| Subject | : | Significant advances... |
| Author | : | Marla Mallett |
| Date | : | 04-09-2000 on 01:40 p.m. |
| I have had difficulty getting past Mr. Huber's first sentence, as it
exemplifies an attitude that unfortunately is pervasive in Oriental Rug
collecting circles: "The possibility that a whole corpus of designs found
on oriental carpets has roots going back some thousands of years is
thrilling and exciting."
Significant advances in human history have come via inventive and creative individuals, not copyists. The most important work has been produced by individuals who questioned and moved beyond the intellectual, superstititious or artistic standards of their times, not craftsmen who perpetuated or merely refined old ideas. Marla Mallett |
| Subject | : | RE:Unfortunate attitude? |
| Author | : | Steve Price |
| Date | : | 04-09-2000 on 05:20 p.m. |
| sprice@hsc.vcu.edu Dear Marla, I disagree with your view of the history of art and technology. Most advances are evolutionary and occur in fairly small steps. Tribal art, in particular, tends to be conservative and evolves slowly. While it is true that an occasional revolutionary stands the world on its end and opens what appears to be a completely new direction, it often turns out that even these revolutions are rooted in some existing stuff being brought to another field. Revolutionary thinkers work within the framework of their time, and while they manage to partly free themselves from the intellectual baggage of their contemporaries, it always has some influence on them. There are people who believe that revolutionary art and technology is periodically brought here by aliens, with no connection at all to preexisting stuff on earth. I think this is absurd (as I suspect you do), but I mention it simply to note that there is a view opposite to mine in the extreme. Steve Price |
| Subject | : | RE:Unfortunate attitude? More thoughts |
| Author | : | Steve Price |
| Date | : | 04-09-2000 on 06:33 p.m. |
| sprice@hsc.vcu.edu Dear Marla, et al., Some observations: 1. Christoph's title is Old Motifs....a Possible Source. I think this is fairly cautious and doesn't assert the correctness of an unproven position; it just calls attention to an interesting parallel that may have importance. 2. His opening sentence doesn't claim anything more than the possibility that the motifs have ancient roots, and that it would be exciting if they did. I have trouble seeing anything objectionable in this. There is a small school of rug people who would take it much farther and with more force, and this troubles me as much as it does you. I don't think rampant speculation is sufficiently widespread to warrant calling it pervasive, but maybe I'm just not in touch with the more speculative crowd. Regards, Steve Price |
| Subject | : | RE:Unfortunate attitude? |
| Author | : | Marla Mallett |
| Date | : | 04-09-2000 on 08:12 p.m. |
| Steve, The concern I expressed was not at all with POSSIBILITIES or PROBABILITIES, but with ATTITUDES toward creativity. I'm disturbed whenever I hear work praised purely because it lies so comfortably within a tradition--because it so epitomizes and reflects old values. The artist's most important role in society is to expand our visions, not to reinforce the status quo. This may sometimes mean small incremental developmnents, sometimes outrageously large steps. We see uncommon examples of both in textile art, but don't often give such work the credit it deserves. It is so much simpler to focus instead on the commonplace and the perpetuation of traditional forms. Perhaps it is this preoccupation that has produced such a wide gulf between rug enthusiasts and much of the rest of the art world. Marla |
| Subject | : | RE:Unfortunate attitude? |
| Author | : | Steve Price |
| Date | : | 04-09-2000 on 08:42 p.m. |
| sprice@hsc.vcu.edu Dear Marla, Rug collectors see the objects of their neurosis differently than collectors of, say, impressionistic art, but they have a lot in common with collectors of tribal arts and of antiques of various kinds. This gap reflects the fact that the attraction they have to textiles (or tribal arts; or antiques, etc.) is different than the attraction "art" has for those who collect it. The collector of ethnographic rugs sees his objects as reflecting a foreign and exotic culture, often a culture that no longer exists, in addition to the "artistic" qualities the items may have. Thus, while he/she values the creativity of somewhat unusual ethnographic art, anything too far removed from the tradition is likely to be less appreciated even though it may be highly creative. This is manifested, for example, in the general disinterest rug collectors show in textiles that are not old. My prejudice as a collector is that the ethnographic art to which I am most strongly drawn is what I perceive to be the best examples of fairly common easily recognizable types. This is my neurosis and as long as I don't hurt anyone I think I have a right to indulge it any way that I please. Is there a reason why I am obliged to love rugs in some prescribed way? Regards, Steve Price |
| Subject | : | RE:Unfortunate attitude? |
| Author | : | R. John Howe |
| Date | : | 04-09-2000 on 09:32 p.m. |
| Dear folks - I wonder if this debate might not be more usefully conducted on more concrete ground. I notice most of the assertions on both sides are stated as generalizations. For some readers this this might read as a "Yes, it is." "No, it isn't." kind of debate. Marla, I wonder what instances of rug or textile design creativity that seem to move radically beyond a given tradition have caught your attention? Steve, on your side, first I'd be interested in what might count (even hypothetically) for you as a true instance of rug design innovation NOT based on or drawing on established tradition. (That is, how would we recognize such an instance?) If possible, I'd also be interested in a concrete example that comes closest for you to qualifying as a true innovation or departure from existing context in rug design. Whatever our views in this particular exchange, I would agree with Steve's suggestion that we should not be advising one another about how to collect. (I think this is one of the most dysfunctional tendencies we have.) Evelyn Waugh once had great fun with a character in one of his novels who married a widow primarily to get at her former husband's match box collection. Waugh clearly thought it obvious that match box collecting was an unworthy enterprise. But one of Waugh's country-men, Richard Hoggart, showed with equal humor in his "The Rise of the Meritocracy," that the criteria of merit have not yet been established (pace, Christopher Alexander) objectively. Regards, R. John Howe |
