Marla| Subject | : | Hanging Kilim horizontally? |
| Author | : | Daniel Deschuyteneer |
| Date | : | 03-16-2000 on 09:12 p.m. |
| Dear all, We all know that long vertical divisions in slit tapestry are unsuitable. All slit tapestry designs are to paraphrase Marla Mallett, technique generated, and formed only of horizontals, diagonals and short verticals. At each place where the weft reverse slits which weaken the fabric appear. Slit tapestry weavers try to distribute all these stress points on several warps using therefore several technique as staggered or shallow diagonals When hanging a Kilim horizontally, all the weight of the piece which was distributed the warps to make a sturdy fabric is now concentrate on the wefts. Just what the weaver wanted to avoid because it weakens the fabric. So, if I agree that Kilim where used as covers I dont think they were hanging horizontally without damage. Reference : Marla Mallett - Structural-Clues to Antiquity in Kelim Design OCTS - Volume IV page 113 124 Daniel |
| Subject | : | RE:Hanging Kilim horizontally? |
| Author | : | Steve Price |
| Date | : | 03-17-2000 on 06:32 a.m. |
| sprice@hsc.vcu.edu Dear Daniel, It's true that the weight is borne by the warps when hung vertically, by the wefts when hung horizontally. But this is offset by the fact that the length is usually much greater than the width. In addition, the total amount of weft fiber exceeds that of the warp - remember, we're talking about weft-faced textiles. Finally, the weak part of a kilim is the slits, not the warps, and the weaver uses designs to minimize the slits. One last point. If I ever hear another person refer to Turkmen collectors as obsessive, I'll refer him/her to the threads on whether kilims are properly hung vertically or horizontally. Steve Price |
| Subject | : | RE:Hanging Kilim horizontally? |
| Author | : | Robert+Torchia |
| Date | : | 03-17-2000 on 08:04 a.m. |
| aslanrwt@aol.com All: I hope this confession is sufficiently buried in here as not to be noticed. When Steve originally prepared my contribution he had all of the illustrations on a vertical axis. Being a confirmed horizontalist, I asked him to change the axis. Never did I ever expect that this would become a topic of intense discussion. Clearly the smaller size kilims and prayer kilims are intended to be displayed vertically. But a twelve to fourteen-foot-long kilim? I think not. I even mentioned to Steve that when Mr. Vok exhibited his wonderful Anatolian kilims hanging vertically from trees and the castle walls the resulting sight was peculiar. I noticed that Herr Rageth's new book is in an unusual horizontal axis that suits the illustrations, and presume he did this deliberately. What about safs and "double niche" kilims? Finally, I simply can't believe that there is anyone crazier or more obsessive on this earth than a Turkophile. |
| Subject | : | RE:Hanging Kilim horizontally? |
| Author | : | Marla Mallett |
| Date | : | 03-17-2000 on 01:01 p.m. |
| Sorry, can't let this discussion pass without commenting on a couple of things: The primary uses for slit-tapestry kilims in Anatolia have been for covering long rows of storage sacks along the back of a tent, or in a village house, as coverings for divans. In neither case does much of the kilim actually "hang." Used as a camel cover on migration, where display is important, the piece, is of course turned so that it's seen vertically. In the Caucasus and in SE Turkey/Northern Syria (Allepo area), we are more likely to find kilims used vertically as door or wall hangings. We need to remember that some of the boldest kilims were thus often seen only in part when they were in use--either one END was seen, or one lengthwise half. If the original kilim had two parts--two rows of serrated medallions, for example--one was only likely to focus on half when it was in use. But it needed to look good in at least a couple of different ways. No one has said whether or not the kilims illustrated in this discussion were halves--whether or not they showed evidence of one-time stitching to another section. It's when we study design evolution that it becomes absolutely essential to view any slit-tapestry weaving with the warps running vertically. Only then can one begin to understand how tapestry weave sequences affect designing...and