| Subject | : | Salon 24 Other related examples of rug one |
| Author | : | Daniel Deschuyteneer |
| Date | : | 08-24-1999 on 05:09 p.m. |
| Dear all, Through a private Email I received the following references concerning related examples of Rug1 from Maury Bynum and I reproduce them here with its permission. "For another piece like your #1 See McMullan, Islamic Caarpets, NY, 1965 Plate 52. Bud Holland had a virtually identical piece a few years ago. See HALI 44, April, '89 Ostler Ad, page 11. Maury Bynum" I haven't these pictures but if someone reading this post could make some comments it would help after the complete and very interesting post from George O'Bannon. Have these rugs the post Kustar look of Wright and Wertime one or do they also have the tribal character of mine? Cordially and many thanks for your participation If you want to contact me please click here Daniel Deschuyteneer |
| Subject | : | RE:Salon 24 Other related examples of rug one |
| Author | : | R. John Howe |
| Date | : | 08-24-1999 on 09:07 p.m. |
| Hi Daniel - Congratulations on your long-suffering spirit in the midst of all this site "construction." I have the McMullen book and took a look at 52 (Plate XV) that Maury refers to and it does have a rather mechanical "kustar" (now a swear word) look to it. Nice space, good drawing and pretty good color but is the kind of Caucasian I tend not to look at a second time these days. Yours is far more interesting to me in part because it's a more "funky," to use a technical English rug term. I do want to say one additional thing about the language we use when we talk about designs. It seems to me, as I suggested in another post that purely taxanomic comparisons are unobjectionable. If we use words like "similar" or "somewhat different," etc., there is no problem with such conversation. But part of what makes me uneasy with some conversation about "rug design tradition" is the ease with which we slide (without having earned it), into using words like "evolved" and "linage." There's a short article by William Christian,(Hali, Issue 76, page 73) a social scientist who makes some points relevant to mine here. He's mostly critiquing claims to know what rug designs "mean," but a couple of his strictures seem to me to apply here. Christian notes that the evidence of "influence" is very hard to produce. The effects of influence can be both to emulate or to turn away from partially or completely. Both the history of music and art history are full of examples. Neither similarity nor difference seems to mean much. So what we are likely missing in these conversations is precisely the connections that our conversations circle and alude to but cannot really say much accurately about. We cannot, it seems, talk with any confidence about what often seems to make analysis of rug design that moves beyond the taxonomic most interesting: the connections. Christian ends by quoting Wittegenstein's phase stricture about conversation. "Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent." Now I don't want to be a kill-joy but it seems that we require similar standards in other conversations about design (for example of people who see lots of animal forms in them). It does seem sometimes that if we always pay due attention to rigor, we may have rather little to talk about. But we would not violate Emerson's caution about "foolish consistencies" to note that there might be a need for some additional care with language in our conversations about rug design. Regards, R. John Howe |
| Subject | : | "Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent." |
| Author | : | Steve+Price |
| Date | : | 08-25-1999 on 11:33 a.m. |
| Dear John, The Wittgenstein dictum, "Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent" cited in your last post must be applied very gingerly (if at all) in our Salons. Just for openers, nobody here is required to pledge allegiance to Wittgenstein. And even if we were, there would still be the matter of what the dictum means. Must someone know everything about a subject in order to be allowed talk about it and be listened to with respect? Sounds pretty silly if that's what it means. Obviously, we can speak, Wittgenstein-wise, even if what we know is limited. But I question whether Wittgensteinism is even applicable to discussion forums like this one. We engage in exchanges of information and opinions here, and in doing so we increase what we each know and understand by kicking around the implications and evidence upon which our notions are based. We are not a society of specialized scholars of (Insert Your Favorite Discipline for Oriental Rugs in this space). If there was one, they wouldn't let most of us post on their boards, and probably wouldn't even let us read what they posted. This is not to say that we ought to enter the conversations without some thought, of course. But neither can we just hunker down and hope that someone who does know everything will come along, post the answers to all our unspoken questions and straighten out all our misinformation. (This would be the point where Patrick Weiler would say, "There are no stupid questions, only stupid people."). Steve Price |
