these ties he putting something over on others who see themselves as his superiors. The other, who would clearly consider himself the first's social and economic superior, wears very expensive ties that fall within a narrow range of types/styles. He is keenly aware of changes in tie width of know type which reflect short-term shifts in 'the rules.' He would take one look at the first man's ties (and their supposedly hidden messages) and classify him as lowbrow, probably working class, and a rube. I certain he could peg the other guy based on his tie alone. One could make similar observations about almost any object that conveys 'style' whether a coffeemaker, a watch, or a car. Each contains information, some chosen by the owner but all read by others. These markers advertise not just overall social status, but group identity.

On the other hand, an archaeological example: I used to work at a big Classic Maya site in Honduras called Copan. The material inventory at Copan includes a ceramic type that was very beautifully painted called Copador. It includes special paints (among them a sparkly red made with specular hematite) and a variety of symbols. Copador pottery seems like a candidate for the kind of status marker above. Before we surveyed common house groups, most archaeologists assumed Copador would be an excellent status marker. Turns out everyone used it. Site surveys turned up Copador (in similar proportions) in every house excavation from the smallest to the grandest. It tells us nothing about status at all.

There is no good reason to believe carpets (whether 'tribal' or factory made) aren't chock-full of symbolism. Sadly, it will be devilishly difficult to interpret its meaning beyond some broad cultural stereotypes, just as one could learn virtually nothing about that former owner from a used tie bought in an antique store, unless they had deep knowledge of the original setting.

Dear Turkotekians,

Mr. Pain said :

"There is no good reason to believe carpets (whether 'tribal' or factory made) aren't chock-full of symbolism. "

I believe that there might be considerable differences in the types of symbolism - their quantify and perhaps even the question of "quality" can be sonsidered - between tribal, workshop and factory carpets.

I would be happy if the question was pursued.


Sicnerely

Richard Farber


N.B. I have found the owner of a Rassam Arabzadeh carpet in the country here and will have a look at it 'in the wool' this weekend and report back

“Postmodernism” Everywhere

Dear folks –

This is a post that requires a little background.

A couple of years ago, someone put up a rug or two and a number of us were particularly enthralled. This led to indications what the only thing(s) lacking (should one have such a rug) would be a beautiful lover, a fine picnic luncheon, and some Mozart. I immediately chimed in to indicate that I wanted the luncheon to include an ’82 red Bordeaux.

Richard Farber then wrote saying that, while he liked a number of things about the picture we were assembling in this discussion, he was (as a composer himself) appalled at the conservatism of our musical tastes. I wrote him on the side and agreed to being mostly a captive of the repertoire from the 18th and 19th centuries and asked to be modestly educated with regard to more modern music.

Since then Richard has been sending me suggestions from time to time.

A recent one, was that I might order a DVD of a particular performance of Benjamin Britten’s opera “Death in Venice.” I did, but had never read Mann’s short story/novella on which it is based. To understand the opera better, I went a bought a copy of this short story last Sunday. I have finished it now and am better positioned to view this DVD. BUT the cover of this edition of this short story may be relevant to our discussion here.

Here’s what the book cover looks like comprehensively.



And here is a close-up of the section on which the title appears.



I do not think I have ever seen this “border” on an actual rug and some may argue that no rug is intended here, but it occurs to me that this cover designer may have been inspired by a rug. If so, it is clear that his particular species of Postmodern rug design, gives honor to rug borders, traditionally conceived, but he makes us reconsider seriously the usual relationship between inscription and field.

Regards,

R. John Howe

borders and lies ...

Hi everybody, hi R. John Howe,

"I would have trouble crediting the report of a weaver, who wove a rug without borders, that her "picture" of the universe of rugs was restricted to rugs WITH borders. Her weaving behavior would give the lie to her verbal indications."

I guess the term "lie" is not appropriate here.
We all have kind of "principles" - and behave more often than not opposite to them in daily life. And see: in fact most ( but not all !) weaves in the environment of such weaver would have borders ... what I wanted to stress , and therefore I put up this example, was:
if it is that difficult to unearth the meaning of a certain element of a weave even with a person of today, that we can interrogate or use other research techniques - how much more difficult must it be to prove (!) such meaning for antique weaves ! And to makethe problem even bigger: if he could not identify these weaves , not even concerning to the place where they had been discovered, not to mention the particular group that might have produced them.


