masters of illusion
i think everyone is missing what sets turkmen weavings apart from all other
weavings.
turkmen weavers are masters of optical illusion that not even
skilled persian weavers can recreate, which is why they were and are in such
demand.
this is also why they are so captivating, but you can't quite put
your finger on it.
colors and patterns are created and spaced more for the 3D
illusion they create then for any tribal traditions which is why we see the same
patterns in so many different "tribes"
there are a specific number of gols in
any given row for the same reason.
the effect is like a 3D drawing of colored
dots. you can't see the picture at first.
put a good picture of a 3gol by 3
gul chuval on your computer screen, and cross your eyes slightly, until you see
4 rows of gols, and then try to look past the gols. they will become 3
demensional and appear to float on different planes..
in the older weavings,
the gols actually seem to float above the surface of the rug. a magic
carpet!
trylooking at one this way. i think you will be amazed by what you
see.
Hi Mike
The theory that very old Turkmen weavings include perspective
in their design has been around for awhile, but nobody has ever been able to
provide anything more than anecdotal evidence for it. A mathematical analysis of
dimensionality was presented at one of the ICOC's some years ago, and although
the authors claimed that it proved a correlation between age and dimensionality,
it actually didn't.
I've seen the effect that you describe, but am not
convinced that it is correlated with age or that the apparent dimensionality
(when it does exist) was something the weaver put in knowingly.
I'm not
sure I understand what you mean by, ... there are a specific number of gols
in any given row ... For any format (juval, torba, main carpet, etc.) the
number of guls per row differs in different pieces, and partial guls at the
edges are not unusual.
Regards
Steve Price
three demensional turkmens
i used to think that. but after looking at picture after picture,
and some
of the turkmen that i own, i absoulutly believe they did it intentionally. it's
to consistent to be accidental.
you have to look at it from their
perspective. (remember, hashish and opium are from central asia)
i have
measured the guls and the slight variations are 2 exact.
the later workshop
pieces lack this precision. or perhaps the art was lost.
i think this is why
the later workshop peices seem to be lacking something.
i will try and post a
photo that vividly illustates this point.
the colors and patterns trick your
eyes into seeing in stereo.
Hi Mike
I'll be glad to look at the photo, and I'm pretty sure I'll
see pretty much what you do. That will not demonstrate that it is a consistent
feature of older Turkmen pieces, that it is a phenomenon correlated with age, or
that it was put there by the weaver with the intention of giving the illusion of
perspective.
I'm not sure what your reference to hashish and opium
implies. If you can see this only when high, it really isn't there. If you can
see it when you're not high, what difference does the presenceof opium and
hashish in central Asia have to do with it?
Anyway, you say you've
measured something about the guls and find them to be too exact to be
accidental. That sounds like data worth attention. Would you be good enough to
share it?
Regards
Steve Price
three demensional turkmen
first off, i apologize for getting off the original thread.
i am currently
living in afghanistan and my server is not really reliable so i can't seem to
post photos, but i will try.
the three demensional effect i am observing is
very vivid, much like wearing a pair of 3D glasses. (i assure you i am most
definitely NOT a drug user or drinker)
i seems to be the rule rather than the
exception in pre-commercial turkmen weavings. if this were random and
accidental, than i would think it would only be observed randomly, and this
doesn't seem to be the case.
it's a classic and very old form of stereogram.
slight differences in the repeated gols, and minor gols creates the illusion of
depth in a 2D design.
instead of 2 slightly different views taken in red and
blue as in the 3D glasses, the viewer must diverge (cross) thier eyes to see the
slight differences in the repeating patterns from 2 different perspectives
thereby giving the illusion of depth and form. slight color differences in the
gols combine to enhance the illusion.
later commercial works only seemed to
repeat the same design over and over, instead of incorporating the slight
differences.
Hi Mike
If you can send me image files as attachments to e-mail, I'll
put them into our server and send you back instructions for making them appear
in a message.
But we already have lots of images of what are most likely
pre-commercial Turkmen pieces on Turkotek. For example, there are three asmalyks
posted that probably predate commercial Turkmen production (in a thread about
odd ensis, I think). Do you see this effect with them?
Regards
Steve Price
Hi Mike,
I agree with you. Explaining things such as these, though, is
way beyond my own feeble abilities and I have given up on putting words to that
pursuit.
I wish you good luck, superb communication abilities, limitless
patience and time, a superhuman pain toleration level, awesome diplomacy skills,
a really reliable internet server, and whatever else it takes that remains
unknown to me due to lacking the other stuff I've listed, all of which you will
certainly need. Sue
Note: This post was put up in response to one made by Mike McCullough, in
the thread from which this thread was split off. I carelessly left that post
behind. Here it is, copied and pasted from the source. Mike, I apologize for my
error.
hi Steve,
i've been looking on JBOC, in Barry O'connel's
guide to Tekke
chuval's and almost every photo display's this stereographic
effect. as these are relatively low quality photos, i can imagine how vivid it
would be when viewing the genuine article.
the trick is to be the correct
distance away, and cross your eyes just right, as when viewing any stereogram.
it takes a little practice, but when you get the hang of it, what you will see
is to vivid to be chance. maybe some other members will give it a try, and
report their findings. or maybe some members own antique chuvals or main carpets
and can try it on the real thing.
i hope you see what i see.
turkmen
weavers seem to me to be far more advanced then we suspected.
Hi
Mike
I just went to O'Connell's "Notes on Tekke Juvals". I don't see the
three-dimensional effect that you do, but that isn't important. Maybe if I spent
more time trying, I'd see it, too.
I found a total of four juvals there.
One, belonging to Jim Allen, has been dated by C-14 to something like the 17th
century. I don't trust C-14 very much when used with rugs, but let's not get
sidetracked into that. So, I'd agree to stipulate that it was woven long before
the commercialization of Turkmen weavings. A second one is also attributed to a
very early date, although the foundation for that attribution is not persuasive
to my skeptical mind. But, let's say that it really is very early. That brings
the sample size for early juvals to exactly 2. A third, from the Jon Thompson
collection, is attributed simply to the 19th century. My inclinations on date
attribution are in the direction of Thompson's - it's terribly optimistic (and
maybe even arrogant) to express them as narrow limits. A piece made during some
unspecified time in the 19th century could be either pre- or post-commercial, so
it doesn't help much in establishing a database for testing the hypothesis. The
fourth is a "turret gul" juval, clearly from around 1900.
