| Subject | : | Serrated or Saw-toothed medallions? |
| Author | : | Michael Wendorf |
| Date | : | 03-14-2000 on 11:07 a.m. |
| Dear All: Like the others who have posted, I find the subject kilim to be very handsome and evocative. The use of serrated or saw-toothed medallions is, not surprisingly, one of the most ubiquitous of all slit-tapestry designs. Picking up on John Howe's thread, I think that part of the problem in talking about and understanding kilims and their designs is the lack of consistency or uniformity in describing them. For example, Dr. Torchia's careful essay describes the basic device alternately as four multilayered diamond shaped saw-toothed medallions, medallions composed of a central polygon surrounded by four large concentric layers, serrated medallions and serrated rhomboidal medallions. Each of these descriptions is accurate, but slightly different in both words and implication. A second example is the basic description of the design orientation. In this Salon, the serrated or saw-toothed medallions are described as being arranged side-by-side on an horizontal axis and separated by vertical bands with candelabra or tuning forks. This description, it seems to me, necessarily rotates the kilim 90 degrees from the way it was woven on the loom. In other words, the horizontal axis referred to was the vertical axis as the kilim was on the loom and the vetical bands were woven as horizontal bands. Now it is true that certain objects, I am thinking here of certain Ala Chuvals, were woven with the intention of being used, displayed and seen rotated 90 degrees. However, it is unclear to me that this is the case with this or other large kilims. Our conception of this and other kilims may change if we view the kilim as it was woven rather than rotated. In any event, it seems to me that we ought to explicitly state that the kilim is presented and described in a format different from the standard description of most carpets and textiles consistent with warp and weft as woven. As for the basic shape of the serrated or saw-toothed medallion, I believe that this simple yet powerful shape is ancient and predates ushak medallions by at least centuries, if not millennia. I further believe that the reason the design is so ubiquitous in slit tapestry has little or nothing to do with any collective world consciousness but rather is a manifestation of structure driving design and a reflection of weavers in various places and times confronting and solving the limitations of that structure in similar and expected ways. The use of serrated edges and blocks of color in concentric layers is completely consistent with slit tapestry weaving. As other, more flexible and adaptive woven structures evolved, I think weavers continued to use this basic shape and to expand upon the theme. Many of the images shared in the last two or three Salons, including the ashik, harken back to this fundamental shape and the earliest slit tapestry weavings. Coming full circle, I would like to see the description of this device standardized. I would propose that we call the basic shape a serrated medallion rather than saw-toothed. Where, as here, we see color used to give the effect of layering, I would propose we describe it as concentric layering. Finally, I would like to see kilims described as woven, absent justification that the weavers themselves visualized the design rotated 90 degrees. Thank you. Michael Wendorf |
| Subject | : | RE:Serrated Medallions |
| Author | : | Steve Price |
| Date | : | 03-14-2000 on 11:32 a.m. |
| sprice@hsc.vcu.edu Dear Michael, Your points are well taken. In setting up the Salon introduction, Robert Torchia and I opted to use the horizontal orientation of the images for two reasons. One is that this is the way collectors of old kilims display their treasures (according to Robert; I am not a collector of terribly old kilims and the few kilims that I own are on the floor). The other is that the long axis of computer monitors is horizontal, so this orientation allows a fairly large image to be included without having to scroll down the page to see it all. I apologize for the semantic confusion to which this led. Regards, Steve Price |
| Subject | : | RE:Serrated Medallions |
| Author | : | Robert+Torchia |
| Date | : | 03-14-2000 on 01:37 p.m. |
| aslanrwt@aol.com All: Michael's points are well taken, and I will be glad to settle for serrated medallions. Does it logically follow that a weaving is intended to be seen either primarily or strictly from the direction in which it was woven? Should the weaving direction be the primary emphasis? Many kilims were used as coverings for the inside of yurts or tents and were thus displayed horizontally. I favor the horizontal viewpoint for kilims, admittedly without any factual basis. I certainly agree that the medium and technique of kilim weaving in part determined the form of the serrated medallion (is it really a medallion?). But that idea need not cancel out the impulse to determine the incongraphy of the design or image represented. Thanks, RT |
| Subject | : | RE:Serrated Medallions |
| Author | : | Michael Wendorf |
| Date | : | 03-14-2000 on 05:07 p.m. |