Regards,

Michael Bischfo

Dear Turkoteknians

I have an inkling that I might be beginning to understand one problem . . .

Mr. Bischop wrote:

"if it is that difficult to unearth the meaning of a certain element of a weave even with a person of today, that we can interrogate or use other research techniques - how much more difficult must it be to prove (!) such meaning for antique weaves ! And to makethe problem even bigger: if he could not identify these weaves , not even concerning to the place where they had been discovered, not to mention the particular group that might have produced them."

Perhaps we are looking for different thing when we talk about research.

Let me think about a body of material - say secular songs of the late middle ages in one of the Germanic languages. To understand what the songs MEANT to their creators, what particular melodic motives MEANT to the person singing them is very difficult. It is difficult enough to understand what something MEANS for somebody from a different culture speaking a different language. This question of meaning - of meaning of musical motives for example is something when attempted is typically done after a long and comprehensive research into the material. You understand the form, you understand the vocabulary. You understand trends. You attempt to catagorise and define, then you start on connection of word to music etc etc and finally you might begin to ask questions like what did a particular musical mode MEAN . . .but first there are other things to understand . like how that mode was used, what are its properties, what are typical phrases . . .again etc etc etc.

I dont even know what I MEAN with the use of every musical phrase that I use . . . I might venture a guess if I thought about a particular musical idea . . but then again I'm not sure that I would be the best informant to understand MEANING, even in the stuff that I created myself.

Sorry that this is not particularly coherent

but nevertheless Sincerely

Richard Farber

Michael -

I was not talking about either "attribution" of given pieces, or "meaning" in the designs of oriental rugs and textiles; I was referring to a comparison between what a given weaver says and what she does.

I withdraw the word "lie," and substitute "contradictory." I quite agree that none of us is able to live up to our ideals, BUT I still want to talk about our basis for establishing a hierarchy of evidence.

How are we to evaluate the different behaviors of a weaver who reports that her picture of what a rug should be always includes a traditionally fashioned border, but who has in fact woven a rug without any borders?

I would want to treat the weaving behavior as more indicative of her actual ideals than her verbal indications. It seems to me that her weaving behavior is the best indicator of her art.

Lots of performers asked to describe and/or to rationalize what they do, get it wrong. I encountered this frequently while interviewing expert practitioners about what they did on the job and why they did it. I have indicated before the example of a study of expert bicyclists. Presented with specific emergency situations when riding, they often both failed to give sound advice and in fact did not describe accurately what they themselves did when dealing with these situations while riding. In my experience verbal reports are always less trustworthy than actual on the job performance.

On what basis would you establish that that her verbal behavior (contradicted by what she has woven) should be treated at the highest evidential level?

Regards,

R. John Howe

Dear Turkomekians

I agree with the statements of Mr. Howe that the deeds of the informant are and should be treated differently from his/her oral reports about his activities.

I believe that the people studying the workings of the brain might say that weaving a carpet centers in differnt areas of the brain than the area[s] which would govern the reporting about it . . . Mr. Price might be willing to comment on this assumption. . . And I would add from my observations of composition students and of thinking about myself, that there is not an automatic transfer of information between the areas

Sincerely

Richard Farber

Hi Richard

The parts of the brain that control motor activity (like weaving) are not the same as those that process information or those that allow us to communicate.

Regards,

Steve Price

Dear Turkey-tekies,

Happy holiday !

Mr. Price backed up the statement that the activities of weaving a carpet and talking about it take place in different areas of the brain . . . and I might add that the connection between these areas is not automatic . . . think of what Mr. Howe said about bike riders.

Soooo perhaps one can think of the need to research the objects themselves without an automatic tie in between the decriptions of informants about the objects,

Sincerely


Richard Farber

Hi Richard -

Yes, one of the oldest items of advice among collectors and rug scholars is that we should not in the midst of all our interpretations and speculations forget to examine what is visible in the weavings and textiles themselves.

There is a lot to be learned there. But such a strategy carries with it its own set of problems.