You say that
almost every one pictured on that page shows three dimensionality. I will assume
that the exception is the ca 1900 piece (if it isn't, what do you make of that
fact?). So, at best, there are two that are clearly pre-commercial and
dimensional, one that is clearly commercial and not dimensional. Without meaning
to be overly critical, this is far too few to permit even tentative conclusions
about a correlation between age and dimensionality, and it doesn't come close to
showing that the weavers presented dimensionality intentionally. Turkmen weavers
may have been far more advanced than I think, but this isn't evidence that they
were.
Regards
Steve Price
three demensional turkmen
hi steve,
i wish you could see what i am seeing. stereograms can be
notoriously difficult to see. you have to train your eyes to see something
without looking directly at it and cross your eyes just enough to split the
center row in to two rows.
for example, a chuval with 3 vertical rows would
appear to have 4 rows after crossing your eyes, and then try to look past the
gols.
if you could see it once, it would be obvious to you that it is no
accident. i could see the illusion in every repeating gol pattern made before
about 1920.
if you look very closely at the saryk turret gol weavings , you
will notice slight variations in color, size and pattern on the large turret
gols, and also on the minor gols. these variations in pattern and color were
deliberately made that way by the weaver to create the sereoscopic
illusion.
perhaps i should start a new thread and we could get some input
from other members.
well, it's bed time here in afghanistan, so i will talk
to you tommorrow. thanks for the discussion.
Hi Mike
Through the magic of modern software, I split off some of the
messages from the thread on Pre-Czarist Turkmen Workshop Weavings, and created
this one.
I guess it would be better if I saw what you are seeing, but I
don't doubt that you are seeing it and don't even doubt that I'd see it, too, if
I spend the time it takes to train my eyes to the task.
Whether I see it
isn't very important, at least, not to the hypothesis you have raised. Your
saying that you see it in ... every repeating gol pattern made before about
1920 takes me a bit by surprise, since I think the commercial period for
Turkmen started long before that. In fact, now I wonder how you account for your
not seeing it on all four of the juvals on O'Connell's "Notes on Tekke Juvals",
since even the youngest of the four probably predates 1920.
Anyway,
tomorrow is another day. Sleep well.
Regards
Steve Price
Hi everybody,
Here is an image of a Salor chuval, which I think
displays the 3D effect that Mike is talking about.
However, I don't
find this 3D method very useful. I don't need to cross my eyes to see that the
above chuval is a great piece, and there are so many different Turkmen designs
where this method is not going to work, even on really old
pieces.
Regards,
Tim
the hort 1880 yomut chuval.
hi everyone. iv'e found a photo of a great chuval that i hope will illustrate
my theory of turkmen purposely weaving in stereographs.
go to JBOC, Barry's
notes on turkmen rugs.
open guide to yomut weaving, and then yomut chuvals.
click on the hort 1880 yomut chuval and look at the photo of the complete
chuval.
the 2 dark birdlike figures on the top were purposely woven in as a
guide to assist you in properly focusing your eyes.
now look at the 2 figures
on top and slowly refocus your eyes until the 2 figures appear to be only one
figure in the top center. now slowly move your eyes down to the field. the three
demensional illusion should jump right out.
hope this works for you.
Hi Mike
The page to which you refer has links to 18 to 20 Yomud
asmalyks (I already forgot the exact number). The one you selected is not an
especially early one (estimated at around 1870), probably younger than any of
the three that are displayed on one page in another thread here on Turkotek at
the moment.
Yesterday you were saying that this "dimensionality" is
present in ... every repeating gol pattern made before about 1920.
You
presented a link to a page with four Tekke juvals, none of which were likely to
be more recent than 1920, along with a comment to the effect that almost all of
them show this. I asked which one didn't, but the question was lost in the next
change in direction.
Today, you ignore the three old Yomud asmalyks that
were suggested as preliminary test pieces, presenting instead one selected from
a group of about 20. If the attribution is correct, it dates from right around
the beginning of the commercial period, which makes it an especially awkward
piece with which to try to demonstrate a phenomenon that is, supposedly, lost
during commercialization. But, let me continue along the lines I did yeterday: I
will stipulate that it is precommercial and that it has a three-dimensional
characteristic if you look at it right. How does this lead us to the conclusion
that this characteristic is the rule in precommercial Turkmen weavings, was done
intentionally and knowingly by Turkmen women, but was lost when the commercial
period got going? Remember, this is only one asmalyk selected from a page with
nearly 20 others after bypassing three that were suggested. What happened to
...i could see the illusion in every repeating gol pattern made before about
1920., which you said less than 48 hours ago?
Regards
Steve
Price
Hi Mike
Let me play back to you what I think you proposed, just to make sure we're talking
about the same thing and that I haven't misunderstood. Your propositions are:
1. Until, perhaps, 1920, every Turkmen weaving with guls was woven with a design
that would take on three dimensions if looked at properly.
2. This dimensionality was not accidental, but was put there intentionally by
the weavers, who knew how to create it and, by extension, how to look at it.
If you meant something different, either your meaning was not expressed clearly
or I misread what you wrote. So, let's start there. Did I understand you correctly?
If not, please put me on track. Once we are both on the same page, let's try
to sort out the evidence and see where it takes us.
One point: since (if I understood you correctly) the dimensionality was lost
during some relatively short interval of time (the period of rapid commercialization
of Turkmen weaving), the dates aren't trivial details, they're central to the
thesis.
Regards
Steve Price
3-D, caused by shadow?
From my cartography classes long ago, a 3-D effect can be created graphically
by creating a "shadow." It is best (must be?) done as if the sun were in the
North-west. Due to vision characteristics, if the sun is from...say...the SE,
the figure will look depressed, not raised.
This shadow effect (or
"plastic shading")can be illustrated. Draw an upsidedown right triangle resting
on the hypotenuse or base (representing a mountain). Add a second line from the
apex to the base at about 45 degrees from the right side of the mountain. Color
the area between second line and right-mountain-side, black.