| Subject | : | RE:Salon 24 Other related examples of rug one |
| Author | : | Yon Bard |
| Date | : | 08-25-1999 on 04:44 p.m. |
| John, I think you rather overstate the case. When the Ersari use mina-khani or herati designs, is there any reasonable doubts which way the influences went? Or can it be denied that the boteh arose in Kasmir and spread out from there? (see Jeff Spurr's remarks on Marasali rugs in current HALI). Even if we do not know the exact mechanism by which the influences spread, the influences themselves are undeniable. Regards, Yon |
| Subject | : | RE:Salon 24 Other related examples of rug one |
| Author | : | Patrick+Weiler |
| Date | : | 08-25-1999 on 11:27 p.m. |
| jpweiler@worldnet.att.net John, I agree with you that brandishing the bludgeon of "similar therefore derived from or related to" confers a status of scholarship to many of our rug ramblings without us necessarily resorting to the strictures of rigorous research. But, as Steve says, most of us are anything but professional art, textile, design and history researchers. Turkotek is a delightful opportunity to immerse ourselves in these wonderful weavings. Most of us are not jeopardizing our professional standing by blurting out ridiculous statements about rugs. I hope. Steve, I am genuinely overwhelmed by your kind words about me. However, you seem to have mistaken me for an intellectual. Some of my best friends are stupid. I have only one word to say: Forrest Gump. |
| Subject | : | RE:Salon 24 Other related examples of rug one |
| Author | : | Michael Wendorf |
| Date | : | 08-26-1999 on 11:40 a.m. |
| Patrick: Actually, Forrest Gump is two words although it could be construed to be one name thereby proving the model. Regards, Michael |
| Subject | : | RE:Salon 24 Other related examples of rug one |
| Author | : | Wendel Swan |
| Date | : | 08-27-1999 on 11:51 a.m. |
| Dear John and all, I must admit to being baffled by my friend John Howe's request that we abandon conversation (his term is "remain silent") about "rug design tradition" unless we restrict ourselves to using innocuous terms such as "similar" or "somewhat different." I will, however, let this serve as my last post on the matter. The literature abounds with informed discussion about rug design origins. Whether or not one accepts their individual premises, Murray Eiland, Jon Thompson, Charles Grant Ellis, Parviz Tanavoli, Walter Denny, Jim Opie, Bruggerman and many others have written for years about design "evolution" and "lineage," words that John decries. I cannot imagine anyone denying the adaptation of certain designs from Turkey to Turkmenistan, designs that clearly can be traced back to the Seljuk period and earlier. Some exist today in almost exactly the same format as they did 500 years ago. Others have changed (evolved, devolved, adapted, adopted - you pick the term) as they have been used by different cultures. I would be the last to ascribe "meaning" to these designs, but one cannot help but observe both continuity and change. No one can say which is more important or that either has meaning, but I can't imagine how it is possible to assert that rug design "tradition" does not exist or that there is not change (evolution, devolution, etc.) within that tradition. I also tend not to see animals or other representational motifs in rugs, but an excellent example of evolution of rug design can be found in dragon rugs. For decades, various pile and sumak carpets have been so termed, but in many of the later examples one cannot see anything that even vaguely resembles a dragon. Paul Ramsey is the most recent lecturer who has demonstrated the lineage of the dragon rug design. Further, if there is a problem with trying to place rug designs within a broader cultural context, I suggest you talk with architects such as Dennis Dodds or Bill Bechhoefer or those trained in Islamic art, such as Carol Bier or Walter Denny. Unlike most rug collectors, they do not view rug and carpet designs in isolation, but rather in a much broader cultural context. For us to know what rugs are, we must first understand what they have been. I submit that it is not particularly important whether Daniel's rug is "Caucasian" or "Anatolian" because the culture that produced it probably made no such distinction. We are further disabled in making such an attribution because of electronic limitations. I feel that I have beaten on this drum too often, so I will accept the advice which you and Wiggenstein offer and will henceforth "remain silent" on the topic. Cordially, Wendel |
| Subject | : | RE:Salon 24 Other related examples of rug one |
| Author | : | R. John Howe |
| Date | : | 08-27-1999 on 11:39 p.m. |