| Dear Robert: I am not certain that it logically follows that a weaving is intended to be seen either primarily or strictly from the direction in which it was woven. However, I do think it is important to realize and consider what the weaver saw as she wove. I also think that generally, personal preferences aside, it is helpful to display a weaving for study in the same way that the weaver saw it on the loom. Your point that many kilims were used as coverings and displayed horizontally may be valid. Still, I think too often we ignore or dismiss what the weaver saw and the obstacles she confronted in favor of our personal preferences. I guess this is part of the "impulse to determine the iconography of the design or image represented" that you refer to. This impulse is felt, I think, by everyone who senses the power and antiquity of these weavings. This impulse is also one I believe we are often too quick to follow. In the case of the serrated medallion, it could be that there is no iconography or image represented. I do not think this would or should diminish the design either in its antiquity or our appreciation of it either in terms of color or as a solution to the limitations confronted by the weaver. Thanks again, Michael Wendorf |
| Subject | : | RE:Serrated Medallions |
| Author | : | Robert+Torchia |
| Date | : | 03-14-2000 on 06:38 p.m. |
| Michael: I forgot to mention that invariably the uninitiated who see this kilim on my wall assume that it is of Navaho origin; one such person voiced his surprise that I would furnish my dwelling in a 1960s, "hippie-like" manner. Is the vague similarity attributable to Jungian ideas, the limitations of the medium, or an unlikely instance of cross-cultural influence? The multiplicity of possible viewpoints in a given work of art is a question that is much debated in the history and development of sculpture. Is the position from which Bernini sculptured his David in the Villa Borghese the one from which we must view it? If the sculpture was originally placed in the middle of the room, does that necessarily imply that it was intended to be seen from any point? If it was originally placed against a wall should the primary view be from the front? What is the front? The David is of course a three dimensional object and as such different from a kilim, but I wouldn't want to think of it from the perspective from which Bernini carved. Similarly, Michelangelo complained bitterly about painting the Sistine Chapel from often contorted and uncomfortable positions on scaffolds. No, we don't want to see the various compositions there from his original perspective or even think of them that way--I'll stand comfortably on the floor. Another art historical issue: to interpret or not to interpret? Is what one sees what one gets, plain and simple, or are images complex, multi-layered entities that require interpretation? Perhaps the iconographic approach is more appropriate for some art forms than others. I believe that images should be examined in every way possible. But don't ask me to deconstruct my kilim--I like it too much. The bottom line is that these are much debated aesthetic and methodological issues that are unlikely to be resolved, but worth discussing. I have a premonition that we will soon have a contribution from R. John Howe on all this...Regards, RT |
| Subject | : | RE:Serrated Medallions |
| Author | : | Steve Price |
| Date | : | 03-14-2000 on 07:48 p.m. |
| sprice@hsc.vcu.edu Dear Robert, The Navaho-like design is not a coincidence. My understanding is that traders brought Turkish kilims to the American Indians in order to help them make blankets that were more marketable. This, apparently, was the mechanism of design migration. It doesn't seem as though the Bering land bridge or genetic transfer of motifs across oceans and continents were involved. Steve Price |
| Subject | : | RE:Serrated Medallions |
| Author | : | Robert+Torchia |
| Date | : | 03-15-2000 on 09:39 a.m. |
| Steve: I have heard that Navaho weavings were influenced by Turkish kilims, but always considered it a questionable theory. Does anyone know if this is indeed true? Are there specific Turkish kilims whose provenance suggests that they were in the American West during the nineteenth century? I know little about Native American textiles and would like to know about the validity of this idea. RT |
| Subject | : | RE:Serrated Medallions |
| Author | : | Michael Wendorf |
| Date | : | 03-15-2000 on 10:00 a.m. |
| Dear Robert: I agree that images and any work of art should be examined in every possible way. But much like Bernini's David, or the Sistine Chapel, our appreciation and examination is enhanced by an understanding of the what, the where and the how. I believe our experience of a sculpture may be enhanced when we appreciate that it was created out of a piece of stone. Likewise a painting when we examine the brushstrokes and colors that fill what began as an empty canvas. To often in our rush to satisfy that impulse to interpret and deconstruct traditional designs or motifs we forget or ignore the craft of weaving and the subtle simplicity of the people who wove these things. Like you, I prefer to enjoy your kilim, as well as the craft and tradition it embodies, on its own. Now what is all this about furnishing your dwelling in a "hippie-like" fashion with a Navahoe weaving? Sounds like the utterance of a Philistine! Thanks again, Michael |