The
stereoscopic effect is also very real and spectacular...try placing a piece of
cardboard between the two rows of guls and then looking at them with an eye on
either side of the cardboard, head 10" from carboard. Try to make the guls
"meet" in the middle. Only thing is, any almost identical objects, spaced apart
a bit more than the distance between the eyes, can usually be seen
stereoptically when the eyes reach a critical distance from the object.
The shadow 3-D effect should also be examined and understood especially
in light of this subject. Add black/dark to the lower right side of a gul, or
almost any small design, and It becomes quite easy to see the object in some
form of 3-D without a steroscopic image.
To illustrate the power of the
shadow effect, I am including three pictures. First is a Kazak-Bordjalou (or
kurdish) bag subject of a previous line of discussion. It is easy to see it in
3-D...especially the bue-green bordered by dark in the upper left, and a stark
and amzing picture it presents. The colors that float and those that sink are
not what one might first suppose.
The next two are military maps. The
first one is of Omaha Beach from this web site ( http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/omaha_beach_east_f_1944_2.jpg
) using hachures as shading to create depth. The second is of a portion of
Vietnam from this web site ( http://grunt.space.swri.edu/visit/maps/qtri.gif ) with color
shading used, illustrating the "sun from the N.W."
The question about the
weavers of these rugs is, did they know about the shadow effect, and also the
stereo 3-D effect, and therefore do it on purpose? I have had a suspicion that
some Turkmen and Baluch weavers (and others) understood the shadow effect
because of their use of gradations of dark as borders on the lower-right side of
certain figures, and the contrasting use of certain colors that ether sink or
float. The purposeful use of stereooptics I am less sure of because it may only
work on pictures, not an actual rug, because of size.
Hi all,
The "3-D" effect is kind of neat. I was able to "unfocus" my
eyes enough to see it in a few of the weavings that Mike referred to. However, I
was also able to achieve the same visual effect with Pakistani Bokharas that
have distinct (i.e. high contrast) repeating "tekke gul" designs. So I am not
sure how useful a diagnostic tool this will turn out to be...
James
Pakistani Bokharas?
Tsk, tsk, tsk, James
You are an
iconoclast… taking out all of the mystic and romance from the 3D
“discovery”!
Regards,
Filiberto
Hi Filiberto and all.
I didn't mean to be an iconoclast. In fact, it
would be great if there were such an "expert eye" method for identifying the
particularly old weavings. But here is a Pakistani "Bokhara" that creates a
really neat visual "3-D" visual effect for me, and I doubt that the weaver was
intending that.
Cheers,
James.
3 Dimensional Turkmen
Mike is correct, although IMHO the dimensionality disappears somewhat earlier
than 1920 (but that is nit-picking).
I posted comments on the
dimensionality effect on turkotek many moons ago and it is a well observed
effect on yomud chuvals.
There is also a theory that the turkmen visual
perception differs from other races, but a simple experiment is the most
scientific approach.
If one looks at a good early chuval under the
influence of a substance that was freely available to the turkmen (WARNING - do
not attempt this if you have any medical problems and without medical support),
you will see the dimensionality that Mike refers to.
I suspect they were
deliberately woven that way. Measure the gul heights on early chuvals. On six
yomud chuvals that I own the average difference in size between the smallest and
larget gul in a column is 1cm - 1.5cm on the earliest However, it is also
related to the weaving, the shadow effect and the colours chosen, not just the
gul height.
Hi John
Welcome back. I remember your comments about dimensionality,
and, as you did then, you raise a number of interesting poiints here.
I
don't know the evidence that Turkmen women were typically high while they were
weaving, but maybe they were. Opium poppies and hallucinogenic mushrooms are
native to their land, so it's plausible. Can you cite any reports that take it
beyond plausibility?
I'm also glad to see that you bring a sharper focus
to the matter. Variation in gul height as a source of dimensionality (you
mention others, but concentrated on this, which makes it easier to discuss) was
published in HALI about 20 years ago. In that iteration, it also involved
differences in the thickness of the outlining of the guls. It was interesting
then, and still is.
My recollection is that in your previous
contributions to discussion of this subject you listed some of the kinds of
things that would have to be known for the hypothesis to progress from being
plausible and interesting to, say, probably true on the basis of evidence. This,
I assume, is still the way you see it; it is certainly my view.
I think
the notion that Turkmen perceive depth differently than most of us do has some
documentation, which adds plausibility to the hypothesis that we need to take
some extra steps in order to see what they do.
If the effect was a
casualty of the growth of commercial Turkmen weaving, it would have been pretty
rare by 1920, and would be much less common by 1880 than it was in 1825. That is
why I expressed surprise when Mike introduced 1920 as his cutoff
point.
I'm still not clear on what Mike is proposing, and my impression
is that it shifted around a lot from post to post. He's right when he says that
I've been throwing up objections pretty vigorously, but that's how hypotheses
get tested. In principle, nobody ever proves anything. A thought progresses from
being a half-baked idea to a hypothesis to a theory to a law by being subjected
to lots of different attempts to disprove it and surviving. What usually happens
is that the idea gets modified, and if there is a kernel of truth in it, that
comes to the fore.
Regards
Steve Price
Hi all,
I am able to refocus my vision to see the "3-D" effect very
clearly on the Pakistani Bokhara that I posted above, under the influence of
nothing stronger than a fresh lime soda. I assume that others will be able to do
so as well. Perhaps Mike or others could confirm. So although I can quickly
assess the aesthetic differences between an old Turkmen weaving and a modern
Pakistani one, I am not sure that the "3-D dimension visual test" will be that
discriminating. Am I missing something here? 
I would be interested
in a clearer expression of John's hypothesis, and the experimental method he
would propose to test that hypothesis.
Cheers, James.
P.S. Here is
a link to a description of "autostereograms". It takes some of the mystery out
of the concept, at least for me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autostereogram
Hi James
If I understand what Mike and John Lewis have been saying -
and I'm not sure I've got it straight - they aren't suggesting that the
dimensionality is a way to identify old Turkmen weavings. The thesis seems to be
that Turkmen women knew how to generate dimensionality, did this intentionally,
and that Turkmen people were able to see it, either
1. easily, even when not
under the influence of hallucinogens, because they perceive depth differently
than we do, or
2. easily when under the influence of hallucinogens,
hypothesized to be a common state for them.
It seems to further be
proposed that this ability to create dimensionality was lost later, and this is
blamed on commercialization.