it's the weave sequences as much as, or more than, the structure itself that shapes designing. Of course nearly all kilim motifs can be executed in only one direction. It's knotted-pile weavers who have adopted and corrupted many kilim motifs, turning them sideways and making other changes. It's difficult for me to find any parallel with the painter on his back doing a ceiling. That painter's arm can move in any direction and can execute portions of his image in any order, with no restriction. Likewise, a sculptor can approach his work in innumerable directions. There's hardly any reasonable parallel with the manner in which the sequential nature of weaving affects imagery. When any slit tapestry weaving is hung sideways, it's not "the slits" that are weak, it's those fragile wool weft singles at the END of each slit (whether long or short) that are vulnerable. The many yarns which reverse at each slit carry none of the weight, and all stress is shifted to just a few very thin unplied wefts. It's important to understand, though, that kilims with only diagonals and almost no slits can actually be weaker than those with slits, as intersecting diagonals are the weakest points of all: in those areas both warps and wefts are endangered. Anyone interested in conserving an old kilim will NOT hang it sideways, unless it is mounted and supported throughout. The sturdy, long-fibered and plied warp yarns that withstood the loom's tension can much more readily support a hanging piece. Marla marlam@mindspring.com |
| Subject | : | RE:Hanging Kilim horizontally? |
| Author | : | Michael Wendorf |
| Date | : | 03-17-2000 on 01:19 p.m. |
| Dear Robert and Steve: I am sorry that anyone would interpret this thread and the issue of description consistent with how the weaver saw and resolved the limitations of structure and technique as obsessive. I think the issue is a fairly fundamental one in connection with understanding what we are looking at in connection with these kilims as well as to better understanding how designs like the ashik, as merely one example, found their way into the rug lexicon. Sometimes the simplest things turn out to be the most profound and most overlooked. In addition, I think there remains a lack of uniformity in looking and discussing these and other weavings that only serves to encourage speculation and fanciful theories at the expense of appreciating these weavings on their own. Call me "obsessive in DC" Michael |
| Subject | : | RE:Hanging Kilim horizontally? |
| Author | : | Steve Price |
| Date | : | 03-17-2000 on 01:51 p.m. |
| sprice@hsc.vcu.edu Dear Michael, I agree with your assertion that how a weaver resolves and is influenced by structural constraints is germane and important. This thread and an earlier one also deal with such issues as whether it is OK for books and web pages to show pictures of kilims horizontally. There is no structural problem there, and in my opinion the decision in each case is best determined by the format of the page relative to the dimensions of the textile and by aesthetic considerations. A textile that is clearly directional, like a prayer rug with an obvious top and bottom, looks kind of strange when printed sideways. But would it be optimal for its appreciation to print it with the mihrab at the bottom if the mihrab was at the end woven first? That's how the weaver saw it on the loom. How about juvals? The "top", that is, the end with the opening, was sometimes woven first and sometimes woven last. It makes sense to me to have the opening facing upward on the page. What about spoonbags, where the warps run horizontally when the opening is at the top? Display on a web page or a printed page based on the viewpoint of the weaver at the loom is arbitrary and, in some instances, runs counter to the aesthetics and functional significance of the object. And, yeah, I think paying a lot of attention to the matter is a level of obsessiveness comparable to that with which Turkmen collectors are afflicted. Gotta go arrange something, anything. Steve Price |
| Subject | : | RE:Hanging Kilim horizontally? |
| Author | : | Marla Mallett |
| Date | : | 03-17-2000 on 02:29 p.m. |
| Because I've seen so many old kilims damaged by hanging sideways, I've
dug out a pair of old lecture slides that hopefully will make the point.
