| I want to thank Mike Tschebull for his discussion of my article. I
would like to add only a few remarks. Art is the last thing that I would
consider putting in the scale of mass production. Handwoven rugs of any
kind, even made in the U.S. by a U.S. resident is a form of Art and cannot
be compared to any form of mass production to earn huge sums of money.
Trying to make handweaving more economical than machines is nonsense. The
era of slavery is very far back. Anyway, this is totally unnecessary
because art is not economical. Anything woven by hand, to my
understanding, is genuine because it carries the skill of the weaver. For
example, if aunt Sally has knitted a beautiful yellow sweater for my baby,
that sweater is genuine. It`s aunt Sally`s sweater. But, she has copied it
from a pattern given by McCall`s. I don`t care. It is still genuine
because she has made it for my baby. That is almost true for all hand-made
objects, because they carry an added metaphysical value. The fact, here,
that the designs used are created by the entrepreneurs choice or the
weavers own choice wouldn`t influence the fact that the rug is beautiful
in terms of harmony of color and design and that it is a good piece of
craftsmanship. If all of these combined, end up in a beautiful carpet,
whether it is "genuine" should not be questioned. I understand Mike
stresses the same point by giving the example of Fords World cars. I agree
completely with Jay`s discussion. The designs in Turkish rugs made in
villages have patterns that the women have been copying for 100 years.
Most of them wouldn`t even know what each symbol represents. It depends on
the woman's interest in the subject. In Steve's answer to Jay, I disagree
at the point where Steve says that the workshop owners' designs are not
etnographic. On the contrary, the workshop owner is the one who studies
the historical rugs and prepares the models that the weavers will use to
weave the rug. He is trying to reproduce antique pieces found in homes and
museums that are reknown to be "genuine" by antique experts, that the
villagers wouldn't be able to look up or wouldn't bother about. The
villagers making their own traditional regional designs, just recopy the
same thing over and over, sometimes changing the colors or the border
designs by alternating others, etc. are not more genuine from my point of
view. Both can turn out to become very beautiful rugs, or, on the
contrary, failure rugs. The workshop owner could have a novice weaver who
would spoil the most beautiful rug by making it too loose a weaving or
full of mistakes and the villager could choose awful color combinations
and designs. So, the term "genuine" that is used here for a "quality" on
which one would base his choice in buying a carpet is not a good
definition. As in all arts, beauty should be the sole determinant as well
as quality of weave, which adds to beauty. There is no real definition of
beauty, either, because it changes according to each person. So, I would
say that to buy and accept a new carpet, one must love it. Maybe that is
the only answer. This is also a reply to Safak who wants the rug to be
genuine only if made entirely by one person. "Genuineness" should not be
the measuring tool. Of course, I agree that the most genuine would fit
Safak`s definition, but a collective work as is done in most parts of
Turkey today also gives very good results, leaving each actor in the
realization of a rug project independent. An entrepeneur can choose to
invest in this area or not. The wool merchant, the spinner (both hand and
machine), the dyer (both natural and chemical), the loom owners, the
weavers all are free to work at their leisure. There is an open market and
there is much choice. If they get work, it is fine. If they don't, the
don't lose as much as if they tried to do the whole process by themselves.
Trying to make rug handweaving a big industry is wrong in the first place.
It is not an economical industry. It is a form of art. The fact that
people like these rugs and look for them is what maintains the manufacture
at this stage. As Patrick says, the true value of these contemporary rugs
will only be appreciated 100 years from now, especially if rug weaving,
like all uneconomical processes completely disappears from the planet, as
it will if the current system of economy persists in the future. I would
like to answer the questions asked by John Howe. The first one was about
the gender of the weavers in Turkey. We have female weavers in Turkey
except for, perhaps, 1% who are male. Iran is using mostly male weavers.
In Turkey, rug weaving is mostly done by young girls and women. The looms
are generally situated in their own house or at a neighbor's. It is both a
job and a hobby that women enjoy doing. They make it a reason for
socializing and showing themselves off by being the most skillful weavers.
They work together and compete at the same time. Seeing a rug being
completed is also a moral reward for them. As Irwin Hirsch writes, it is a
sociological event where the women do the job enjoying themselves at the
same time. For the second question, I would say that the weavers could be
spinning and dyeing their own wool or not. It depends on the particular
case. Mostly the wool is supplied to them by the producers who have it
spun by spinners and have it dyed by dyers who all work independently.
About the quality of the dyes: of course, natural dyes are more expensive
to prepare and are seldom used. If the weavers plan to weave one or two
rugs for that season, it is not so hard to gather and prepare a small
amount of dyes and not so expensive. Mostly, chemical dyes are used for
the "trade" rugs. Sometimes a mixture of both. As to the 4th question
about the looms: all three possibilities exist. Sometimes, the weavers
construct their own looms, some are provided by the government and some by
the producers. There aren`t factories but workshops prepared by the
producers or by the government, as well as looms in the private homes. In
order to obtain the best quality, a producer has to try out different
looms. He has to take the chance of some loss, and, after a few trials
stop giving the job to a particular loom and give it to another better
one. It is really the producer who insists and maintains a certain quality
of weave. Stephen Louw`s question about the quality of wool: there are 3
qualities of wool used in rugs in Turkey. The one in the east is hard, the
one in central Anatolia is medium, and the one used in the Aegean is
softer. All three are considered to be ideal for rug-weaving. About the
Iran embargo: I would say Turkey was not much effected by it, because the
flow of rugs just changed its route as you described. I don`t have a
particular answer for the reason of what you call the revival of rug
weaving in Turkey. I feel as though it was always there. I will end by
thanking you all again for your interest in my
article. |