Posted by Wendel Swan on July 30, 1999 at 10:43:34:
In Reply to: Re: Shahsavan weavings posted by Marla Mallett on July 30, 1999 at 09:19:33:
Marla posted, in part:
: Now you've gotten my dander up--with the statement, "...because they are easier and cheaper to make, flatweaves are the utilitarian structures. And no culture tends to value its merely utilitarian products." Sorry...Can't let this one slide by without a protest!
Dear Marla,
Excuse the mumbling while I take my foot out of my mouth.
My post was hasty. I had in mind the unadorned grain sacks and other plain or very simple weavings (to which you have often referred) when I said "merely utilitarian."
My purpose was to contrast pile of limited utilitarian value (e.g., abrasion resistance, warmth) and therefore a "luxury" with the simplest of flatweaves which are made to be used ("purely utilitarian"). I blithely ignored the many complex and beautiful varieties of flatweaves in my comparison. In the very broadest context then, my belief was and remains that for nomads pile is a luxury while flatweaves are utilitarian.
But I should never have implied that all flatweaves are "merely utilitarian." I know better.
Thanks for the insight into what the Anatolian semi-nomads consider to be luxury.
I hope that this post is not a "foot-substitution weave," that is, taking one foot out of my mouth while putting the other in.
Best regards,
Wendel