In the first detail, a mid-19th century Erzerum kilim is vertical, as on
the loom. No problems. But just look what happens when this same piece is
hung sideways: There's stress everywhere--on both warps and wefts. Marla |
| Subject | : | RE:Hanging Kilim horizontally? |
| Author | : | Sophia Gates |
| Date | : | 03-17-2000 on 05:02 p.m. |
| Dear Folks: Just a quick note: first of all, thanks for posting these marvelous pieces! Secondly: I have a Navajo Yei rug - for those who are unaware, that's a rug featuring supernatural figures, or dancers impersonating them. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that the rug had been woven with the Yeis on a horizontal axis - i.e., to hang the rug from the "weaver's eye view", I would have had sideways Yeis. Kinda dumb, no? Truthfully, I was surprised and impressed that the weaver, working as always without a cartoon, could have mentally rotated her design 90 degrees and still have it come out perfectly, with a well-balanced and powerful composition. Finally: the "ashik" pattern, according both to my reading on Rio Grande & Mexican weaving and to my studies of Mimbres and Anasazi pottery, was well known in the "New World" long before the Spaniards showed up. The central medallion on the Saltillo serape, for example, is referred to as the "eye" and is thought to have derived, not from Persian or Turkic models, but from indigenous sources. Surely you've all seen the yarn constructions referred to as "god's eyes?" I have as well a photograph of an ancient Mimbres pot with a design of ashiks painted on the surface. And finally, really REALLY finally: weaving in the "New World" is not such a recent invention. Some of the great weavings of all time were created by Peruvian artists well before the Christian era; and Pueblo natives resident in the Rio Grande Valley and in Mexico had been weaving in cotton for centuries before the Spanish arrived with their sheep. In fact, it was the presence of these skilled weavers which lead the early Spanish settlers to make a crucial miscalculation: they assumed that replacement clothing would be easily available, due to the Natives' skill - and found out much to their sorrow that these people were poor and had few extra blankets! To stay warm, blankets were commandeered from people who then stood naked and shivering in the snow. Best wishes & stay warm, Sophia Thunderbird@21stcentury.net |
| Subject | : | RE:Hanging Kilim horizontally? |
| Author | : | Robert Torchia |
| Date | : | 03-17-2000 on 05:55 p.m. |
| Ladies and Gentlemen: Marla's reasoning and illustrations make me reevaluate the wisdom of hanging my kilim horizontally. I am going to take it down immediately. When I get back to civilization (defined as somewhere between DC and NYC), I shall seek out a dwelling with eighteen foot ceilings. I have no problem being obsessive about maintaining this piece in a proper state of preservation. I guess in retrospect that it was silly to think that the kilim was originally used in such a way that it was entirely visible. Perhaps I can retreat into the assertion that kilims such as this look better horizontally on the page in a book. With the exception of the Rageth piece (Wendel provided a scan) these are all single piece kilims. |
| Subject | : | RE:Hanging Kilim horizontally? |
| Author | : | Marvin Amstey |
| Date | : | 03-17-2000 on 08:56 p.m. |
| mamstey1@rochester.rr.com Dear Sophia, Your comments reminded me that last week I saw again the wonderful movie, "The Mission": a tale about the behavior of the Spanish when taking over some Indian territory in 17th c. S. America; fabulous music too. Best regards, Marvin |
| Subject | : | RE:Hanging Kilim horizontally? |
| Author | : | Marvin Amstey |
| Date | : | 03-17-2000 on 09:02 p.m. |
| Dear Robert, Defining civilization in such a narrow bit of geography will surely get yousome more comments. Here's one for a start: when I was working at the National Institutes of Health in the mid 60's, great moonshine could be found in the Maryland hills just north of DC and within your "civilization"; I'll bet you can still find some if those housing tracts didn't encroach on all the hills - probably near camp David. Best regards, Marvin |
| Subject | : | RE:Hanging Kilim horizontally? |
| Author | : | R. John Howe |
| Date | : | 03-19-2000 on 06:51 a.m. |
| Marla et al - I have visited Robert Torchia and seen this kilim, and one other large one, displayed in his home. I fear your advice, however sound, is likely to be discouraging to him since, if taken seriously, seems to bar ever hanging a valuable kilim with the warps horizontal. Given the fact that we mostly have 8 ft. ceilings, this prohibition would seem to interfere actively in our ability to live with, to view comprehensively and to enjoy such pieces. The wise old Philadelphia dealer from whom Robert bought this piece, and who is himself a skilled repairer of rugs and textiles, had this piece hung horizontally for some time and did not seem concerned. So I wonder if you would be willing to write again and to confirm how strong your advice is in this regard. Is there no hanging strategy (something like vercro at key points all over a kilim back in an effort to distribute the weight widely) that might permit one to hang a valuable kilim horizontally? Your images are very dramatic but I wonder if this problem is in practice as serious as they suggest and/or if there might not be hanging strategies that would permit one to enjoy such a kilim more fully. Regards, R. John Howe |