For example, scholars examining textiles tend to impose on them various names and classifications. It is easy to forget that these are often, perhaps even usually, not distinctions made in the cultures in which the textiles were created. You may remember the indication in a recent post that the Navajo weavers do not even have in their language any of the terms the scholars use to distinguish their weavings.

Similarly, Marla Mallett has argued and demonstrated repeatedly that the mere examination of the structures in given rugs and textiles, without giving proper recognition to the perspective of the creator and to the fact that these artifacts are created using particular processes, can lead to error. Sometimes, the descriptions that result from simply looking at the finished structures are of structures that could not be woven as described.

But there is clearly much to be learned from close examination of rugs and textiles themselves. Every once in a while we get a demonstration of this from folks here who are doing it seriously, such as Marla, Daniel Duschuyteneer and Christoph Huber.

http://www.turkotek.com/salon_00057/salon.html

http://www.marlamallett.com/bands.htm

Regards,

R. John Howe

Dear Turkobashies,

As soon as anyone mentions organized rug research structural analysis is immediately brought up. And rightly so. There are definite criterion and a recognized jargon. But I believe that a systematic study of the motives of carpets and textiles is possible as well as studies of the various forms.

Research on motives has been done but it seems to be in its very beginnings. Formal research I know less of -- an example might be Mr. Price and his work on 'what is a prayer rug' but that is now in the stage of preliminary statement and needs a book length work to pursue the questions that Mr. Price has raised. If somebody out there knows of research that has already been published . . . please.

What I am thinking about would be work parallel to those in musicology which one hand analysis form --

and one the other hand analysis motives.


Sincerely


Richard Farber

Hi Richard -

Would you explain a little more what you refer to with the word "motives?"

In common parlance it can mean either "designs" or "intentions." Or do you mean "design types" more broadly conceived, as in your "prayer rug" reference? Some work of the latter type has been done, as in Ralph Kaffel's nice book on Caucasian Prayer Rugs.

As we are noting in another thread on Turkotek, this morning, the study of rug designs has not be neglected.

Regards,

R. John Howe

Dear Turkotechniks, Mr. Howe,

A motive [sometimes motif] in music is a very short melodic or rhythmic pattern that is recognizable as a unit. [or the very shortest possible pattern in the piece recognizable as a unit] ta ta ta tum is the rhythmic motive that you recognize from Beethoven's Fifth. Do Mi La Si Octave lower] is the four note melodic motive of the opening of Mozart's Linz symphony. [the theme of the first movement is more complex. A theme is often made up of two or more motives or a motive that is “developed”.

In textiles I think the boteh might be considered a motive . . . or the three headed flower that we know from Mughal textiles . . . or the diamond shape,
or the tulip, or the single colored diagonal line.

In music form is the underlying structure of a movement or an entire piece. A symphony might be in four movements that is its structure. The first second and fourth may be in Sonata form the third may be in A B A coda form . . for example . . . or a typical tin pan alley song might be AABA coda.

The saf is a form . . the prayer rug might well be considered a form . . how the motives are put together in the form would be the design . . .

I think that design is something that fill out the form and should be differentiated from the form itself . . . but if the terms are used a different way please help me on that.

form . . .prayer rug or niche form textile . . dimensions x time y .

design . . .overall pattern of bothes in offset rows in the border, Indo Persian arch form . . . empty field such and a border configuarion

motive . . . boteh in this or that variation


This would be a way of looking at textiles not from the point of view of structural analysis but from the point of view of motive-design-form

Sincerely

Richard Farber

I've heard that there is an encyclopedic, comprehensive book due on motifs found on oriental rugs. I don't know when it is scheduled for publication, but it has been in the works for several years. It will have the same thoroughness as "The Oriental Rug Lexicon" and "Oriental Rug Repair" by Peter Stone.

I'm sure we'll all be notified by our favorite rug book dealers when it appears. I, for one, can't wait.

Cordially,

-Jerry-

Hi Richard

I've been using the term "layout" for what you refer to as "form". Perhaps we can settle on one or the other. It will generate less confusion if we all speak the same language.