| Dear folks - First, let say that I was and am not advising folks who find meaning and enjoyment in any conversation about rugs to delimit that in response to any post I might make. I think that one of the least useful things we sometimes do is to legislate to one another about our interests and how they might be best pursued. I would be especially concerned if Wendel, in particular decide in fact to remain silent in this area. My poor friend Wittegenstein was not trying to legislate in some harshly Germanic way. He was trying to help us talk more clearly with one another. Early in his writings, he was interested in what we could demonstrate through "sense" data and he decided not much and went home for awhile to teach elementary school. Later he became convinced of the usefulness of a "verstehen" perspective and during this period gave advice about how to talk to one another "intelligibly." Neither usage, "non-sensical" nor "unintelligible," is necessarily perjorative. So what was I saying, or trying to? First, and most importantly that we need to be fairly consistent about the standards that we do choose to apply to the evaluation of our various efforts in rug analysis. For me this means that if we are to allow speculation, then we need to be more explcit about the basis on which we (I include myself) scorn speculation about "meanings" or "representation" in rug designs but admit what often looks like similar speculation about rug evolution. Are we saying that one species of speculation is superior to another? If so, on what grounds? If it is plausibility, then this should be made explicit and applied consistently. I have no objection to speculation as long as it is acknowledged and labelled. It does seem to me, that despite their acknowledged long tradition, the descriptions in discussions of rug design "traditions" and "evolution" in fact are, largely, plausible (perhaps sometimes very plausible) assertions (i.e., speculations) about influence and connection but that do not usually include the demonstrations of such influence and connection that proper use of such language entails. To reparaphase, Christian's argument in Hali, to make such arguments soundly, we would need to be able, at least hypothetically, to describe the evidence that would lead us to deny a given claimed connection or instance of evolution. Christian is not denying that influence exists, he is saying that accurate evidence of it is very hard to produce precisely because it seems difficult to say whether it is signaled by either similarity or difference. What we seem to have too often are imaginative but privileged hypotheses and the selective use of evidence. Christine Close gives a very detailed plausible analysis of the evolution of the "medallion" device in the "eagle kazaks," in Gereh, 14, December, 1997, but doesn't acknowledge that there have been some alternative evolutionary paths proposed. (I've heard Paul Ramsey's somewhat different analysis and the differences might be explained in part by the fact that Ms. Close seems interested in where the eagle kazak medallion came from, while Paul seems more focused on what changes occurred in "dragon carpet" devices as they come forward in time and the rugs in which these more recent versions seem visible.) But Ms. Close simply goes about laying out her own interpretation as if "ex cathedra." And I think she's trained as a physicist. She must know that this is not good scholarly practice. And I think with Yon Bard that it is very plausible that the close models of botehs that appear in Persian, Caucasian and Turkish 19th century rugs are likely the Kashmir shawl designs, but I don't know. I have now seen enough photos of Roman era rug-like mosaic designs to think that I might be able to find almost anything there (although I don't hear Roman influences cited much). And there are a large number of well-preserved Coptic designs that might make the basis for a quite difference set of evolutionary arguments (I think I've heard Wendel say that he is tempted). If we are just speculating, no problem. But when we say to one another such things as "can you doubt that?" I usually find the ground on which I am standing is plausible speculation and that, yes, I can easily doubt precisely that. We need to decide what discourse world(s) we are living in in our conversations about rugs, if we are to make progress. If it is one of enjoyable musings and plausible speculation, then we need to apply that standard even-handedly. If we claim to be moving to a world of empirically demonstrable fact (and it might surprise some readers, given what I have written above, to know that I do personally believe that the "postivist" program of meaning and truth that underlies most efforts to "prove" things is a largely failed one and that we should probably move to a more "verstehen" world of "understanding" in which the primary evaluations would be those of the correctness of rule application, including consistency) then we need to hold to the standards of that world consistently too. I hope I have not diverted conversation unduly from the concrete rugs in Daniel's careful design. I raised these "meta" issues again here because it appeared that concrete discussion of the pieces had largely abated. Regards, R. John Howe |
| Subject | : | RE:Salon 24 Other related examples of rug one |
| Author | : | Michael Wendorf |
| Date | : | 08-28-1999 on 10:26 p.m. |