| Subject | : | RE:Hanging Kilim horizontally? |
| Author | : | Robert+Torchia |
| Date | : | 03-19-2000 on 09:32 a.m. |
| aslanrwt@aol.com This is in response to John's comments: Marla discusses the various ways of hanging kilims on her website. The dealer in Philadelphia, Hagop Barin, is an Armenian Turk who has spent his entire life working with rugs. Many of you may have read the two part article that the distinguished ethnologist Henry Glassie wrote about him in ORR some years ago. I am prejudiced and this will strike many of you as an extravagant statement, but this fellow knows more about rugs than anyone anywhere. I have seen evidence of this on a thousand occasions. His ability to restore or conserve rugs is absolutely staggering. With all due respect to dissenting opinions, when Hagop says that hanging a kilim sideways does not damage it, that is ex cathedra for me. I wonder why conservation minded people have not mentioned here the need to preserve the colors of displayed textiles by using filtered lights and such devices. I am concerned about that and rarely use direct spotlights or keep any of the kilims in the sun. RT |
| Subject | : | RE:Hanging Kilim horizontally? |
| Author | : | Michael Wendorf |
| Date | : | 03-19-2000 on 10:33 a.m. |
| Dear Robert: That is a surprisingly extravagant statement. In any event, is not the solution to have your kilim backed and mounted or to build a frame and stretcher and mount your kilim on it? You are lucky to have adequate wall space to display the kilim and having the kilim mounted is a lot easier than putting up a new wall. Do not despair! Michael |
| Subject | : | RE:Hanging Kilim horizontally? |
| Author | : | Marla Mallett |
| Date | : | 03-19-2000 on 02:02 p.m. |
| I will grant that the damage done to kilims hung sideways varies from piece to piece, depending upon the structural designing in each. Stress on a simple banded piece is likely to be minimal, while pieces with more complexity are much more at risk. And of course a narrow piece hung sideways is less at risk than a wide one--since the weight is less. Current museum standards, however, certainly require that any piece hung sideways be mounted. It's of course all a matter of judgement: how to strike that balance between conserving our pieces and enjoying them daily. Temporarily hanging an old kilim horizontally is certainly preferable to walking on it repeatedly. With only 9 foot ceilings in my house, my solution has been to hang longer pieces vertically, but over poles. Seeing 2/3 of a dramatic kilim is obviously less than ideal, but it's easy on the piece, and not so different from seeing part of it over the side of a camel. With a wide wall, though, and a long kilim that I wanted to keep sideways on it for some time...I'd definitely mount it--either on a loose canvas panel or on canvas stretched over a frame. As for long kilims hanging from trees looking peculiar...I can well imagine that any Anatolian kilim weaver would think so too! Marla marlam@mindspring.com |
| Subject | : | RE:Hanging Kilim horizontally? |
| Author | : | R. John Howe |
| Date | : | 03-19-2000 on 02:31 p.m. |
| Marla et al - Thanks for this further note. Your advice is useful. You can see from Robert's response, that he wants strongly to enjoy these kilims. He is not one of those who has his collection in a box, closet or shed. When you say "mount" are you referring to having such a piece "sewn" somehow onto the canvas backing? I recently had this done (albeit with warps vertical) with the large Turkish fragment I used in one salon, and although it cost something, it was not prohibitive. The conservator I used described what she did with my piece as "couching," an unobtrusive species of embroidery. Is this the sort of thing that would be done in the "mounting" you recommend? Thanks, John Howe |
| Subject | : | RE:Hanging Kilim horizontally? |
| Author | : | Jerry Silverman |
| Date | : | 03-19-2000 on 02:54 p.m. |
| I've been waiting for someone to come up with the solution I've found for dealing with really long kilims. Since no one has, I'll offer it up. My wife and I have kilims hung above beds. (Her's is about 5'x12' and mine is about 6'x14'. I don't have a good picture, so I'll try to describe what we've done.) Using long brass curtain rods, we've hung the kilim vertically on the wall behind the bed. Then using two more curtain rods, we've supported the remaining length of the kilim along the ceiling - letting it droop between the rods. She has a nice old "elibelinde" patterned Turkish kilim, and I have a dark, striped Labijar kilim. The only serious drawback is that they accumulate dust in their folds and need to be taken down every now and then and vacuumed. -Jerry- |
| Subject | : | RE:Hanging Kilim horizontally? |
| Author | : | Robert+Torchia |