Regards,

Steve Price

Dear Turkomanians,

Hi Steve, I'll ask the people in the fine arts what terms they use to describe the layout/form of paintings. . . there well may be an excepted terminology out there . . . I think its worth a bit a time to see what is used in related fields before we decide here on the site which terms to use . . . but in the meantime as you suggest I wil try to be clear.

Sincerely


Richard Farber


I recalled that I have a paperback art dictionary

Collins Dictionary of Art Terms & Techniques
Ralph Mayer HarperCollins Pub. c 1991

layout doesn't appear

form 1. the manner in which the artist presents his or her subject matter or CONTENT in creating a work of art. Form is the product of organization, design, composition and manipulation of materials. 2. the individual masses, shapes, or groupings in a work of art are its forms. This is the more common meaning of the word.

Hi Richard,

(could we settle for Turkoteers?)

In Italian we speak of "tracciato" that can be translated as "layout".

Here is the geometrical layout of a vase in lapislazuli by Buontalenti and its rendition by Bylivelt.



Another artwork of 16th century Tuscany: a reliquary with what it’s defined as its "modular, harmonic and symbolic layout"



The "symbolic" in this case is represented by the "hidden" St. Stephen’ s cross.

A lot of visual art was based on harmonic modules, not immediately visible.

And my Webster’s defines harmonic as:

1. pertaining to harmony, as distinguished
from melody and rhythm.
2. marked by harmony; in harmony;
concordant; consonant.
3. of, pertaining to, or noting a series of
oscillations in which each oscillation
has a frequency that is an integral
multiple of the same basic frequency.
4. Math.
a. (of a set of values) related in a
manner analogous to the frequencies
of tones that are consonant.
b. capable of being represented by sine
and cosine functions.
n.
5. OVERTONE (DEF. 1).
6. a single oscillation whose frequency is
an integral multiple of the fundamental
frequency.

So harmonic is pertinent to music, visual art, mathematics and geometry.
Isn’t "harmony" the "trick" of Art? Of old art, at least!
Regards,

Filiberto

Hi Richard

I generally use "layout" more or less the way Filiberto describes. The most common "layout" for an oriental rug is to have a major border and one or more minor borders surrounding a field, with a central medallion and quartered medallions in the spandrels.

I'm not wedded to this term, but it does appear to be consistent with some other uses.

Regards,

Steve Price

Dear folks -

Not to be discouraging, but a program of attempting to adopt consistent language for describing features of rugs is likely far more difficult than a casual statement of the desirability of its object would suggest.

There are not just "terminological" problems: that of agreeing about what word applies to what phenomenon, there are likely "conceptual" ones as well.

One famous case of the latter occurred a few years ago in political science. A major student of power politics wrote a book in which he began by complaining that "power" was used far too variously in the literature and stated that in his book he would adopt and consistently use a single conception of this important term of political analysis It was subsequently demonstrated that he in fact used at least twelve conceptions of "power," the distinctions between which were not trivial. Often, theoretical and ideological debates occur at this conceptual level. A great many seeming "pre-conscious" moves are made at the conceptual level that advantage particular arguments and conclusions.

I think what is being discussed here is useful to attempt, but I would not expect that we will celebrate victory any time soon.

Regards,

R. John Howe

Dear Turkoterreans,

Thank you Filiberto and Steve . . .

Should I change the name of my salon to the niche layout textile . . . It doesn't sound right. The niche form textile . . . ?! ???

The central medallion etc. form . . . the central medallion etc. layout . . .

Finding a acceptable terminology is -

ain't as easy as it looks so
be careful what you undertake
to find a system t' conjugate.

and I'll take my own advice from the doggerel and Mr. Howe more considered warning and think about this for a while . . . .

Filiberto, how do Italian English dictionaries translate "tracciato"

I would be surprised if it is not also on occasion translated in other ways than layout.

Sincerely

Richard Farber

Hi Richard,

Tracciato is translated as:
1- tracing, layout
2- sketch

Regards,

Filiberto

mb: "(a) collectors sensu strictu - they collect , may this be carpets, match boxes , whatever - the more rare an item is, the older it is the better. Thoughts about "merits" are not necessary. A 2500 years old piece ( even if it comes without any story to tell, without "software": we do not exactly know from where it is, in which environment it was made, even it is ugly ... ) is eo ipso a better piece than a 500 years old one."