| Dear John: I have read your messages in this thread several times and I still do not understand what you are talking about. It does seem to me that for one thing you are talking about apples and oranges when you compare, on the one hand, overt speculation on "meanings" or "interpretation" in rug designs and efforts on the other to take discreet groups of rugs and link them together within the tradition and history of rug weaving. The former is mostly done with little or no attention to or even ignoring groups of weavings made over even well established time periods and is highly personal. The later is just the opposite. It takes those rugs that have come down to us and tries to make sense of the changes or evolution or adaptations that took place by looking at a large body of weaving and letting the weavings instruct us. The conclusions reached viewing those carpets may be disputed and discussed, but the evidence is there for everyone and anyone to see and analyize. I think linking the two and labelling them equally speculative is mistaken, perhaps this is why I am having such a difficult time understanding what you are saying. Anyway, like Wendel, I choose to remain silent on the issue henceforth. Respectfully, Michael |
| Subject | : | RE:Salon 24 Other related examples of rug one |
| Author | : | R. John Howe |
| Date | : | 08-29-1999 on 07:39 a.m. |
| Hi Michael - Thank you for another patient effort to sort out the confusions my suggestions may be sewing in our group. You have at least tried to distinguish two species of speculation. Let me go on once more then I too will stop. (I do think that you and Wendel have reacted to my thoughts here in a way that is unnecessarily precipitious and I truly hope that neither of you will in fact take your rug tradition analysis "marbles," so to speak, and "go home." You both have been at the business of rugs much longer than I. I have spoken here not as one who knows anything in particular about rugs but rather as someone who at one point did some work with ordinary language and the ways in which it can sometimes both serve and inhibit our efforts in discussion. As you correctly point out, a great many rug authorities feel that analysis of rug design "history" is useful activity and it has a long tradition. I do not think, though, that that should exempt it from useful critique if such can be mounted. You wrote in part: "The former (ed. speculation about pattern meanings and what they might represent) is mostly done with little or no attention to or even ignoring groups of weavings made over even well established time periods and is highly personal. The later is just the opposite. It takes those rugs that have come down to us and tries to make sense of the changes or evolution or adaptations that took place by looking at a large body of weaving and letting the weavings instruct us. The conclusions reached viewing those carpets may be disputed and discussed, but the evidence is there for everyone and anyone to see and analyize." My thought: In my reading of these two kinds of analysis, they often cannot be distinguished on these grounds. It was my particular criticism of Christine Close's analysis that she ignored what others had said with regard to the line of change she was suggesting. Charlie Ellis is one who usually put his findings in context. But quite often there is no reference to a broader discussion. Secondly, it is precisely the lack of agreement about what is to count as "evidence" that is the problem. Take any rug tradition you wish. Focus on any evolution design you think the evidence suggests occurred. Then, describe, at least hypothetically, the evidence that would lead you to conclude that this particular instance of evolution did NOT occur. If we cannot describe such evidence, I think it is hard to claim that this sort of analysis is superior to other kinds of speculation. And this is what I think is often missing from discussions of rug design tradition and evolution. This test I submit is one that permits us to detect a privileged hypothesis and to question whether what is to count as "evidence" is yet agreed upon. I agree that this subject should now be given a rest here on the board, although some may wish to continue with kindly, therapuetic efforts to rescue me from my misunderstandings on the side. Regards, R. John Howe |
| Subject | : | RE:Salon 24 Other related examples of rug one |
| Author | : | Michael Wendorf |
| Date | : | 08-29-1999 on 01:44 p.m. |
| Dear John: Try my reply to the thread Daniel started here on rug three. I cited two possible arguments, without fleshing them out, that could be used to reach a different understanding of that rug. Is this the sort of thing you are calling for? If so, I think many authors such as Klose assume you know of the thesis and ideas that precede her and that she does not need to repeat them or can find them if do not but want to better understand what she is saying. Perhaps what is really missing is a footnote and bibliography style to assist you in this. I doubt whether contributors to this board or others like it will do, though in Hali and other publications we do sometimes find it. The greater problem is that there really are very few rug scholars because there is no market or other economic incentive to support such occupations. Dealers and collectors certainly do not support scholars, who else would. Besides, it is a lot easier to speculate. This, it seems to me, is the real issue. Respectfully, Michael |