Regards
Steve Price
Hi James,
Thanks for posting the link to Wikipidia. That site is so
cool. The traditional
encyclopedias will never be able to compete on that level.
I think Mike's
and John's point is that the 3D effect occurs only on old, authentic tribal
chuvals. But the autostereogram effect should occur on any repeat pattern if
carefully executed, and James demonstrated that with the Pakistani rug. So, I
don't think the 3D effect shows anything other than that the guls on a chuval
are spaced symmetrically.
However, I could believe that the Turkmen women
were well aware of this fact, and generated the 3D effect intentionally. Maybe
this is why infinite repeats were so popular among Turkmens
...
Regards,
Tim
Hi Steve,
I admit that I might be entirely missing the point that Mike
and John are making.
What you have summarized is also my understanding of
part of the "dimensionality hypothesis", but both John and Mike have also
clearly stated that this dimensionality disappeared before 1920, which does
indicate that it is age-related.
I also understand from Mike's messages
that this dimensionality can be diagnosed based on visual examination of the
weaving wherein a three-dimensional image emerges if one focuses "beyond" the
two dimensional plane. My observation is that this visual effect can be seen on
modern Pakistani Bokhara design rugs, and perhaps others (I haven't done much of
a survey). From the Wikipedia description I referenced in my last post, it
appears that this visual effect is a function of repetitive designs, which is a
feature of both older Turkmen chuvals and new Pakistan Bokharas. So I am not
sure that only Turkmen weavers could produce this, or that they did this to
deliberately create an "autostereogram". It might just be a function of the
production of repetitive designs with high contrast. As to the issue of Turkmen
being able to "see" this dimensionality more than others, I am not sure what to
make of that. If that refers to being able to refocus and see three-dimensional
images from 'autostereograms', that is a widespread ability that can be
practiced and learned. It is the basis of a very popular series of image books
called "Magic Eye" that my children enjoy. In fact, I just asked my teenage
daughter, who is adept at this, to see if she could see the Pakistani Bokhara in
3-D. After a few seconds she said "Whoah! The designs look like they are
floating". I am pretty sure that the closest she got to hallucinogens today was
Diet Coke.
So the question that remains for me is whether the fact that
one can visualize many Turkmen weavings in three dimensions is significant, or
unique. Based on my own limited inductive investigation, that is not the case.
James
quote:
Originally posted by Tim Adam
I think Mike's and John's point is that the 3D effect occurs only on old, authentic tribal chuvals. But the autostereogram effect should occur on any repeat pattern if carefully executed, and James demonstrated that with the Pakistani rug. So, I don't think the 3D effect shows anything other than that the guls on a chuval are spaced symmetrically.
However, I could believe that the Turkmen women were well aware of this fact, and generated the 3D effect intentionally. Maybe this is why infinite repeats were so popular among Turkmens ...
Hi Bob
As far as I know, the first person to notice that you could
perceive the illusion of three dimensions in old Turkmen weavings was James
Allen, who reported it in an article in HALI (issue 55, page 98, 1991). He
illustrated the phenomenon with three old Salor juvals. The illusion in those
three arose from two main features:
1. The guls in became progressively
smaller, row by row, going from the bottom to the top. That is, the guls were
represented as though they became further from the viewer as you went up the
warps.
2. The outlining of the guls was thicker at their lower than at their
upper edges, giving the illusion that they tilted away from the viewer.
I
thought this a fascinating article (still do), but have always felt that it
needed to be fleshed out with more examples before it could be
persuasive.
A few years later, at an ICOC (Hamburg?), Allen and a
mathematician whose name escapes me presented a fractal analysis of the
dimensionality of two or three juvals (probably the same ones as in the HALI
article, but I'm not sure) on which they had C-14 dates. They reported a
correlation of "dimensionality" with greater age. Unfortunately, their data just
didn't support the conclusions. The sample size was far too small to give a
meaningful correlation, and the ages of the juvals provided by C-14 were not
statistically significantly different.
The subject has popped up here on
Turkotek from time to time, but I don't think there is any published followup on
it since the ICOC presentation.
You ask, does it work with other rugs
(meaning, I assume, other than Turkmen)? At least two non-Turkmen examples are
in this thread. It should be possible to see it in nearly any rug or any two
dimensional image or object that isn't just a single solid color. I can see it
with my newspaper, in which I can make the headline appear to be on a plane in
front of the page.
Regards
Steve Price
3D in Turkmen weavings
IMHO the autostereogram is a red herring.
I see the dimensionality
when stoned (I see other things Ias well!). Other people may see it under the
influence of alcohol - but I do not drink much, so I cannot comment on
that.
This does not mean the weavers were stoned when they wove them;
they may or may not have been.
Turkmen were extensive users of narcotic
substances including fermented milk (Vambery) and there is no reason to believe
that usage would be confined to the males.
Differences in gul height
might be due entirely to sloppy weaving but the seems to be no pattern -
sometimes the top row is larger, sometimes the bottom row.
Of course, if
the weavers were stoned then it could be sloppy weaving, but I prefer the idea
that it was done deliberately to create a more "alive" design.
Someone
else put forward a theory that some weavings are totemic and are supposed to be
like banners waving in the wind. I cannot remember who put that idea forward -
EOA.
Incidentally, in relation to one comment, I have NEVER seen any
symmetry on an old turkmen weaving, there is always some small detail that
(deliberately?) breaks it. I refer to the symmetry of the entire piece, not a
specific element.
The closest to symmetry seems to be in old Salor
pieces.
I have seen perfect symmetry (at least I could not find a break)
on several non-turkmen pieces.
In defining symmetry I refer to
mathematical symmetry (group theory).
Hi John
Thanks for the Vambery citation about Turkmen using
hallucinogens. I agree that if the men used them, the women probably did as
well.
Why do you think the stereogram is a false trail? I don't know
whether it is or it isn't, but it seems safe to suppose that the phenomenon has
some basis in how we perceive a third dimension in a two-dimensional object. You
say that you see the third dimension when you are stoned, a condition in which
you see all sorts of things that aren't really "there", in the external world.
What do you make of this?
When I referred to symmetry in asmalyks, I was
using the term carelessly. The conventional wisdom with regards to Yomud erre
gul asmalyks is that the lattice is centered in younger ones (making them look
symmetric at first glance) while the lattice is noticeably off center in older
ones. Near-perfect symmetry in anything except workshop weavings done from a
cartoon is as unheard of in my world as it evidently is in yours.