Do we really know how old many pieces are? Some of the attributes associated with age, for example, fewer borders and more spacious drawing, are clearly things that collectors like, but do they allow the age of pieces to be ordered? (dyes are different, but the age claims of course involve pieces with no synthetic dyes) (maybe it's not so old, just unusual, from an isolated area, etc) I am glad I don't care too much about age, because the degree of guesswork seems too high and too much info is vested interest: dealer, owner/author, etc. Since I am skeptical and not so interested in age in the first place, I think the rug literature focuses too much on dating versus compared aesthetics of particular types of pieces. And even when people do write comparative-aesthetics pieces, I get the feeling that the ones we like better are the older ones....


mb: "(b)collectors ruggie-kind - they love textiles as such and think and discuss a lot about these "merits". For them age is an interesting additionialfeature , not less, but under any circumstances not more ! With the 2500 years old piece that is ugly they would accept that neverthelessit might be an important "missing link" and from this point of view have a highadditional value though it is ugly - but they would insist to learn what its"story" is, why it shall be regarded as a "missing link" ... they would not accept some dealers fairy tales about that."

I recently attended a talk by a speaker who expressed reservations about buying from dealers you don't know enough about. Any time I see an old (or at least old looking) rug from any source, I wonder where it's been. I don't think that use of any particular source removes the question. The level of candor isn't always the highest, and people in the business won't even want to reveal the source from whom they bought it ... last year...

I guess I agree with Steve, the foundations of rug knowledge may not support some of the claims on age... maybe they can't, that would be fine with me. A focus on aesthetics would lead to the ones we like better being the ones we like better, and not so often the older ones?

delayed ...

Hallo everybody, hallo Richard Farber ,

first excuse me for answering late ! Workload, and then this "other thing" ...

"I dont even know what I MEAN with the use of every musical phrase that I use . . . I might venture a guess if I thought about a particular musical idea . . but then again I'm not sure that I would be the best informant to understand MEANING, even in the stuff that I created myself."
Richard Farber, 24.11.2003, Modern Rugs 2

Hopefully I understand right what you intend to say, Richard. I take it like that this "meaning" is to a big amount "underconscious" so to interview you about what you had meant would hopelessly fail. Yes, and this is my impression on how weavers work with these "motives" - to try to ask them in an encyclopaedical sense
( like Mellaart who once dreamed of meeting a weaver that says about an eli belinde motive that she just had finished: " This is the mother goddess !" )
is like nonsense, methodologically. Therefore I had given the example of the weaver that says she cannot imagine a piece without a borer - but did it , may be.
Superstitious-type of believes are not counter-checked with the ratio.

But if this is so I wonder about people who claim with great ease what certain motives "mean" or who use phrases like "the message of this weave" - and even in cases when they do not know who has made it when and how ... opposite to your splendid example from ethnomusicological research ! Keep in mind that
the biggest area in the "Oriental weaves department" is not really researched yet. Be aware that the field work of people like Mügül and Peter Andrews at the Turcomans ( many guys with better names in this field have never been there - incredible, to my taste !) shows a lot of things that contradict the common fairy tales of "symbolism" to a big extent. Only to be slapt by dealer clowns who devaluate that as having been made with contemporary living people - as the makers of "their" textile art ( whome they do not know, by the way ) had for sure ( who proves to me this "sure") different things in mind !

But I don't share Michael's opinion that nothing can be learned by studying anything except A-pieces.
Steve Price, 24.11.2003, Modern Rugs 2

Well, such a thing I did not say. But it is more safe to start with the hardest facts that you can find - and leave it for the soft ones only in case you really cannot find anything else.

There is no good reason to believe carpets (whether 'tribal' or factory made) aren't chock-full of symbolism. Sadly, it will be devilishly difficult to interpret its meaning beyond some broad cultural stereotypes, just as one could learn virtually nothing about that former owner from a used tie bought in an antique store, unless they had deep knowledge of the original setting.

