| Subject | : | Talking About Kilims |
| Author | : | R. John Howe |
| Date | : | 03-13-2000 on 06:12 a.m. |
| Dear folks - While I cannot speak to Robert's question about this or similar pieces, I wonder if one way to begin might not be to examine recommendations about the language in which it is most useful to talk about kilims. In particular, while one encounters some technical description of materials and plying, and while there is mention of format and color palette, the descriptions of kilims in the literature seem to accent strongly differences in pattern (and even attributions seem often to be made primarily on this basis, something we are often advised against with pile weavings). So my contribution here is really a question for those among us more experienced with kilims. It is: what is the language in which it is currently seen to be most useful to talk about Turkish kilims and to make distinctions about them and other claims concerning them? Regards, R. John Howe |
| Subject | : | RE:Talking About Kilims |
| Author | : | Steve Price |
| Date | : | 03-13-2000 on 07:48 a.m. |
| sprice@hsc.vcu.edu Dear John, I'd put one small addendum onto your message. It is true that the most common basis for attribution of kilims seems to be design, something we often advise each other not to do with pile weavings. That advice is usually not followed in pile weavings, though, except in difficult (that is, ambiguous) instances. Hardly any of us has the slightest hesitation in glancing at, say a juval, and attributing it to one (or perhaps either of two) Turkmen tribes and even suggesting the age of the piece. Just an observation. Steve Price |