March 15th, 2009, 01:27 PM  1
Filiberto Boncompagni
The Pearl Carpet of Baroda

A friend, knowing my passion for rugs, sent me the following text with two pictures:
The Pearl Carpet of Baroda, which will be auctioned off at Sotheby's Doha on March 19, 2009 with a starting bid of five million US dollars, is made of rubies, sapphires, diamonds, and pearls. It is traditionally believed that the carpet was ordered by the Indian Maharajah Kande Rao Gaekwar of Baroda to be offered as a gift to the tomb of Islam's Prophet Mohammed in the Saudi city of Medina, but due to his death the gift was never delivered and was instead kept as a state treasure. It is not clear when the carpet was taken out of India.





More images here.

And here’s Sotheby’s relevant page, with interesting historical notes.

Yes, true, generally we don’t discuss items on the market but let’s make an exception this time. I mean, considering the starting bid... a bit out of our collective reach, I’d rather guess.


Then, that’s definitely a workshop carpet, isn’t it?
Yuck.
Just what I need for my bathroom.

Regards,

Filiberto

Note: This post appeared briefly, then was removed until the sale ended. The carpet sold for a little less than $5.5 million.
March 19th, 2009, 09:33 PM   2
Steve Price

Hi Filiberto

It's "court art", and like most court art (and much religious art) its intended use is as a display of great wealth. To some, it's beautiful, expressive, and artistic. To others (me, for instance), it's about as beautiful and expressive as a pile of gold bars of comparable monetary value. It is certainly interesting, of documented age and provenance.

Regards

Steve Price
March 20th, 2009, 04:13 AM 3
Stephen Louw

To my taste, this is hideous and a monument to the triumph of conspicuous consumption over artistic endeavour. Clearly the buyer who just paid 5,458,500 USD (inc commissions but less taxes) does not share that view. The highest price yet paid for an oriental carpet!
March 20th, 2009, 04:36 AM   4
Filiberto Boncompagni

What I find most appealing and the reason I posted it is, after all, the name itself.
Say it loud:

The Pearl Carpet of Baroda

It sounds like the title of a fairy tale… It evokes fabulous images, the world of Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves, Aladdin, Sinbad the Sailor… Pure Orientalist Romanticism.

The item itself is absolute kitsch.

However, the stuff that makes it is certainly “fabulous” in the “wealthy” meaning of the term. Guess it will hold its value during these financially turbulent times.

The owner should have an underground bunker to keep it.

Mmmmh…



Pat?
March 20th, 2009, 05:52 AM  5
James Blanchard
Devil's advocate...

Hi all,

But it's not really a carpet, is it? I don't like the look of it, but if it didn't have a border and field design it probably wouldn't feature on Turkotek at all, and we wouldn't assess it aesthetically with a "ruggie's eye".

I tend to dislike these ornate things, but I am pretty sure that the price was not determined by the sheer beauty of the object. It is old, extremely rare (unique), seems to have an impressive provenance, and the materials are pretty pricey. Many rugs and fragments have probably sold for similar reasons, regardless of their aesthetic qualities. I sometimes watch "Antiques Roadshow" and am often perplexed by the huge value of some dusty old baseball cards or garish old Tiffany work, but I think I understand the market principle.

Isn't the world is full of art and artifacts that represent conspicuous wealth? Some of it looks better than other, but the basic principle is no different for the attractive stuff.

James
March 20th, 2009, 06:14 AM   6
Steve Price

Hi James

There's a whole subset of stuff that's simply intended to display the wealth and power of the owner. Court art (of which this is an example) is almost always of this type; religious art often is, too. That's true for this carpet, palaces and cathedrals, elaborately jeweled garments, even personal servants waving palm fronds.

One especially interesting group is the shrine to Tokugawa at Nikko. Tokugawa united Japan, and before his death he instructed his sons to have the Japanese nobility compete to build the most elaborate and expensive monuments to him. Nikko (about an hour from Tokyo) was chosen as the place, and is the most unbelievable collection of non-utilitarian buildings imaginable. The basic idea behind doing it was that it would prevent the nobility from resuming their wars by keeping them nearly bankrupt. It worked.