Rick Paine, 24.11.2003, Modern Rugs 2

Rick, of course I must rank the tie example as being a splendid example :-) !
Whether an antique piece is taken away from the place where it was made and where it has slept for several hundred years or not is not a kind of damage to it in any respect - unless its "identity card" is once lost. Then it is extreme difficult if not impossible to put together any suitable interpretation from scratch
later - this is the damage then ! This art is not anonymous , any contact to contemporary people over there shows it.

Regards,

Michael

Hi Michael -

This just about the end of your preceding post. In it you said in part:

"...Whether an antique piece is taken away from the place where it was made and where it has slept for several hundred years or not is not a kind of damage to it in any respect - unless its "identity card" is once lost. Then it is extreme difficult if not impossible to put together any suitable interpretation from scratch
later - this is the damage then ! This art is not anonymous , any contact to contemporary people over there shows it."

My thoughts:

"unless its 'identity card" is...lost." I assume you must refer to the technical features that you feel place a given piece as almost certainly woven in a given location (i.e., where they are know rather exclusively to have used certain technical moves, the claim that perhaps only the Kurds used weftless sumak seems similar). If it could be demonstrated that certain technical moves were made only be weavers at a given location, that would for me make attribution plausible. But such an "identity card" must first be established for your argument to be sustained and it seems to me that the "identity cards" here have only be alluded to and so this part of the claim of demonstrated attribution is very much in suspense.

Second, you say "...art is not anonymous, any contact to contemporary people over there shows it."

My thoughts:

One could accept the first half of this statement without accepting the second at all. That is, I think, what some of us feel: that it has not been demonstrated at all why one should treat the testimonies of contemporary residents/weavers in a given area with this kind of conclusionary weight."

Regards,

R. John Howe

Quick answer ...

Hallo everybody, hallo R. John Howe,

"unless its 'identity card" is...lost." I assume you must refer to the technical features that you feel place a give piece as almost certainly woven in a given location ...

No, I mean the detailed knowledge where a particular piece has been found. That is accessible if one wants - and fights for it.


(i.e., where they are know rather exclusively to have used certain technical moves, the claim that perhaps only the Kurds used weftless sumak seems similar). If it could be demonstrated that certain technical moves were made only be weavers at a given location, that would for me make attribution plausible..

Please do not rank these technical features that high ! Good weavers in a traditional setting in Anatolia most likely knew most of them, if not all. In Taskale, for example, they knew all techniques that are known from antique Anatolian pieces, including soumak weaving. And we have demonstrated how easy they can "re-invent" it under suitable circumstances. I guess this is , at least partially, a hobby of those who like to study weaves in the West - instead of moving over and have a close look.


But such an "identity card" must first be established for your argument to be sustained and it seems to me that the "identity cards" here have only be alluded to and so this part of the claim of demonstrated attribution is very much in suspense.".

Sorry - a misunderstanding. This knowledge is there ! That certain parts of it are not shown on the net is another story. But I have given enough data to "trustworthy third parties" that can all be checked, if one wants it. My condition: a respectable figure without any own interest in the issue ( as a dealer or buyer - for these the backyards are closed ) ...


Second, you say "...art is not anonymous, any contact to contemporary people over there shows it."

My thoughts:

One could accept the first half of this statement without accepting the second at all. That is, I think, what some of us feel: that it has not been demonstrated at all why one should treat the testimonies of contemporary residents/weavers in a given area with this kind of conclusionary weight."

Okay, whatelse do you have to offer ? Carpet dealer books ? I prefer the hardest facts that one can have. Weavers living in old weaving centers that talk about their own old pieces I find more trustworthy than statements of a picker, even in case I know that guy for 20 years. But his words weigh much higher than those of an internationally known "specialist" who never studied this weaving culture at the spot, though he could have done it.
My ears still sound from "Soumak bag, Western Anatolia, vicinity of Sivas" , for a Gercek Bahsis Yörük cuval from the vicinity of Silifke / Toros Mountains.
The guy who wrote that is well respected - and for the normal home textile collectors markets I still find that okay ...

Sorry, R. John Howe : if I read these lines it sounds a bit sharp. But we know us now since quite a time and as long as a dispute brings things forward ...

Regards,

Michael Bischof

Hi Michael -

I am no stranger to debate. I do not mind sharp words at all. Sometimes they are needed to attract attention to real issues.