But the
interesting issues that Mike McCullough raised are still awaiting. Did the
Turkmen women intend to present the illusion of a third dimension, or was this
an epiphenomenon? If they did, was their ability to do so lost with the growth
of commercialism among the Turkmen? Was the use of various methods of conveying
the illusion of three dimensions related to the time when the weaving was done?
I think his other contention, that it is a property unique to Turkmen weavings,
can be abandoned.
Regards
Steve Price
Hi John,
I am having a hard time following your trail.
You
said:
quote:
If one looks at a good early chuval under the influence of a substance that was freely available to the turkmen (WARNING - do not attempt this if you have any medical problems and without medical support), you will see the dimensionality that Mike refers to.
quote:
the effect is like a 3D drawing of colored dots. you can't see the picture at first. put a good picture of a 3gol by 3 gul chuval on your computer screen, and cross your eyes slightly, until you see 4 rows of gols, and then try to look past the gols. they will become 3 demensional and appear to float on different planes.
3D - For clarification
Hi,
I think my observations have been incorrectly summarized, and
false conclusions drawn, so I hope this helps bring clarity.
The
autostereogram effect can be seen with any regular pattern of the correct type
(e.g. wallpaper) and so you can see it on many rugs - even modern ones, indeed
even on a machine made rug. Most people can create it but it is different to
what I see.
I am supporting the view that the early weavers DELIBERATELY
sought to create a 3D effect, indeed more than that, they sought to create an
effect whereby the weaving is seen to be "alive" - waving like a flag in the
wind. This is what I see - it is more than the autosteriogram effect.
Just for confirmation I looked at some old 9-gul yomut chuvals first
half 19th century last night (whilst under the influence) and sure enough - they
were "waving". Unfortunately I could not repeat it with a modern piece because I
don't have any any more. However, I did try it with a tekke wedding rug (which
also has different gul heights (but I suspect for different reasons) and that
"waved".
That is why I said that IMHO (John Lewis's) the autostereogram
effect is a red herring - it does not re-create what I see.
The
autostereogram effect may be partly responsible
- screwing your (the
weaver's) eyes up against the sun could bring it into play, but I do not believe
that modern weavers have the abilty to DELIBERATELY create the effect that I
see.
Of course, there may be a third effect - genetic. Taking the
observation that that the turkmen "saw differently" (discussed by Donovan(?)) -
it may be that over many generations this became a genetic ability, but this
contradicts the supposition that the turkmen only became nomadic shepherds
fairly late (Pinner).
How the old weavers did it - I don't know, but the
difference in gul heights, the thickness of the outlines, colour (and perhaps,
the interplay with the border - that forms a frame) all, I suspect,
contribute.
Whether the dimensionality can be used as a direct
correlation to age, I don't know, but I think that James Allen was on to
something.
Is it limited to turkmen weaving? I don't know. I collect
turkmen and have not had the opportunity to try my experiment with non-turkmen
weavings.
How does it fit with other tukmen theories? I don't know but
there are some interesting clues in the turkmen literature.
Good Morning, John,
You wrote, I do not believe that modern weavers
have the abilty to DELIBERATELY create the effect that I see. By this, I
assume that you mean, they don't know how to do it, not that there's some magic
that weavers once possessed that they no longer have.
The "flag waving
in the wind" analogy is new to this discussion. Up to now, we had been talking
about the illusion of a third dimension, now it's moving. I can't help wondering
how much being stoned has to do with being able to see this.
Donovan's
report of Turkmen being unable to see what we do when they looked at photos on
newspapers has been interpreted in a number of ways. It certainly shows that
their perceptual processing differs from ours. But that doesn't necessarily
imply that it's genetic.
Regards
Steve Price
Drugs in rugs...Proof?
heeeyyyyy dudes....this is...y'know...like....so heavy...far out
dudes!
Below is a picture I was saving to use in an "opium poppies in
rugs" line. My bro, Gene, suggested it, did the intial conceptual part. I have
done some decent research, have info on when commercial growth started in
various places, etc....a lot of good stuff..just need to put it together.
However, I'll share this picture at this time. This is an Afshari rug,
unusual in that the entire field is just that...a "field"...growing some plant.
I've grafted a picture of a complete opium poppy plant and bulb next to a couple
of the "crops" in the field of this rug. Uhhh..... think I might have to keep
this particular rug under the dark lights in the closet.
Stereoscopic images
Gentlemen,
I worked for a short time as aerial photo interpreter. A
tool used in air photo interpretation for 60 years has been stereoscopic images;
a plane flies at a level height; it has two cameras on the wings taking pics
simultaneous. the resultant images are put together/side by side, each having
been taken from a slightly different angle. You look at them through a glass and
ultimately the two images merge together to form a startling 3D
effect.
The trick is, the eyes are not crossing...rather they are
focusing at a great distance beyond the images. the eyesight line for both eyes
is almost parallel. This will cause the images to merge in the foreground and
voila you get 3D You can find similar examples in some psychodelic posters
etc.
If I interpret the thread right, the weavers knew this; they wove
side by side guls slightly differently, as if they were being focused on a far
point together. this would create a 3D effect when looked at per above. It would
also require a knowledge of optics...but not necessarily one persons at home on
the steppe wouldn't have discovered.
Is this what is meant by the 3D
effect of old Turkomens? I would image if you're sort of sitting there kind of
spaced out staring off into the distance, the effect might take place
unintentially.
Gene
3D Weavings
G'day all,
From an early childs age I have been drawn to the 'effects'
which certain rugs and carpets display, that wonderful movement, change, an
almost etheral transposition from the flat two dimentional into a mutiplicity of
planes, which I can assume is similar to what has been previously described as
seen when stoned.
And this effect was noticeable from a very young age,
and not always successfully seen by my elders when I tried to describe it with
the awe I felt seeing it.
It is certainly not only evident when stoned
either
This
'movement' I still observe in rugs, and whether or not to describe it as a 3D
effect is moot, but I am positive that weavers today are very aware of the
effects which certain designs can project.