In general, how someone wealthier than I am chooses to spend his money doesn't agitate me unless it's being used for something sinister.

Regards

Steve Price
March 20th, 2009, 06:44 AM  7
Filiberto Boncompagni

Hi James,
Quote:
But it's not really a carpet, is it?
Well, it is NOT a knotted carpet, but it IS a carpet and at Sotheby’s they had no doubts about it.

Read the Catalogue Notes:
http://www.sothebys.com/app/live/lot/LotDetail.jsp?lot_id=159528984
I copy here one of them:

Bejewelled Textiles: An Ancient Tradition

Bejewelled textiles embellished with metallic thread and precious and semi-precious gems were not unknown in the eastern world. Weavings decorated in such manner were kept in very high regard not only in India but also in Safavid Persia and Ottoman Turkey. The prestige of these textiles is illustrated in a portrait of Mehmet II, one of the most powerful rulers of the early modern ages, where Gentile Bellini (1429-1507) depicted the Sultan in an architectural niche partially covered with a bejewelled weaving whose embroidery echoes the Renaissance bas-relief carving of the arch framing the sitter.6 The earliest known bejewelled carpets, adorned with pearls, jewels, and gold, date from the Sassanian period (226-636) in Persia.7 According to Pope, the rugs in Khusraw II's (590-628) throne room in the palace at Ctesiphon were "said to have been made of gold-woven fabrics with pearls embroidered on them." 8 The largest carpet, which represented a garden in full bloom, in Kushraw II's palace was even more elaborately decorated with gemstones and was called the Spring of Khusraw or Winter Carpet.9 Later, fables from The Thousand and One Nights also mention carpets decorated with pearls, rubies, and turquoise, not unlike the weaving in the portrait by Bellini, from the times of the Abassid Caliphate (750-1258).10 The Pearl Carpet of Baroda is an exceptional 19th century revival of this ancient form. Existing examples of nineteenth-century Indian textile art show the continuity of the tradition of embellishing fabrics with three-dimensional adornments. For lengths of dress material from the 1850s decorated with metallic thread and pieces of sparkling beetle wing, an inexpensive alternative to gemstones, see Rosemary Crill, Indian Embroidery, London, 1999, figs. 62 and 64, pp. 70-73.

Cheers,
Filiberto
March 20th, 2009, 07:11 AM 8
James Blanchard

Hi Filiberto,

But I still think it is apples and oranges. I still consider it a jewel-sequin embroidered piece of cloth that happens to be shaped like a rug and with a rug design.

But maybe this will open up a whole new vista for Turkotek. Imagine the fun that Turkotekkers could have discussing the socio-cultural significance and utilitarian function of items like this, if not shown in context.



(Please, no comments on value since this item might still be for sale on the internet).

James
March 20th, 2009, 11:38 AM  9
Steve Price

Hi James

It's not exactly a carpet, at least in the sense that a carpet is usually something that we'd enjoy feeling underfoot as we walk on it without shoes. But ruggies collect and admire lots of textiles that aren't carpets, many of which are purely decorative. I have a feeling that the negativity the Baroda generates in many people (including me, by the way) is related mostly to its sheer extravagance. I'm generally not interested in workshop carpets, and neither are most of the Turkotek gang, but I don't think many of us would find a wool carpet of the same size, colors and design nearly as off-putting as this one. Of course, nobody would pay $5.5 million for it in wool, so it wouldn't come to our attention anyway.

Regards

Steve Price
March 20th, 2009, 12:17 PM   10
Stephen Louw

"It's not exactly a carpet, at least in the sense that a carpet is usually something that we'd enjoy feeling underfoot as we walk on it without shoes"

Speak for yourself Steve
March 20th, 2009, 12:49 PM  11
Steve Price

Hi Stephen

Point well taken.

Regards

Steve Price
March 20th, 2009, 04:09 PM   12
Patrick Weiler
Bunker This, Mister!

Filiberto,

You wrote:
"The owner should have an underground bunker to keep it.
Mmmmh…
Pat?"

What makes you think I DIDN'T buy it?

