| Dear participants, This Salon has taken a turn toward discussing
complex matters that so depend on "who, what, where and when" that short
and simple postings are nearly impossible. I would first like to comment
on the definitions of some of the terms that have been used. We commonly
apply the word "geometric" to rugs that use rectilinear lines. But high
Islamic art's foundation in mathematics means that Islamic geometric art
means much more than the mere use of rectilinear lines. In the context of
this discussion, the ability to execute curves (a frequent topic on
TurkoTek) becomes a separate issue that is nearly irrelevant to the
question of whether objects can be or are represented in rugs. I see a
distinction between symbolic art and representational art. At least as far
as I have always understood it, representational art is that which depicts
something that may be seen - more or less as the eye sees. Abstract art is
that which does not depict objects. Symbols can be either abstract or
representational. Representational art can be broadly geometric (e.g.,
Cubic Picasso) in the sense of using straight lines, but formal Islamic
geometric art is not representational in that it does not depict objects.
For those interested in the topic, I suggest perusing some volumes on
Islamic patterns. Several good books are available, including those by
Critchlow and Wade. For a discussion about symmetry, see Carol Bier's
presentation on the Swarthmore Math Forum:
http://forum.swarthmore.edu/geometry/rugs/carpets/index.html Steve has
raised the question of whether someone alien to a Christian culture would
understand the meaning of a simple geometric cross. While the Christian
cross is often found symbolically (for example, atop a tombstone) in
simple, nearly abstract, form, it is also quite realistically depicted or
represented with or without the crucified Christ in and on churches, in
homes and cars and around women's necks. And painted images of Christ on
the cross abound. Accordingly, deciphering the meaning or symbolism of an
abstract cross would not be difficult for any inquiring mind or alien.
However, crosses can and have symbolized many concepts other than the
crucifixion of Christ. They were used before Christ (perhaps for the four
corners of the earth or for the seasons) as well as in non-Christian
communities (for example, pre-Columbian South America). There is, of
course, always the debate about whether any form of the cross in an
Oriental rug signifies that Armenians made it - but let's not get into
that. While the entirety of Islamic geometric art can be said to symbolize
or represent the belief of the unity of the universe with Allah, even the
most complex of them may well not represent any particular object or
symbolize any specific concept. For example, an eight pointed star which
is created by the intersection of various other lines is merely one of a
great many "motifs" or patterns that are created in the complex process.
Mosques and sacred buildings are the least likely to contain images of
humans or animals and are the most likely to embody the principles of
geometric art. Especially in Turkey, there is a direct relationship
between the architectural motifs and the primary motifs or themes found on
pile carpets, suggesting that pile carpets have a kinship to geometric,
non-representation art. If most oriental rugs (pile carpets) do either
symbolize or represent specific objects (birds, plants, the sun,
mushrooms, and fetuses) and, if the culture so values them, where in the
Sunni world are the contemporaneous realistic counterparts to these
abstracted or symbolic forms? Of course, the world of Islam, like its art,
is not monolithic. Exceptions to the prohibition against representation
certainly can be found. Because the Shi'ites in Persia did not accept or
adhere to the prohibition against representation (idolatry), the most
representational of all rugs are Persian. While floral elements are
clearly found in Central Anatolia, animals are almost never to be seen in
Turkish weaving. On the issue of the "so-called leaf and wineglass
border," I delivered a paper on that precise topic at the 8th ICOC in
Philadelphia in 1996, which has been published in OCTS V (just now
available). Therein I demonstrated (I hope) that the "leaf and wineglass"
border is not at all representational, but is composed of purely geometric
forms that are manipulated in various ways to create a what seems to be a
meander border. If I gained anything from that exercise, it was learning
the importance of examining how certain patterns are created as opposed to
what is depicted. Once one understands the techniques by which Islamic
patterns are created and replicated, the less concerned one becomes with
"the what." To use John Howe's phrase, we don't have to ask what it is
about. In this Salon, Christoph Huber used techniques related to mine to
further show the non-representational nature of the spandrels or corner
brackets. Initially, John thought he was seeing an animate form in his
rug, but became convinced that that was not the case. Perhaps it is
presumptuous of me, but I think that if he reads my paper, Steve will no
longer "see" leaves and tulips in that common Anatolian and Caucasian
border. This is not to say that animate objects, including tulips and
leafs are not found in borders. They are, but I will forever maintain that
leaves and tulips (wineglasses, flowers, etc.) or any other similar
objects are not the basis for this border. Regards to all,
Wendel |
From
my point of view even more interesting is an early 13th century inkwell
from Khurasan (Sotheby’s London, 15 Oct. 1998, Lot 82). Here, although
being contemporary with the tiles, we don’t have an infinite pattern
anymore, just as on the trappings. And there is as an other little detail
which possibly is only accidental but perhaps more than this: Unlike the
tiles, where every single piece has its own border, the stars of the
inkwell as well as those of the Arabatchi trappings share (at least a part
of) the border where they meet (if one sees the border as a part of the
stars themselves.) 
Having in mind
that many of the cross tiles are decorated with floral motifs I’m not
surprised that the ornaments within the kejebe design often appear to be
of floral origin. But if we follow this way of thinking, we cannot exclude
that Yon is right in seeing a human figure within the kejebe, just as
depicted on the inkwell. But, the assumption that the theory of a
connection between the star-and-cross design and the kejebe design is
right, raises an other problem: Why is this ornament called kejebe (bridal
tent) if it is in reality only a part of a cross? Are the weavers
themselves sometimes as wrong in interpreting carpet designs as we are,
despite being the heirs of this culture? And how would such
misinterpretations affect the further development of an ornament? Regards,
Christoph