In particular (which I am
loathe to use as demonstration, because this is Turkotek, and primarily where
one encounters favour for old and antique by virtue of their virtues) my main
living room carpet, a very nice modern village Indo-Mir, with good wool,
abrashes and excellent madder field, is one which immediately took my fancy on
first sight for this very effect.
If looked at obliquely, just a
fraction, as if seeing something nice in that last quarter vision before
peripheral, the boteh leap from the lattice. When looked at from my comfortable
chair the lattice leaps from the carpet leaving the boteh floating within the
inner space. It can just as easily be seen looking at the field from any
direction, and one can never be sure just which appearance it will
display.
Nearly all my mates comment on how the pattern affects them,
whether they see the "positive' or "negative" (using these terms to show the
absolute difference which can be observed moment to moment on looking at the
carpet).
Most of the designs which are currently extant have been around
for a very long time, perhaps with some modifications, however I am sure that
people other than the weavers themselves have been appreciating this movement on
and within a given design, for many centuries.
It must be accepted that
since weavings became intricately patterned throughout the milleniums after the
original invention of weaving, that intricacy became an artistic expression of
the weaver, and that is a primary ingredient which we treasure in a well
coloured, well woven, well designed rug.
I believe they did it
deliberately then, and I believe they do it deliberately now, with greater or
lesser effect depending on how well the weaver understands the medium of art and
wool.
All of the posts prior to mine contain the necessary information
for us to 'see' if we open our mind to what the weaver artist is perhaps trying
to express beyond the initial 'flat' image.
Regards,
Marty.
__________________
Martin R.
Grove
Vitality...
Hi Folks
I suspect that the "idiosyncrasies" found in Turkmen weavings
are just that, but of the weaver, not the rug. She obviously had the time and
ability to impart a certain vitality to the weaving. Autostereogram? An artifact
of intoxicant use? Come on guys. 
Dave
3D - Waving
Hi,
Steve wrote
____________________
You (John Lewis)
wrote, I do not believe that modern weavers have the abilty to DELIBERATELY
create the effect that I see. By this, I assume that you mean, (1)they don't
know how to do it, not (2) that there's some magic that weavers once possessed
that they no longer have.
____________________
1 I do not believe
modern weavers know how to do it.
2 It was never magic, the old weavers
possessed a (learned) skill and they no longer have it because they are
dead.
As for "waving in the wind" there was a suggestion (cannot remember
from whom - Moskova(?)) that chuvals derived from the banners carried into
battle by the mongols and chinese, so it isn't a new idea.
My point is
that the fluidity/3D/waving effect was put there deliberately and is heightened
when stoned.
I did not say the weavers were stoned when they were
weaving.
Supporting the view that it was deliberate is the difference in
gul heights - which is clearly measurable.
Who has observed the "waving"
effect (stoned or otherwise)?
Good Morning, John
Of course, the dead weavers no longer have the
skill or knowledge to do it. Careless wording on my part. Do you believe that
modern weavers still have that skill and knowledge? That it was unique to
Turkmen weavers?
The difference in gul heights as one progresses up the
juval is consistent with weaver intent to convey three-dimensionality (assuming
that it is observable in a large enough sample to be general), but there are
other possible explanations, simple and testable. Vincent Keers has often
pointed out that motifs become more "squashed" as one progresses from the end
woven first to the end woven last in rugs produced in rustic settings. That is
another possible explanation and, if true, the illusion of dimensionality is
simply a side effect. One way to test this is to see if guls become smaller as
they progress from the elem end to the top of a juval, or if they become smaller
as they progress toward the end woven last.
Regards
Steve
Price
Good morning all,
My name popped up so maybe I can help.
The motives become
elongated if the warplength is fixed and the tension in the warps can't be
adjusted (simple loom) and the wefst are inserted with the same amount of force
and thereby are pushed up by the warps. If the wefts are given more ease, the
rug gets wider. (A trapezium upside down)
The motives become flat if the
warplength is fixed and the wefts are given more ease when inserted. When
finished the rug looks like a trapezium.
The motives don't change in
hight or in width if a rolerbeam is used and the wefts are cut at both sides.
India, Tabriz etc.
The motives become compressed or elongated if the
designer/weaver changes the motive by skipping or adding lines. This could proof
intentional perspective (The V&A Tabriz).
So far Felix.
Best
regards.
I think the 3D effects are as much about the perception and portrayal of the passage of time as they are about the perception and portrayal of space. Sue
3D and weft compression
Yes Vincent, I had considered it to be a warp compression effect but I do not
think it is because
1 the borders show no evidence of
compression.
2 on some chuvals the top row is smallest, others the bottom
row.
3 the gul height also varies left to right.
There seem to be
a number of people in this forum that deliberately misunderstand, or re-state
what I have said, adding their own interpretation. For example, Steve, I never
said that the gul height varied up the column.
I have also made it clear
that I am also only talking about turkmen weavings, not because the effect only
happens with them but because I can only talk about what I know.
The
original poster Mike McCollough gave up, and Sue Zimmerman implied that getting
a message across is akin to banging ones head against a brick wall.
I
don't mind people being sceptical but unless they have tried to create the
conditions where the "waving" effect is seen, I cannot take their opinions
seriously.
Jack Cassin seems to be correct about Turkotek, but putting it
more kindly than he would "don't expect much and you won't be disappointed"
seems to be a fair description of the site.
So, Mr. Lewis, why don’t you go and post on Jack Cassin’s website?
I’m
sure you will enjoy each other.
Regards,
Filiberto
So now you just ask people to leave when you don't approve of their opinion?
Hi John
My apologies for misunderstanding what you meant about gul
height variation. Jim Allen's original proposal about the illusion of depth in
old Turkmen juvals was based in part on gul height becoming progressively
smaller going from the row closest to the elem to the row at the other end. I
assumed that you saw the same thing.
Mike McCullough, who raised the
subject, began by presenting it as a phenomenon peculiar to Turkmen weavings,
and only to older ones. Here's his opening salvo, from the first post in this
thread:
i think everyone is missing what sets turkmen weavings apart from
all other weavings.
turkmen weavers are masters of optical illusion that not
even skilled persian weavers can recreate, which is why they were and are in
such demand.
this is also why they are so captivating,...
The
nature of the illusions under consideration have lurched around quite a bit
since then, the most recent variation being the illusion of movement, and it
hasn't been easy to keep track of who is proposing what at any
moment.