Patrick Weiler

P.S. It is rather bumpy underfoot.
March 24th, 2009, 01:05 PM   13
Derek Dyckman

Hi Folks,

If Sir George Birdwood classified it as 'the most wonderful piece of embroidery ever known' then that's probably not to far off the mark. To classify this multi-sectioned, bejewelled chador in the carpet category knowing it's history & original purpose for being would be more of a savvy sales pitch than actual fact one would think.

Although I was a little short on funds for this auction - to see it once as Birdwood so elequently described in the 'The Industrial Art of India' : "When spread out in the sun it seemed suffused with a general iridescent pearly bloom, as grateful to the eyes as were exquisite forms of its arabesques." - would probably suffice.


Derek Dyckman
March 28th, 2009, 06:59 AM   14
Steve Price

Hi All

In reading through this thread, one of the things I find interesting is the range of reactions the Baroda carpet elicits. Stephen Louw is repulsed by the extravagance; James Blanchard and I share the notion that although it has obvious monetary value it is aesthetically and artistically boring; Derek Dyckman cites a 19th century source referring to it as the most wonderful embroidery ever created. The HALI report on the sale refers to it as ... perhaps the most expensive piece of ‘kitsch’ ever seen ... (http://www.hali.com/News.aspx?Action=-617781463&ID=726fa630-9273-4114-950f-244ad39afe50).

De gustibus non est disputandum.

Regards

Steve Price
March 28th, 2009, 08:13 AM   15
James Blanchard

Hi Steve,

I still wonder whether or how the "rug community" would react if this pearl encrusted embroidery was not in a rug design format. It is completely extravagant and meant to symbolize idle wealth, and doesn't meet with the usual aesthetic standards of rug collectors. The colours aren't right (how could they be... it is not wool, but pearls and glass beads), and the drawing is stiff, etc. Just for fun, how do Turkotekkers react to the following?

James

March 28th, 2009, 01:09 PM   16
Horst Nitz

Hi James,

this looks much better. I wonder what it is, detail from a 16th or 17th century Persian Medallion carpet? Or something 3-dimensional even?

Best

Horst
March 28th, 2009, 02:26 PM  17
Richard Larkin

Hi James,

In a word, I like it, but that and $1.65 is worth a cup of coffee. How about this: The circular paradigm for the medallion is actually longer vertically than wide at the ratio of 1:1.086, judging from a quick measurement on the screen of my monitor. Assuming the cartoon was calling for a true circle, is the variation a failure in the weaving for so refined a piece? Or would the achievement of a perfect circle be even more boring?

As far as the Baroda "carpet" is concerned, I find it curious and remarkable, and might be very impressed to see it up close. But I don't relate it to a carpet, as that category interests me, any more than if it were a wagon wheel.

Rich Larkin
March 28th, 2009, 09:00 PM  18
James Blanchard

Hmmm....

Actually, I like it too, in a certain way. Any other guesses about what it is?

James
March 29th, 2009, 11:50 AM   19
Filiberto Boncompagni

A Safavid painted ceiling/vault?
March 29th, 2009, 03:51 PM  20
Derek Dyckman

Hi James,

That yellow screams Safavid to me as well. The 16 points to the medallion and apparent lack of any animal motifs leads to a design intended for use in a place of worship.

I have seen some beautiful tomb coverings from that era but all were much more somber in their coloring .....


Derek Dyckman
March 29th, 2009, 06:29 PM   21
James Blanchard
End of the suspense...

Hi all,

Well, here is a wider image of this object. To be honest, I am not sure what sort of rug it is. I saw it several years ago, and although my taste is generally not inclined towards this sort of rug, it held a certain appeal. It is surely made as an "art" piece, but without the jewels of the "Pearl Carpet".

James

March 29th, 2009, 10:16 PM 22
Rich Larkin

Well, gee, James. I thought it was a trick question, so I buried my first impulse, that it was a rug. I'm thinking maybe, Tabriz...?

Rich Larkin

P. S. Is the center of the medallion really biased towards one end, or is it an illusion due to the angle of the photo?
March 30th, 2009, 08:02 AM   23
James Blanchard

Hi Rich,

Well, considering the responses, I gather that it was a bit of a trick question.