| Subject | : | RE:Unfortunate attitude? |
| Author | : | Marvin Amstey |
| Date | : | 04-09-2000 on 09:56 p.m. |
| Steve, Using collecting of ethnographic art and impressionist art as something so different that it wouldn't happen is simply incorrect. I collect rugs AND American impressionist art and love them both very much. While each is a different aesthetic, one does not have to focus on only one type of art; that's boring. Regards, Marvin |
| Subject | : | RE:Unfortunate attitude? |
| Author | : | Steve Price |
| Date | : | 04-10-2000 on 06:27 a.m. |
| sprice@hsc.vcu.edu Dear Marvin, Like you, I collect things besides tribal art (but not impressionist), and I do understand that the aesthetics are different for different things. The point here is not simply aesthetic. The tribal art collector (we are both in that category some of the time) collects for reasons in addition to aesthetics in the usual sense. The age, the ethnographic significance, to offer two examples, are important criteria for the tribal art we select; the artist's name is probably an important one for your impressionistic stuff. Regards, Steve Price |
| Subject | : | RE:Unfortunate attitude? |
| Author | : | Marla Mallett |
| Date | : | 04-10-2000 on 11:13 a.m. |
| I'd like to finish the thought above before being diverted from the topic--the possible survival of old motifs and our apparent eagerness to embrace them, hoping that they somehow matter in the weavings we collect. Of course every individual has the right to collect and enjoy whatever he chooses--for whatever reasons he wishes. I would never suggest otherwise. Whether we opt for pretty, well-crafted, comfortable and prestigious objects, or choose more provocative works depends upon both background and temperament. My beef is with rug literature--and therein lies the connection with the current topic. Rug literature has consisted largely of promotional material calculated to enhance collections and sell objects. To promote repetitive and sometimes boring weavings, nothing works like the injection of a little fantasy: just a bit of exociticism, but not enough to be offensive. Never mind that remnants of ancient design material may have carried no meaning in recent centuries. Speculation concerning ideational content that makes potential cult objects out of routine craft production seems irresistible. However, hollow symbolism seems a poor substitute for lively visions, inventiveness and superior aesthetics. The dominant themes in rug literature imply that the more stagnant the art form the better. "Tradition" is touted above all. The dilemma then comes with reconciling contrary ideals: How can a fiber work be "powerful" or "dynamic" and simultaneously inert and repetitive--mere competent copy work made with seductive materials? Marla |
| Subject | : | RE:Unfortunate attitude? |
| Author | : | Steve Price |
| Date | : | 04-10-2000 on 11:43 a.m. |
| sprice@hsc.vcu.edu Dear Marla, This thread has taken on many similarities to one on a recent Show and Tell topic. As I recall, Jay Burkette presented a modern Afghan Ersari rug and wondered about the origins of the motifs. I reacted rather harshly, sensitized (as you are) by the abundant absurdities on the subject in what might loosely be called "rug literature" and then recognized that this is a legitimate subject of inquiry as long as we don't lose perspective. The question of whether the original meaning(s) of the motif were of any significance to the weaver of the piece in question came up there, too. I share your irritation with public fantasizing, particularly when it has promotional motives. On the other hand, the questions raised seem legitimate to me in the form that Jay Burkette used and in the form that Christoph Huber uses here. Regards, Steve Price |
| Subject | : | RE:Unfortunate attitude? |
| Author | : | Christoph+Huber |
| Date | : | 04-12-2000 on 09:00 a.m. |
| huber-ch@pilatusnet.ch Dear Marla I guess that our positions aren’t as contrary as they at first sight may seem to be and I therefore would like to say something about the different ‘raisons d’être’ of my paper. 1) I wanted to raise some interest in the BMAC (and in its research-history). I think it could be good for (Turkmen-) carpet collectors to know something about the history of the region. 2) I wanted to share my interest in the evolution of ornaments. I know that in these ‘post-mothergoddess-days’ one doesn’t get an award for such ‘speculations’ but I think that not every attempt to follow the sources of carpet motifs is of the same kind. I would be very interested in a discussion of a kind of ‘quality-standard’ in this field. These are the parts of my article which could be seen as a promotion. 3) I wanted to produce some ‘negative-knowledge’. This is the most important aspect to me, because I share much of your feelings toward a part of the rug literature. From my point of view there is no positive proof for any hypothesis. There is the possibility to falsify a hypothesis so that we can be sure that something is wrong, but we never can be sure that something is ‘true’, we never can be certain that a given assumption (normally seen as truth or knowledge) won’t be proofed to be wrong some day. My way to question for example James Opie’s Luristan-hypothesis is to offer an alternative hypothesis. Seeing in every swastika or endless knot a connection to China and calling every ‘ram’s horn’ Turkish and shamanic is to my eyes a little bit carelessly when considering the material I have presented. My main aim was therefore not to produce one more dogma of the origin of motifs but to support a kind of uncertainty and caution which arises from the knowledge of more than one possible explanation. The interest in the origin of an ornament and the appreciation of its aesthetic merits are for me two very different things: Most of the carpets with the Kepse-gul are rather boring and ugly to me and I never would buy such a carpet, but the evolution of the gul is very interesting, isn’t it? Regards, Christoph |