I'm sorry Mike gave up, although his insistence that he wanted to
learn and discover by research and effort, not by supposition and opinion
seems to me to be inconsistent with the irritation he expressed when confronted
with evidence that might cause his hypothesis to be modified. Whether I can see
what he (or you) can see is irrelevant to whether the weaver intended anyone to
see it, knew she was creating the perception he (or you) get from viewing her
work and, if she did, what her reasons were for doing it.
You just said,
I don't mind people being sceptical but unless they have tried to create the
conditions where the "waving" effect is seen, I cannot take their opinions
seriously. The "waving" effect wasn't even introduced until rather late in
this thread, and I think one of the things that hampers our ability to come to
any kind of a consensus about what's going on is that the subject keeps
changing.
So, let me try again to find out what we're talking about. Is
it
1. The phenomenon that Jim Allen first reported in 1991, in which he
argued that guls near to "opening end" of old Turkmen juvals appear to be
further away than those near the elem, and that they appear to 'float" above the
surface of the textile?
2. Some other illusion of three-dimensionality of the
whole textile?
3. The effect resulting from focusing on pairs of
not-quite-identical guls giving the illusion of single, three dimensional
guls?
4. The illusion of motion in old Turkmen juvals? It isn't clear to me
whether the illusion is to guls moving on a stationary field or to the whole
juval sort of flapping as a banner in a breeze.
I'm sorry if I offend,
but one of the tricks to getting the right answers is to ask the right
questions. If the phenomenon of interest can be described fairly crisply, it
becomes possible to explore its possible basis and from there, to go into the
more difficult questions of the weaver's perceptions of it.
I understand
Sue's frustration, but she likes to speak in riddles and expects others to
understand her meaning. Consider her post of earlier today, the complete text of
which is,
I think the 3D effects are as much about the perception and
portrayal of the passage of time as they are about the perception and portrayal
of space. Sue
I give up, what's the next
clue?
Regards
Steve Price
Hi "Maxim"
I think Filiberto was being facetious. Despite the fact
that the proponents of the three-dimensional and waving banner properties of
Turkmen weavings think I'm closed minded for not jumping right into the parade
of support for it, Cassin thinks the whole notion is too stupid to warrant
discussion. Day before yesterday, he called this the most ludicrous thread
ever posted anyhwere on the net about Turkmen weavings.
He also
appears to read my remarks on it as supportive, not skeptical. Some people live
in very private worlds.
Regards
Steve Price
Apologies
G'day all.
My apologies to all participants for my disconnected post
where I made reference to a seeming 'movement' which may be noticed in some rugs
and carpets.
The comments I made were really only to acknowledge my
belief that it may be quite possible for very experienced creators of weavings
to introduce certain 'perceivable' elements of 'dimentionality' in a deliberate
and intentional way.
That I posted at all is really a confirmation that I
found the original theory posted about an 'effect' observed in Turkman gulled
weavings interesting and possible.
Sorry to chuck a boomerang into the
works.
Regards,
Marty.
Last words
Filiberto/Steve,
The "waving" effect was in my second posting which
was hardly late in the thread.
Twice I had to clarify misconceptions
that had been introduced.
Unless you try to re-create what I see, then
you are unlikely to see it. I thought Steve was a scientist? It is called
experimentation - the empirical method, so "don't criticise what you can't
understand".
Closed minds - but then of course, if both you AND Jack
Cassin think it is stupid then it must be so - it seems for once you agree with
him on something - (although I interpreted JC's comments to be more directed to
the autostereo effect).
So Filiberto, I will leave you to your cosy
Turkotek world.
'bye
Dear mr. Lewis,
1 the borders show no evidence of
compression.
If the borders are ok, the field must be ok.
Same rhythm. Because the borders show more design it doesn't show.
2
on some chuvals the top row is smallest, others the bottom row.
Please read Felix laws again.
3 the gul height also
varies left to right.
That's sloppy work or an irregular
spin that causes natural stretch because it was used etc.
What we
think we see can be tested: Count the knots. If the knot count is regular, it
must be elongation or compression. Was/is what we see intentional? I don't think
so because sometimes the gulls get compressed and sometimes they get elongated
and sometimes they all show the same size.
So sometimes we see it and
sometimes not.
Different working conditions, different looms, different
people, different results.
That's what it's all about. Made by hand.
Is
this disappointing? Not for me.
Have I seen elongated or compressed rugs
in general? I've stopped counting them.
The Kazak I restored (Sort of Kazak
show & tell) shows elongation in a way I like it and it gives me a helping
hand in getting a picture about the working conditions.
About Jack
Cassin: i don't know him.
All people should be kind and refined
etc.
That's what I found on Turkotek.
Best regards,
Vincent
He
left!
Vincent
Hi John
Misconceptions arose from the fact that you were not clear
about what you meant, leaving others to try to fill in blanks. I did ask for
clarifications, more than once.
True, you introduced the "banners waving
in the wind" topic in your second post (although you didn't say that you saw the
motion in that post, only that someone thought Turkmen juvals descended from
Mongol or Chinese banners). That post was on the third day of the thread (today
is the fifth), and was the 29th post (by my casual count - it could be off by
one or two either way).
I did not say that I thought the topic stupid,
only that your implication that Cassin is more openminded about such things than
we are (Jack Cassin seems to be correct about Turkotek, but putting it more
kindly than he would "don't expect much and you won't be disappointed" seems to
be a fair description of the site) is ridiculous. Maybe Sue will offer her
take on the differences betweeen the way she is received here and on Cassin's
site as well, since the comparison has been made and she has expressed her
frustration at our attitudes..
I do view the proposal(s) made here with
skepticism, and offer no apologies for that. The notion that it's something the
weavers intended the observer to see is an interesting idea, may have some
basis, but can't be accepted without critical examination. Whether I can see it
or not isn't relevant at all. "Experimentation" as a scientific method implies
procedures that give objective, reproducible results, not efforts to share
another person's subjectivity. I am perfectly willing to stipulate that the
perception exists (and have said so repeatedly in this thread), although it
would make the rest of the exploration easier if someone would take the time to
fully describe what it is. Whatever it is, demonstrating that it is not a
trivial epiphenomenon (every pattern can be perceived as three dimensional with
a bit of effort) would be the next necessary step toward asking whether it was
put there by the weavers with the intention of being seen by the
viewers.