My point in showing this example in this context was two-fold. First, it reminded me about how some rugs mimic other forms of decorative arts, just as the "Pearl Carpet" does. Also, on a much lesser scale, these sorts of rugs with very fine weaving and silk materials were meant to be items of luxury.

My question around this relates to the reaction of Turkotekkers to the "Pearl Carpet". I wonder if some of the negative reactions are because we generally don't like these very fancy sorts of weavings (not "tribal", made by cartoon, highly commercial), or because we don't like how the "Pearl Carpet" looks, or because it is just too extravagant, with all of the pearls, etc.

I think the dimensional issues are probably created by the camera angle.

James
March 30th, 2009, 08:26 AM   24
Steve Price

Hi James

I wonder if some of the negative reactions are because we generally don't like these very fancy sorts of weavings (not "tribal", made by cartoon, highly commercial), or because we don't like how the "Pearl Carpet" looks, or because it is just too extravagant, with all of the pearls, etc.

In general, Turkotek folks aren't enthused about workshop rugs, but their negative reactions aren't usually expressed very strongly. I doubt that anyone here finds the aesthetics of the Baroda carpet so awful that they simply can't bear to see it. The words Danny Shaffer used in his HALI review of the sale include, ... perhaps the most expensive piece of ‘kitsch’ ever seen ... That hits the nail right on the head for me, probably for many others.

Regards

Steve Price
March 30th, 2009, 08:31 PM   25
Patrick Weiler
Nice Rug!

Dare I say one man's kitsch is another man's Kircheim?

Patrick Weiler
March 30th, 2009, 08:56 PM   26
Steve Price

Hi Pat

Kirchheim had what was probably the most expensive collection of antique oriental rugs ever assembled by an individual, but I don't think any of it would be called "kitsch". My understanding of the term is that it refers to things made for the specific purpose of flaunting extravagance.

Regards

Steve Price
March 30th, 2009, 09:47 PM  27
Dinie Gootjes

Hi Steve,

I would think kitsch is something that imitates or pretends to be art, while missing the originality, the spark of the real thing. Not so much extravagance, but pretense, tastelessness. Which then would imply a judgment about the aesthetic value of this pearl carpet.

Dinie
March 30th, 2009, 09:47 PM  28
Joel Greifinger

Hi Steve,

Quote:
Kitsch is vicarious experience and faked sensations. Kitsch changes according to style. but remains always the same. Kitsch pretends to demand nothing of its customers except their money-not even their time.
Clement Greenberg
I think the hallmark of kitsch is not so much conspicuous extravagance but the attempt to associate oneself with high status tastes through the acquisition of shoddy and exaggerated imitations. As a term, it originated in the sentimentality in both the visual arts and theater that evolved particularly in Germany as romanticism became popular with the aspiring petty bourgeoisie. Tasteless extravagance isn't necessarily kitsch. Inferior or embellished and sentimentalized copies of such extravagance are kitsch. While the former is presumptuous the latter is embarrassingly pretentious. Sort of the Scylla and Charybdis of bad taste.

While the Pearl Carpet was not kitsch when it was produced (though it was certainly meant to project its extravagance), it may certainly have become kitsch in its current context of consumption.

Joel Greifinger

Last edited by Joel Greifinger; March 30th, 2009 at 10:12 PM.
March 30th, 2009, 10:40 PM   29
Steve Price

Hi Joel

I like Clement Greenberg's definition very much, and it articulates my gut feeling on the subject much better than I could. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitsch) is wordier, but more complete.

Steve Price
March 31st, 2009, 12:15 AM   30
Patrick Weiler
oops, I got it backwards

Sorry,

For the non-Tappeto-centric it should actually be:
"One man's Kircheim is another man's kitsch."

Weiler, Patrick
March 31st, 2009, 09:08 AM   31
Steve Price

Hi Pat

I don't mean to drag this out, but the late Heinrich Kirchheim may have had the best collection of oriental rugs of our time. He loved rugs and generously shared his affection for them, exhibiting his collection at ICOC in Hamburg and subsidizing the cost of publishing a lavish volume (Orient Stars) in order to keep the final price within reach of the proletariat. Rugdom owes him a lot; neither he nor his collection was pretentious or kitschy by any reasonable definition of the words.

