Posted by R. John Howe on January 27, 1999 at 19:50:08:
In Reply to: Results of checklist posted by Nikos Salingaros on January 27, 1999 at 15:24:01:
Dear folks -
I am working a little more slowly than Dr. Salingaros but have some results of my own application experience to report. Only so far on the Tekke ensis. Long. Reported in two messages.
Rule 1:
PIC 1: Score: 1
Rationale: Some outlining in white; "candleabra" gottchaks
PIC 2: Score: 2
Rationale: Ends of candlelabras and "animal heads;" some white outlining; spandrel diamonds quartered.
PIC 3: Score: 2
Ratinale: White and dotted outlining; animal drawings; minor border division line.
Comment on rule: Mr. Alexander makes the point that designs (like buildings) are built from the smallest compononts up. I found this rule useful because it draws attention both to whether the single knot level of the design is used at all and how effectively it is used when it is. I saw things I hadn't really noticed in the same way before when I applied it. A useful rule.
Rule 2:
PIC 1: Score: 1
Rationale: Colors have a nice warmeth and are unobjectionable but not as much color range (permitted?)as rug 3. Justaposition of colors in this rugs seem "smeary' to me. Maybe the image which is small.
PIC 2: Score: 2
Rationale: Color range even narrower than rug 1 but give very high marks for seeming clarity of colors and especially their very effective justapostion. Pale images in elem may be a plus if their subtlety creates complexity in the wool but may also be a weakness if experienced as something missing.
PIC 3: Score 2
Rationale: Close examination suggested that this rug has widest color range of the three and that the color is used skillfully to distinguish even the smallest elements of various design components.
Comment on rule:
This factor seemed very familiar and as someone else has suggested does not meet my "man-on-the-street" notion of "objective." I looked it up and while some components of it could justify its use, it is furthest from that sense in which is used to describe experiences "uninfluenced by emotion, surmise and personal prejudice." Rather old-fashioned factor. One we use all the time. Nothing new here.
Rule 3:
PIC 1: Score: 1
Rationale: Use of color in this rug produces a rather "muddy" effect for me.
PIC 2: Score: 2
Rationale: Especially effective use of "gray scale" to produce strong graphic effects despite relatively limited range of "hues."
PIC 3: Score: 2
Rationale: Surprizingly skillful use of color hues in smallest elements. Are very clearly defined.
Rule 4.
PIC 1: Score: 1
PIC 2: Score: 1
PIC 3: Score: 1
Rationale: I doubt whether one will find many blobs in any Tekke design.
Comment on rule: If I understand it, it doesn't descriminate between Tekke ensis and I doubt between many Tekke weavings. Perhaps this rule should be formuated to permit evaluation of "drawing," something apparently missing in these 10 rules. If reconceived in that way my rating is PIC 1 = 2; PIC 2 = 3; PIC 3 = 1.
Rule 5:
PIC 1: Score: 1
Rationale: Feel that side sections of main border design in which plant forms are stacked on top of one another violate this rule as the design moves from the top of one plant form to the bottom of the next.
PIC 2: Score: 2
Rationale: Seems to me that the spaciousness of this design helps make it possible for neighoring constrasting elements to have complitmentary qualities.
PIC 2: Score: 1
Rationale: Again the side borders have the use of space problems between side plant forms. Animals don't hurt but don't help on this factor. Crowded elem doesn't meet this rule.
Rule 6:
PIC 1: Score: 1
PIC 2: Score: 2
PIC 3: Score: 1
Rationale: Not sure I know how to count "center" reliably but care taken with smallest building blocks in PIC 2 make me score it high. "Think" it's larger elements contain more "centers" than do those of PIC 1. Harder to tell with PIC 2 in which smallest level of detail is also well-addressed.
Rule 7:
PIC 1: Score: 1
Rationale: Side borders can't meet this rule. In general internally complex sections in this rug outnumber the plainer ones. Over balance the design in that direction.
PIC 2: Score: 2
Rationale: Again the spacious drawing of this piece give it an advantage on this rule. Busier panels in top middle and even the side curled leaf borders are clearly balance by "plainer" sections with candlabras, four animal head hatchli panels, outside border and elem.
PIC 3: Score: 1
Rationale: Almost identical to that of PIC 1 on this factor. Elem especially hard to balance off.