| Subject | : | Turkish kilim designs in American Indian rugs? |
| Author | : | Steve Price |
| Date | : | 03-15-2000 on 10:42 a.m. |
| sprice@hsc.vcu.edu Dear Robert, I went to the exhibition of American Indian weaving held during ACOR in Denver, and am reasonably sure that it included some information to the effect that the American Indians didn't use Turkish kilim-like designs until fairly late in the 19th century, and that their source was the traders who bought and sold rugs. There seems to be ample documentation that their weaving was influenced by the commercial suggestions of the traders, and Harmer's chapter in Bennett's Rugs & Carpets of the World provides a lot of specifics about the introduction of various dyes, transition from weaving blankets to floor coverings, etc. However, that chapter doesn't mention design being introduced via Turkish kilims and I haven't put my hands on anything specific to that issue. I'm fairly sure my memory of the ACOR exhibit is accurate, but wouldn't bet my life on it. I'm old enough now so I don't have to drink to forget anymore. Steve Price |
| Subject | : | RE:Serrated or Saw-toothed medallions? |
| Author | : | Wendel Swan |
| Date | : | 03-15-2000 on 12:15 p.m. |
| wdswan@erols.com Dear Steve, Robert and all, It is reasonably well documented that the trading posts requested (or required) that Native Americans suppliers weave specific designs. Many of them were direct copies of Middle Eastern rugs and kilims while others were merely "influenced." I have seen images of cartoons that were provided to the weavers. Borders, for example, did not exist on the earliest Native American blankets and seem to appear late in the 19th Century and become more prominent in the 20th Century as Oriental rugs became more popular. Thus, American Indian work came to increasingly resemble that of the Orient, including the use of the medallion. Collectors of Native American weavings are quick to distinguish between the early simple-banded, thin blankets and the later heavier rugs that were created solely for the domestic commercial market. Even the exquisite Saltillo serapes from Mexico were heavily influenced by European and Middle Eastern designs. But, then, the history of weaving in North America is relatively brief. Wooly sheep didn't even exist in the Western Hemisphere until the Spanish (I seem to recall the 17th Century, but that may be off a bit) introduced them. In South America, only camelid fibers were known. I once owned a Turkish kilim and a Navajo eyedazzler that were nearly indistinguishable from a photograph. I'm always amused when some neophyte assumes that an oriental weaving is American Indian simply because it is geometric. Wendel |
| Subject | : | RE:Serrated or Saw-toothed medallions? |
| Author | : | Patrick Weiler |
| Date | : | 03-15-2000 on 11:56 p.m. |
| jpweil00@gte.net Robert, In the book, Navajo Weaving, Three Centuries of Change, by Kate Peck Kent, there is a section referencing Navajo weaving influenced by oriental rugs, "J.B. Moore, who owned the trading post at Crystal from 1897 to 1911...turned ...to rugs from Turkey and Iran, which were enjoying popularity among urban Americans at the time. Known today as Early Crystals...An informative article by Katina Simmons (1977) discusses and illustrates design similarities between Crystals and oriental rugs...they did not make exact copies of oriental rugs but simplified patterns, reproducing essential forms but deleting fine details and placing design elements in new configurations..." She goes on to reference a "Bergamo" brought to colorado Springs in 1873. The book, Walk In Beauty, The Navajo and Their Blankets, by Berlant and Kahlenberg, briefly discusses the connection, noting the introduction of borders as a framing device, "... an effect derived from the oriental rugs to which the eastern clientele was accustomed. Such a border served to tame the explosiveness of the design." From this I can conclusively determine that your kilim design is not derived from Navajo textiles. However, it is understandable that your acquaintances would mistake the graphic impact of your kilim as native American. I have a SW Persian gabbeh with three diamond medallions on a natural grey-brown field which has been compared to Navajo weavings. Bringing together other references from this Salon, it is possible that this baklava design may be a very simplified floral device constricted by the constraints of the weaving medium and enlarged to fill the panels of your kilim. Referentially yours, Patrick Weiler |
| Subject | : | RE:Serrated or Saw-toothed medallions? |
| Author | : | Robert Torchia |
| Date | : | 03-16-2000 on 06:50 a.m. |
| aslanrwt@aol.com Thanks for all the information on Navaho weavings and
the influence of oriental rugs. This subject, properly documented, would
make an interesting study. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Native
American weavers use a variation of the serrated design prior to this
rather late influence? If so, this is relative to the medium determines
the form argument. That was the general reason that we all ended up on
this tangent.
\ |