Regards

Steve Price
March 31st, 2009, 10:13 AM   32
James Blanchard

Hi all,

To put a finer point on this topic, would anyone care to offer any opinions about which, if any, rugs or carpets (made with pile knotting) could be classified as "kitsch"? To make the discussion more meaningful, I would suggest that we exclude inexpensive modern rugs (like Pak Bokharas).

Is a very fine silk on silk rug with over 1000 kpsi "kitsch"?

James
March 31st, 2009, 10:13 AM   33
Patrick Weiler
But Of Course!

Steve,

The reason I use Kircheim is because his was the greatest modern collection of the finest antique oriental carpets in the world. And whomever bought this Pearl Carpet of Baroda will likely have the finest bejeweled masterpiece of that type in the entire world.

That person may well think all the fuss we make about old, ratty rugs is just as absurd as the feelings we have for the crown in his collection. It is merely a matter of perspective. Which explains why I felt the need to turn the phrase around - so it would make more sense from the rug collector perspective.
I certainly have no intention of dissing Heinrich Kircheim, nor his collection. You could shine Kircheim's shoes with my collection, comparatively speaking.
And now I need to place a "smiley" here, but you do not have one similar to the cat and mouse hitting each other with mallets, but with Einstein hitting Groucho.



Patrick Weiler
March 31st, 2009, 10:23 AM   34
Richard Larkin

Hi Steve,

Not that Pat, a man with at least one serious, fortified bunker needs me to explain for him; but I think he meant to speak a version of "One man's meat is another man's poison." That is, there's no accounting for taste. Kitsch would be at the one extreme, and Kircheim the other.

Joel,

Nobody explains these aesthetico-philosophical issues better than you; but I don't quite get how the Baroda can start out one way and end up another (as kitsch). I think of kitsch much as Dinie does, with the emphasis on shoddy imitation of high style, and the conspicuous lack of originality. Perhaps there's another suitably pejorative term for crass and otentatious consumption.

Rich Larkin

Last edited by Richard Larkin; March 31st, 2009 at 03:48 PM.
March 31st, 2009, 01:12 PM   35
Joel Greifinger
One man's kitsch...

Hi Rich,

I admit that I am trying to move the notion of kitsch from a quality inhering in the object to a more situated and contextual concept. For instance, ostentation is integral to monarchy. There are many artefacts created to glorify the monarch that are masterfully made and evoke awe. I don't believe that, in that context, such objects are kitsch.

I am suggesting that if we take such objects, or even well-made copies and display them in a context where they appear to be aping such monarchical grandeur in a pretentous and sentimental manner, this should fit under the family resemblance concept we label 'kitsch'. I think such an extension is in keeping with its critical usefulness in making judgements, particularly of the perrenial romantic elements within modernity. I think this harks back to part of Greenberg's definition: "vicarious experience."


If you think that's over inclusive...

Of course, that doesn't mean I intend to give up the 3/4 sized hand-carved replica of Michaelangelo's David in my living room.

Joel Greifinger

P.S. If we genuinely thought that it was futile to "dispute taste", virtually all discussion on this site would abruptly cease. No more normative ruminating on "good colors" and whether the piece has a pleasing drawing. Most of what may be viewed as purely descriptive (e.g. design degeneration or decreased tribal spontaneity) is also thinly-veiled evaluation. While we may never uncover a fact about the world that exists independent of us in such discussions, I believe we can nonetheless learn some truths about our shared social world. Words like 'kitsch' are useful in such discussions in order to make persuasive arguments in support of the virtues of our tastes.

Last edited by Joel Greifinger; March 31st, 2009 at 04:39 PM.
March 31st, 2009, 11:42 PM   36
Patrick Weiler
Kitsch Karpets?