BUT the burden of proof of an assertion is ENTIRELY on the side of the person making the claim. In this case it is yours that you have a reliable method for identifying "A" pieces.

You may, but you continually point to evidence that you say is unavoidably "off stage." I am sorry to have understood you perhaps to point to technical evidence. For me, your claim is weakened to the extent that it depends on verbal reports of folks living in given communities today.

I would think that it would be best to discuss your "A" method only in groups where you are free to explain it fully. Since this seems not to be the case here, I would suggest that Turkotek is not an appropriate arena for continuing to make claims for it either. That's not my decision; just how I feel.

The rest of us bear no responsibility for offering alternatives since we are not making the claim.

Regards,

R. John Howe

Hi People

The epistemological question never seems to go away, and here it is again.

Michael's position on Anatolian kilims is that if you know who has the piece and that it is someone who has known of it for a very long time and who has nothing to gain from lying about it, his word on where it has been is very sound evidence. This is not the usual criterion in Rugdom, but it isn't unheard of either. Robert Chenciner's work on Kaitag embroideries, generally accepted as scholarly and correct in most respects (there is debate about whether his dating estimates are accurate), is based on precisely this approach.

John's seems to be that the sine qua non criterion is structure. This is surely the majority view, almost the universal one in Rugdom. A very small school of thought (maybe I'm the only one in it) has the view that the structural criteria derive from attributions based on design, color and layout. We did a Salon on that awhile ago, and there's no reason to revisit it now - I mention it only to emphasize that the issue is less settled than we might hope.

I was interested to see that Michael's "nametag" on the kilim in question was a small motif and that he discounts structure as a reliable basis for attribution. Because of my personal biases, that appeals to me, which is not to say that it's proven.

Michael has been criticized by several people for not making public the evidence on which his beliefs rest. I agree that as the proponent of a viewpoint differing from the conventional wisdom the burden of proof is his, and that others are under no obligation (intellectually) to accept evidence that they cannot examine and weigh.

As an aside, the present discussion ought to put to rest the myth held in some circles that Turkotek forbids expression of opinions counter to those of its managers, or even that the managers are monolithic in their views.

Regards

Steve Price

hard and soft evidence ...

Hallo R. John Howe,

good to see that nothing is spoilt ! Second : if we go one here like that I would propose to take that to the other thread, if Richard Farber, who started this thread about modern weaves, accepts that ...
Of course it is me to take that "burden of proof" - and I started now to show some results.
I say some part of it is unavoidably "off stage" - but not the whole thing and for sure not the main thing.

"Its provenance as an A - piece is granted threefold: two people have seen it at its spot long before it started to move and we have the record of the picker. All three news match perfectly ( details I will give to Steve Price )." - I must add, may be, that the picker who brought the piece could not know that it was possible to cross-check what he would say ...

That is enough, isn't it ? Names and adresses of these two people are available , that`s it.
And tomorrow I will go on with further pieces. Of course this is possible only when a piece is sold and the present owner admits that.

The technical features: yes, this is something that you can see in the weave itself. But how do you want to be sure of how significant it is ? It may be a detail bound to ( restricted to ) a tribal group, or one or some villages at a certain spot, or - more likely - to a regional setup of local cottage industry production in old times ( for example: the so-called "Konya Ladik" group of weaves ) . Certain things weavers may invent anew, if one lets them do it , certain technical details ...

Whatever - if you cannot "fix" this measure by some A-pieces whose provenance you are so sure about that you can use them as reliable indicators: what is the value of such a method then ?

And even more: you may belittle what local people tell you about theier weaves. But , again : what better, more "hard" information do you have then ? I assume that both of us realize the importance of properly identifying pieces as first step of nearly all textile art studies. - What one can see in a piece and what to do to be able to qualify for that I intend to write later ...

Regards,

Michael

And now good night for me

Hi Steve -

I do badly enough when I am making my own arguments. Please don't make them worse than they are.

You said in part:

"John's (ed. position) seems to be that the sine qua non criterion is structure."

I don't think I said that. I said that structural indicators of the sort that weftless sumac may be for Kurdish weaving impress me more than do verbal reports of folks living in our time.

I think there are inferences everywhere in rug analysis. I simply would like to keep them as "short" as possible.

