I think Marla raised an extremely important point in her thread, and it ties in well with the discussion posted on the last Salon - the issue of new production and the future of rug weaving.

I believe she's right on about the current state of rug literature, which if anything tends to stifle creativity in collecting if nothing else: people don't want to gamble their money, so they tend to buy what other people have blessed. This leads naturally to a lack of rug community support for more recent or contemporary production, which could lead to the eventual death of weaving - period. Of course, lack of support for contemporary art isn't limited to weaving in third world countries - check out the difficulty people in the "first world" have surviving as creative artists! And the fearful attitude of many collectors isn't limited to rugs - that goes for painting, sculpture, music, ad infinitum. Curiously, esthestics often has nothing whatsover to do with what contemporary art is collected - sanctified critical opinion is at least as important in the world of the modern art collector as in the sphere of the Turkoman collector! Frankly, I think people should absolutely support contemporary weavers. And they should use their own eyes, and make their own decisions. If I were the President, rug collectors would be required to buy a newer piece every time they buy an antique!- or a painting, or a pot - anything, just so some LIVING artist gets a bone.

Seriously - I'll get off my horse now, and get back to the topic. Attempts to link ancient motifs to more recent ones are interesting and thought-provoking, and this one certainly fills the bill on that score. But - so many of the "Memling" gul derivatives, as well as the architectural forms the rugs are proposed to imitate, I feel are so basic, so inherently logical to the way humans deal with geometry AS WELL AS WITH THE TECHNIQUES OF WEAVING, that I feel they were more than likely spontaneous expressions of the same simple concepts, which recur again and again in the history of art, and in cultures half a planet away from one another. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to see if further research along these particular lines could shed more light on Central Asian history in general - it's one of those regions which could be considered a crossroads, rich in ideological and artistic confluences, and certainly under studied.

The question was asked, if we could provide an example of creativity in the rug world. Well, here's one, closer to home - but all the easier to verify and understand for that very reason: the appearance of sandpainting and Yei rugs in the Navajo production early in the 20th century. Sandpaintings are ritual, absolutely traditional aspects of Navajo curing chants, and until fairly recently the reproduction of them was held to be taboo, as was the representation of the spirit figures, the Yei, which appear prominently within the sandpaintings. However, commercial demand - and here's a case where I would argue that commercial demand spurred a great flowering of creativity - as with Pueblo pottery - led to the creation of rugs which carried sandpainting motifs. It was agreed within the tribe that sandpainting rugs - or any type of reproduction, for that matter - must differ in some crucial respect from the "real thing" - in order that the magic they embody would not be lost or misused. These rugs remain some of the most beautiful and moving of all Navajo weavings, and carry a great deal of "ethnographic" power and authenticity as well as a high degree of esthetic excellence. In the world of Oriental carpets, the productions of of modern "gabbehs" and the folkloric productions of Turkey - the Azeri line, for example, strike me as being really stunning in many cases and certainly well worth buying. They too, draw upon ancient motifs but the weavers have been encouraged to use their own creativity - and the results are often spectacular. Finally, Marla has some examples of Egyptian tapestry weaving on her website which break ALL the rules, and which I find quite wonderful.

Breaking rules carries with it a lot of risks - both for artists and for collectors. Artists risk being left out in the cold and starving to death, or exiled from their tribes, or driven mad by nasty critics - and collectors, of course, risk "losing" money - or worse, being laughed at when they show their treasure to the Rug Society. But - I wholeheartedly agree with Marla that we should be looking for the innovators, for the innovative moments - in weaving history, as well as understanding and valuing the traditional norm - if for no other reason than these breakthroughs - large or small - do drive the art forward, and may even ensure its survival.