James,

I would classify many of the early 20th century Soviet-era carpets with likenesses of their Esteemed Leaders to be kitsch karpets. Likewise, later Afghan War Carpets tread perilously in that arena. Bleeding, garish Persian replica bags of the 1970's era impertinently protrude into kitschland, as they were never actually made to be used as utilitarian bags but instead sold as tourist trinkets to evoke the romantic past of the hardy nomad.
Art-Silk, synthetically colored Turkish small rugs from the 2nd half of the 20th century, aping the classic silk prayer rugs of the 18th century, would also qualify.
Several other rugs of this ilk are currently being stored in my really, really deep underground, radioactive-resistant Super-Fund bunker. I hope to receive a government grant to safely dispose of them.

Patrick Weiler
April 1st, 2009, 09:46 AM   37
Derek Dyckman

Hi Folks,

Apparently the term(kitsch) originated in markets of Munich in the second quarter of the 19th century and was used to describe cheap, popular, yet marketable pictures/sketches. I don't think 'The Pearl Carpet of Baroda' falls into any of these categories.

It was certainly not cheap either in the era in which it was made or by today's market standards, it was not overly popular or practical by Turkotek general consensus nor, apparently, with the majority of British Raj officials who observed it.

Since it was made for a tomb covering/setting at Medina and since we never came to witness it for it's true intended use & within it's final resting place - we can only speculate as to how it may have appeared in the lighting conditions & surrounding setting of Mohammed's final resting place. Certainly, this was not cubic zirconia or some cut glass hippie experiment from the 1970's - it was made from the richest stones in the land.

Are the precious gem inlaid tombs at the Taj Mahal kitsch? Are the Sufi glazed tomb's at Multan & Halla kitsch? The Peacock Throne but a kitsch chair? Surely no curse fearing human would ever liken King Tut's tomb to this word - would they?

The fact that this bejewelled embroidery of the Princely State era survives at all given it's gem value is a small miracle. Many similar embroideries from that era where 'taken' for payment by the jaded Raj, pilfered or eventually pawned off and eventually 'dejewelled'.

No, I reflect on this piece more for the era it represented and reason for being. To attempt to seed or judge it with any present day textile or associated esthetic perception would seem undue.


Derek Dyckman

Last edited by Derek Dyckman; April 1st, 2009 at 11:29 AM.
April 1st, 2009, 10:45 AM  38
Steve Price

Hi All

One of the confounding factors in this discussion/debate/out-loud pondering is that kitsch has evolved into a word with so many meanings. The Wikipedia entry includes a fascinating account of that evolution, and is enlightening enough to make it a worthwhile read (in my opinion, at least).

Regards

Steve Price
April 6th, 2009, 09:49 PM   39
Unregistered

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Weiler
And whomever bought this Pearl Carpet of Baroda will likely have the finest bejeweled masterpiece of that type in the entire world.
OT, digging up an old topic on my first post, and may even get slammed.... Thought I would add my two cents here. While not exactly up my alley, the "rug"/"carpet" undoubtedly is a masterpiece. I was surprised it did not exceed the hammer $ it sold @.

One of the most beautiful elements to a traditional [Oriental] rug is that the weaving itself is a work in motion: Oblique weaving here, lazy stitch there.... Knots are malleable, as is the structure to a degree. The weaving process is somewhat forgiving, despite the nature of an otherwise rigid loom.

Conversely, imagine doing the same with pearls of fixed diameter, irregular shape. An "awkward" material input, the Pearl carpet proves nothing short of a mathematical feat: Few gaps, highly intricate and ornate, demonstrating a complex understanding of both design and execution. Extraordinarily symmetrical.

While I have no experience with diamonds and precious stones, it seems apparent that each cast bezel appropriately conforms to the shape of the diamonds within, alluding to careful planning and specific "destination" for each.

By no means am I alluding that this example is any better than an Oriental rug. However, I have seen this piece stir up some controversy.

Mr. Weiler above brings up an interesting point which I was not completely clear about myself. After thoroughly reviewing the catalogue from Sotheby's, it seemed as though sisters of this example may exist?

P.S. If I am not mistaken, I believe the carpet shown above may be of the Nain variety. Although not Persian, and lacking traditional medallion and more full Eslimi's typical to Nain rugs, this was also my immediate association with the Pearl Carpet despite its origin.

All the best,

David Dilmaghani
April 7th, 2009, 06:06 AM  40
Steve Price

Hi David

Thank you for providing a counter-point of view to most of those expressed here.