Regards,

R. John Howe

Dear Turkotonians,

Steve wrote:

"A very small school of thought (maybe I'm the only one in it) has the view that the structural criteria derive from attributions based on design, color and layout. We did a Salon on that awhile ago, and there's no reason to revisit it now - I mention it only to emphasize that the issue is less settled than we might hope. "

if we change the words design to melody, color to harmony and layout to form than we are in an area of study that I grew up in. Steve, you are not alone !!!!

Best

Richard Farber

Hi John:

You're right, I overstated your position. I apologize.

Hi Richard:

I hadn't thought about it in musical terms, but it's certainly true that you don't have to be a musicologist to be able to know whether to attribute a piece to Tchaikovski or Mozart.

Regards,

Steve Price

????

Hi Richard,

What about the instruments?
I'm not sure, but did Bach compose on a Piano or a harpsichord? And doesn't a harpsichord dictate your composition in a severe kind of way? And if so...what kind? So what we hear, isn't what he composed. So what we feel, he didn't feel.

I do not want to talk about looms, wool, sheep or whatever.
So nobody has anything to fear from me.......
not this time.
Doesn't mean baffled. It means I'm all ears because I think, I can learn something from you. And who knows.......mayby some other crawling, lost, under-rug-world dealing dweller.

Best regards,

Vincent

Dear Vincent,

each instrument has its own parameters of sound, and its own techniques of playing. Each instrument tends to have indiosyncratic compositions for it, You dont compose for the organ as you do for the flute, although in the Baroque there was a tendency for composer to stretch the limits of the insturments by having them copy the styles of other instruments. Think about writing multi voice fugues for solo violon or cello which J.S Bach did. Also think of Baroque gardens with plants cut and shaped to resemble animals

Bach probobly did much of his composing at a table with pen and paper. He did great amounts of improvisation [which later became the basis for written compositions] much of it at the organ.

Bach's composition for the organ is not the same as that for the cembalo [harpsishord]. The organ has continuous sustained tones and the cembalo has short pluck-like sounds.

I think there might be a slight parallel between composing on paper and designing weavings on paper. Designing on paper one who knows the field will design a killim differently than a soumak or a knotted carpet. He or she will create a different design for a silk carpet than for a woolen one.

I dont think that we "hear" the music of Bach [your example] the same way that he did or one of his contemporaries. We don't hear it the same way as our grandparents hear it. Listening to music occurs with a cultural frame which is everychanging... And changing as you well know very rapidly of late.
After the Swingle Singers you cant hear Bach the same way as you did befor them. Think about that! :>}

Sincerely

Richard Farber

I hope I at least began to anwer your questions.

Steve Hi

you wrote

"I hadn't thought about it in musical terms, but it's certainly true that you don't have to be a musicologist to be able to know whether to attribute a piece to Tchaikovski or Mozart."

Exactly.

and musicologist are often capable of very fine understands of style and can place work very well in the context of known compositions . . . am thinking about work done on a body of music found in Mexico and a successful study done starting from chemical and mechanical analysis of the paper or parchment used to the inks through the caligraphy and finaly the 'layout' 'design' and 'color' of the music itself which put this work into the continuum of Western liturgical music [even though there werent know names and dates of the pages [often incomplete] that were found.

Best regards

Richard Farber

Dear Turkotariots,

I have had the opportunity to see one of the Arabzaddeh carpets ‘in the wool.’ I remain extremely impressed with the boldness of the design done in the early sixties I believe but less impressed with the quality of the colors. The saturation of the colors was not as good as what i was lead to believe in the photos that I saw. I understand that the carpet will be for sale and will not show and image or describe the design.

I also had a chance to see the book which catalogues the museum of his work. It is clear to me that I don’t have enough of a background in Persian city carpets to do a salon on the subject. Mr. Arabzaddeh’s work should be understood in the context of the tradition[s] that nurtured him.

By a strange coincidence in a small shop in the Jaffa flea market a few days I came upon a little mat that had utilized one of the design breakthroughs of Arabzaddeh - the use of the border element in surprising places.

Here are some images of the mat.











Thanks to Yoron Larian for the photos.


Sincerely


Richard Farber