| wdswan@erols.com Dear Mr. Gorden, While I have acquired whole rugs,
perhaps as much out of habit as by intention. I wouldn't reject a
fragment, per se, if it otherwise fit in to my collecting addiction and
have done so on two or three occasions. Aren't the standards for judging a
fragment the same as those we use to judge any other rug or textile:
color, design, execution, rarity, age, fineness, tactile qualities and
condition (among the myriad other factors and not in that order) - except
for the fact that we expect the fragment to excel in one or more areas
because there is less of it? Perhaps durability is the only characteristic
we don't expect from a fragment that some might in a rug. If, as you say,
most rug collectors aren't interested in fragments, it is probably because
most rug collectors aren't interested in, have little chance to examine or
can't afford really old carpets (pre-1800, let us say). Without knowledge
of the whole carpet, most of us have diminished interest in only a portion
of it. However, there are obvious exceptions. Who wouldn't want a fragment
such as those in the Flowers Underfoot exhibition of Mughal carpets at the
Metropolitan Museum last year? On the other hand, who would want a
fragment of an Afghan war rug? Is a detached mafrash panel a fragment so
that we should prefer the complete box? The answers to these questions lie
in the fact that, fundamentally, aesthetics (appealing to the senses)
cannot be entirely divorced from our perceptions of rarity, historical
importance and age. To use your comparison to paintings, why isn't a
perfect yet detectable forgery of a Rembrandt as desirable or valuable as
the original? Also, while art historians might argue over whether a
particular work is Rembrandt or school of Rembrandt, the inherent
qualities of the painting don't change. Yet, once proven to be such, a
school of Rembrandt work may be relegated to a museum's storage. Each of
us sees different qualities in what we collect and we collect for many
different reasons. While you see "little aesthetic merit" in the Vakiflar
domes and squinches carpet in Hali #32, I see a weaving of tremendous
composition. Glory may not remain in its now faded colors or in the areas
that no longer exist, but I find it to be a great, moving piece of
historical importance. The easiest assessments to make about a rug are
completeness, fineness and condition. First-time buyers might reject a rug
because the "fringe" or even a part thereof is missing. To them, such a
rug is unacceptably fragmentary. At the other end of the spectrum may be
two important fragments sold at Bonham's in London in April of this year.
I saw these tiny specimens and, although I personally did not find either
to be "beautiful," bidders found them to be worthy enough to send the
prices to $27,770 and $48,410, respectively. We all have standards by
which we make our judgments on what we like and therefore what we buy. The
discussions on TurkoTek clearly demonstrate that the bases for our
personal preferences are difficult to articulate. Longevity and breadth of
experience tend to create some consensus, but even the most seasoned of
collectors and dealers find that they must agree to disagree on the
relative merits of certain pieces. Permit me to make another analogy -
this time to wine. Why would anyone buy wine except to drink and to enjoy
the taste (its aesthetic merits)? Just as with rugs, those who buy wine do
so for different reasons and find much more than just taste to savor. The
color, the bouquet, the legs and the depth are among the important factors
but these too cannot be distinguished from aesthetics. An aficionado of
Chateau Lafite might buy a recent vintage for a cellar, knowing that it
won't be drunk for 15-20 years. Or one might buy a 1945 Lafite as a
wonderful, but still improving, splurge. Others might buy a bottle from
the 1784 vintage with no expectation that, if it is ever opened, the wine
would be drinkable. But suppose that Thomas Jefferson once owned that 1784
bottle of Lafite. What some would envision only as a sensory delight
becomes transformed into an historical artifact. Thank you for the
thought-provoking Salon. I am interested to know what you have collected
over the years. Wendel Swan |