You are most welcome to post on Turkotek without registering, but please overwrite the word "unregistered" (in the user name field) with your name when doing so.

Thanks.

Steve Price
April 7th, 2009, 03:29 PM  41
Horst Nitz

Hi all,

perhaps it would be more adequate if we would simply say we like it or we don't, instead of introducing a concept like "kitsch" and its complex connotations. There is no culturally neutral definition to kitsch, neither is kitsch a property of an object. In my understanding kitsch is defined within the triangle of an object, the perspective of the observing subject and the cultural and / or socio-cultural context both stand in.

Personally, I can't take to the aesthetics of the rug, but I can imagine that it is an object that not only spells status, but also talks of passion, devotion and perhaps surrender to someone else, as the Taj does.

Horst
April 7th, 2009, 06:12 PM  42
Joel Greifinger
Members

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4

Hi Horst,

I agree that we need to think of 'kitsch' as a relational term with a socio-cultural dimension. I don't see why, given the domain of our shared interests, we should back away from just this sort of culturally-situated and self-consciously value-laden discussion.

Joel Greifinger
April 8th, 2009, 01:42 AM   43
Horst Nitz

Hi Joel and all,

further up James was saying “(the Baroda rug) doesn't meet with the usual aesthetic standards of rug collectors.” I think you are right, James. The rug was not made for consumption and, given the original intended function of the carpet, I believe that some of the aesthetic of it rests in what is not accessible to the eye and perhaps is altogether unexperienceable to most of us.

Horst
April 8th, 2009, 05:55 AM  44
Steve Price

Hi Horst

I'm sure you're right about that. And the fact that it is a mosaic of jewels based on pile carpet designs and layout rather than a woven textile surely impacts the aesthetics to people interested in the arts and craftsmanship of weavers. As David notes, it is a masterwork in terms of the craft that it represents.

Regards

Steve Price
April 8th, 2009, 11:43 AM   45
Joel Greifinger

Hi Steve, Horst and all,

I have to agree that in the cultural context of its production, the Pearl Carpet was clearly not kitsch, but probably awe inspiring for both splendour and workmanship. If thoughtfully displayed, perhaps in a properly historicized context in a well-curated museum exhibit, we could appreciate the work and the values it embodies whether or not we find it aesthetically appealing.

On the other hand, if displayed as an ostentatious bauble amidst one's other trophies (bought, no doubt with ill-gotten bonuses from selling credit-default swaps ), I think calling it kitsch in just the socially-situated sense that Horst suggests seems quite appropriate.

Joel Greifinger
April 8th, 2009, 03:56 PM   46
James Blanchard

Hi all,

Joel said:
Quote:
If thoughtfully displayed, perhaps in a properly historicized context in a well-curated museum exhibit, we could appreciate the work and the values it embodies whether or not we find it aesthetically appealing.
I think that a quick stroll through the Topkapi Palace Museum (Istanbul) or the Tower of London provides a glimpse of numerous examples of a similar genre of "kitsch"....

James
April 8th, 2009, 09:33 PM   47
Derek Dyckman

Hi Folks,

I'm sure a good cross section of the £13bn worth of jewels in the tower of London came from pilfered, scavenged subcontinent kitsch. But as they say one man's kitsch is another man's crown jewels.

Of course with Wilkie Collins' Novel 'The Moonstone' & the 'curse of the koh-i-noor' still ongoing/developing -these 'acquired' gems often come with a little something over and above what any new owner could ever have imagined.

To be honest the Baroda piece reminds more in the style of the elephant/horse trappings, saddles and howdah coverings that were used in the days of the Mughals & Princely States. Somehow, I don't believe that a piled tribal trapping, so collectible these days, would have made the grade in that place & era.

There is an interesting book that covers the extent to which the Muhgals/Princely States went to display their jewels. Here is a review of that reading: Trappings of a Monarchy

Quote:
Jahangir's treasury, described by William Hawkins, contained more than 37 kg of large diamonds, as many rubies, twice the weight in emeralds, semiprecious stones to infinity, 1,000 gem studded saddles, 2,000 turban ornaments, and several thrones, royal umbrellas and lances.

Derek Dyckman