Don't criticize what you can't understand. I couldn't
agree more. I'd add, don't assume that what you don't understand is true.
Without defining the phenomenon, it can neither be understood nor criticized. My
post (about three before this one) was yet another attempt to get the proponents
to define it. What the hell, here it is again:
So, let me try again to
find out what we're talking about. Is it
1. The phenomenon that Jim Allen
first reported in 1991, in which he argued that guls near to "opening end" of
old Turkmen juvals appear to be further away than those near the elem, and that
they appear to 'float" above the surface of the textile?
2. Some other
illusion of three-dimensionality of the whole textile?
3. The effect
resulting from focusing on pairs of not-quite-identical guls giving the illusion
of single, three dimensional guls?
4. The illusion of motion in old Turkmen
juvals? It isn't clear to me whether the illusion is to guls moving on a
stationary field or to the whole juval sort of flapping as a banner in a
breeze.
Until that question is answered, I see no way to make
progress toward interpreting the significance of the phenomenon or deciding
whether it has any.
Regards
Steve Price
Hi John,
I think that I have been one of the skeptics who has
discouraged you, and I apologize if you think that I have been deliberately
close-minded or rude. Let me just recount a few points that I think are salient
with regard to the subject matter of this thread, and to the general manner of
discourse.
First, Mike's initial post spoke specifically of a 3-D effect
on older Turkmen weavings, and even instructions on how to visualize it. He
called it a "stereogram". It was also my assessment that he was describing an
"autostereogram" effect. I agreed that such a visual effect was present on
weavings, but I wasn't sure that it was restricted to old Turkmen weavers, which
seemed to be an important part of Mike's discovery. I said that I could see the
same effect on modern rugs, and even presented a new Pakistani Bokhara rug as an
example that both I and my daughter could see clearly. Mike hasn't posted since
then so I don't know if he can see a stereogram on the Pak Bokhara or whether he
has tried it on others. It would seem to me a small matter for Mike to try out
the stereogram experiment on that Bokhara and a few others and let us know if
that is what he was describing. If not, then I think the onus would be on him to
let us know what is different.
You called Mike's "autostereogram" a "red
herring", and indicated that in addition to the 3-D effect, you saw old Turkmen
chuvals "waving", especially when you are stoned. You further indicated
that:
1) You saw other things when you are stoned, too.
2) You have never
even tried to see this visual effect on ANY other type of weaving.
3) You
think the effect you see was created deliberately by early Turkmen weavers by
varying gul sizes and designing borders in a particular way.
I would say
that I too see some "wavering" when I look for an extended time at a stereogram.
Is that the same as you see (stoned or sober)? Who can tell.
Since you
haven't even tried to recreate this visual image on other weavings, and have
expressed no intent to do so, it suggests that you expect others to pursue your
hypothesis with more vigour than you are prepared to expend.
Vincent has
given some clear "mechanical" reasons for variability in gul dimensions, even
suggesting some specific strategies for determining if this variability is
deliberate. You have not indicated whether you think this is a possibility, or
whether you intend to investigate this alternate hypothesis. I would say that I
have seen other rugs that create very cool "alive stereograms", and they too
have some variability in the dimensions of various repetitive design elements.
But they are not make by Turkmen and I doubt if they were deliberately creating
that visual effect.
In any case, I have come to the conclusion that you
are not open to alternate hypotheses, which is why I had stopped participating
in this discussion a while back.
Regards,
James.
Tekke Example?
G'day all,
As an example of what I believe Mr McCullough is attempting
to show us is perhaps one I found on -
Page 151 in 'The World Of Carpets'
by Maurizio Cohen -
1966 Crescent Books USA.
The rug is a 19th
century Tekke, and the guls seem be be individually and carefully shaped, sized
and positioned in the rows, in a very deliberate way, and to me seems an attempt
to create 'dimensionality' and dare I say it, appears to present movement of
sorts.
Having only read about the torments and tensions of strung wools
upon a loom, and the efforts weavers make to bring the whole lot together in the
completed pattern, maybe this is what has happened here, but overall I would say
the rug is very successful. Its also extremely beautiful.
If anyone out
there was able to find the picture in question, and have the means to
reproproduce it here, is it legally permissable?
Perhaps Mr Cohen is
known to Turkotek, and might give his permission. Its a fair example I think of
what this discussion may be about.
Regards,
Marty.
__________________
Martin R.
Grove
Published date wrong
Apols all,
The published date of Mr Cohens nice book is 1996 rpt 1996
Crescent Books, sorry,
Marty.
__________________
Martin R.
Grove
Hi Marty
Scanning and posting the image here presents no legal
problems. We are noncommercial and nonpromotional, so we aren't using someone
else's intellectual property for profit. In addition, the "fair use" clauses in
copyright law allow anyone to reproduce excerpts of copyrighted work for the
purposes of discussion.
I think we ought to be cautious about a few
things:
1. Not all of what we perceive is necessarily what the weaver
intended for us to perceive. Believing that we are able to see into the mind of
a stranger in a foreign culture is probably going to get us misinformation much
more often than it gets us truth. We probably can't know weaver intentions
without some ancillary evidence.
2. Characteristics that are universal (or
nearly so) can reasonably be assumed to be part of the weaver's tradition. When
you have to look at hundreds of pieces to find one with a particular
characteristic, believing that it is a general property of the weavers of that
culture is a pretty big leap.
Regards
Steve Price
Big Leap
G'day Mr Price,
Thanks for giving me understanding of the legalities
of reproducing pics which I was oblivious to, and you are entirely right in
indicating that we cannot know whether there was any deliberate intent by the
weaver to show something which we may think we see, and I stand corrected 
, nevertheless, when I get
the pics up of the Ghochan (which will REALLY make Mr Saroskin shudder), I do
intend to try and describe what I see that perhaps the weaver really was
describing when she put the design together.
Its all fanciful and
speculative, and Id love to get into it now, but without the picture, my
inadequacy with words will be too apparent.
Regards,
Marty.
__________________
Martin R.
Grove
Hi Marty
I enjoy fantasy and speculation as much as the next fellow, I just try to make
sure it's identified for what it is. Looking forward to seeing the images.
Regards from up over,
Steve Price