| Date | : | 03-19-2000 on 03:56 p.m. |
| I like Marla's idea about hanging the kilim on a rung, but then I will be viewing it vertically, and you know my opinion about that. Perhaps one of us can design a camel configured rung to simulate nomadic life. [Note that I said camel Rung, not Dung; we don't want to be too realistic.] The other kilim on my wall to which John alluded is a double niche type very close to the ones in Petsopoulous's Kilims: Masterpieces From Turkey (London, 1991), figures 9 and 10. The author displays these examples horizontally, and that is the way they make sense to me too. These kilims, with their bands of natural wool (marvelous by virtue of the irregularities created by the eccentric wefting), seem related to safs and are sometimes erroneously called such in the trade. Having been an exponent of the horizontal theory, I must admit that hanging a Yuncu kilim that way would destroy its profound aesthetic impression. It could very well be that the weavers primarily thought of some kilims from the horizontal view, and others from the vertical. Or perhaps I am imposing my own personal preferences on kilims. I don't see how this question can be resolved conclusively. As for kilims hanging from trees, refer to Maria Schlatter, "A Clear Prospect," Hali 66, p. 108. That is one of the strangest presentations of an Anatolian kilim that I have ever seen. |
| Subject | : | RE:Hanging Kilim horizontally? |
| Author | : | Marla Mallett |
| Date | : | 03-19-2000 on 06:47 p.m. |
| John, Yes, by "mounted," I meant sewn to a canvas. The only striking difference between mounting an old textile and other kinds of sewing or couched embroidery, is that in mounting a fragile old piece, large stitches are preferable to nice small, neat stitches. Each stitch needs to cross two or more warps or wefts (or both), to secure the piece in the most gentle way. The needle should go straight down through the kilim and canvas, then straight up again. You can often zigzag back and forth with the long stitches on the back side of the canvas. The back, after all, does not have to be neat! If you use threads carefully matched to the various colors in the textile, they will hardly be evident on the front. You just have to use good judgement about how far apart to stitch sections; it varies from piece to piece. There are no rules, and there's not really any special skill required. This is something that just about anybody can do. It only takes time. If by chance, after a piece hangs a bit you find it sagging, you can go back and re-stitch any necessary sections. In any case, you are most unlikely to damage the textile in any way by an attempt to mount it. Robert, I agree that the safs are horizontal pieces! And with their simple banding they usually don't present hanging problems. The same would be true with some of the simplest banded "double niche" pieces. But it is just about any weaver's natural tendency to walk around and look at most of the others from one end. Or to turn the book! Marla marlam@mindspring.com |
| Subject | : | RE:Hanging Kilim horizontally? |
| Author | : | Marla Mallett |
| Date | : | 03-19-2000 on 08:43 p.m. |
| Just a couple more related thoughts...Can't seem to get them all together... I've been reflecting on how differently men and women in rural Anatolia go about displaying rugs and kilims. With a camera nearby, a couple of guys will inevitably each grab a corner and hold the thing up between them horizontally--virtually any pile rug or kilim, no matter what kind of design it has. It's easiest, and they themselves also appear in the photo, lookin' good. Ask the women, however--the weavers--to show you their weavings and they'll climb on a wall, or drape the pieces down off their "porches"... however they can to show them to you vertically! Or they will hold their pieces as high as possible, letting part of them extend out flat at the bottom if necessary. Only if instructed by a photographer to do it some other way, do they seem inclined to do so. When considering the matter of kilim orientation, we should keep in mind that we only started seeing kilims published horizontally when Catal Huyuk/kilim wall painting theories were first floated, so that we might more conveniently envision goddesses atop mountain peaks or in caves. If an "elibelinde" was present, however, it had to be shown upright. Of course dealers always find it more sensible to show a lone surviving asymmetrical kilim "half" horizontally. It's the only way a weaving with one border or a lop-sided design is satisfactory. I'm no different from others in that respect. Marla |
| Subject | : | RE:Hanging Kilim horizontally? |
| Author | : | Marvin Amstey |
| Date | : | 03-20-2000 on 09:00 a.m. |
| mamstey1@rochester.rr.com Dear Jerry - and others, Your idea of two rods and extending the piece onto the ceiling is a well known and useful solution. We have done the same with a great suzani. The best example is the Vanderbilt's display of the great Mogul rug that once hung in the Carolina "cottage" and was sold some 8-10 years ago at Sotheby's. Other examples abound in European great houses displaying large tapestries. Best regards, Marvin |