| Subject | : | |
| Author | : | Steve Price |
| Date | : | 04-12-2000 on 09:21 a.m. |
| sprice@hsc.vcu.edu Dear People, One of Christoph's statements here is something many people don't know or don't understand, and it's a principle of such importance that I think it's worth repeating. Here it is: ...there is no positive proof for any hypothesis. There is the possibility to falsify a hypothesis so that we can be sure that something is wrong, but we never can be sure that something is ‘true’, we never can be certain that a given assumption (normally seen as truth or knowledge) won’t be proofed to be wrong some day. This is central to scientific thinking. There are ways of testing truth besides science, but when applying the method of science we must bear in mind the possibility that truth is subject to change. It's important to remember, also, that if a hypothesis is in principle untestable, it is unacceptable in the scientific sense. Thus, for instance, "it was a miracle" is never an acceptable scientific hypothesis because a miracle is, by definition, an unreproducible event whose truth is not subject to experimental verification. Steve Price |
| Subject | : | RE: |
| Author | : | Marla Mallett |
| Date | : | 04-12-2000 on 04:09 p.m. |
| Christoph, I appreciate your comments and cannot argue with much that you’ve said above. Only that for me, design evolution and aesthetics are not totally separate issues. Repetitive work is rarely dynamic, and connoisseurship usually requires a study of historical development. We are in agreement that we need to study whatever design materials are available, however, and I thank you for an interesting presentation. Since you have requested a discussion of “quality standards” for the study of design evolution, I’d say first that narrowing the gaps in both time and space surely helps. Yon’s comment on another thread about venerable old forms is pertinent. Virtually every current form can be found in something previous somewhere. Of course we can only understand changes if we recognize the predecessors, and learn which motifs bear merely superficial resemblances. We need to consider what kinds of forms are so basic to human expression, or so likely to spring from basic textile processes, that they are likely to have developed independently in a variety of places. Secondly, I think it is foolhardy to neglect the constraints posed by restrictive weaving techniques when drawing conclusions. Design forms that look much the same haven’t always come from the same source. For a concrete example, I might point to two different versions of the ubiquitous “running dog” border--forms that even well-respected writers have lumped together. One version has quite clearly evolved from slit-tapestry forms, while the other evolved in warp-substitution patterning. The two “original” motifs are vastly different. Thirdly, we need to be careful in attributing “meaning” to any visual forms without concrete evidence that such content was intended by the artisan. The longer visual forms have been around, the more likely they are to have achieved purely decorative status. Meanings may become more and more vague, or even change completely. The fylfot/swastika is one example. Another example, much too close to home, is the American Confederate battle flag motif which was resurrected in the 1950’s and placed on South Carolina and Georgia flags, to broadcast an obvious new message. Some diehards now claim the “original” symbolism is what counts, while others know differently. Just consider for a moment whether the forms in Asian textiles which have had the most genuine literal or symbolic meanings for their makers or owners, are not very likely those motifs created or assigned meanings most recently. I may be repeating myself, but it’s been the willingness of some tribal and village weavers in Central and Western Asia to irreverently alter “traditional” forms in unique ways that has resulted in such a rich fiber art tradition-- one richer than is found in many other cultures. I’ve spent enough time among Anatolian weavers to know that irreverence and an independent spirit are strong elements in the character of many of those strong-willed country women--thus my lack of enthusiasm for hunting ancient predecessors for motifs in works from recent centuries. Marla marlam@mindspring.com |
| Subject | : | RE: |
| Author | : | Steve Price |
| Date | : | 04-13-2000 on 08:49 a.m. |
| sprice@hsc.vcu.edu Dear Folks, Marla's post (immediately above this one) illustrates a point often missed in discussions of rug aesthetics. It is that the judgments we make are profoundly related not only to the cultures in which we live, but to our particular places within it. Marla, as a weaver, sees beauty in certain aspects of a textile that are related to her intimate knowledge of how they are created. People who do not weave, like me for example, don't focus in on such things until education leads us in that direction, and even then, much more imperfectly. This brings up the nature of connoisseurship, the attainment of enough knowledge about the bases for appreciating a particular kind of art to warrant being called a connoisseur (the word means "someone with knowledge"). And, I believe civil, open discussions between people coming at it from different directions are among the more efficient ways to reach that state. Bon voyage! Steve Price |