| I mentioned above that “patina” is, for me, an important indicator as
to the relative dating of a group of rugs. I would add that this applies
only when comparing simliar type rugs. Others have also stated this in
prior salons and elsewhere. This, I believe, requires elaboration. Perhaps
“aura”, rather than "patina", will better convey the quality that I feel
is inherent to many weavings of venerable age. Rarely, if ever, does it
emanate from later pieces. Encompassed in this “aura” is a “glow” and a
“blood warm vitality”. The more romantically inclined sometimes describe
feeling the presence of the weaver. I’m rather concrete myself and would
be satisfied with substituting “spirit” for “presence”. The “aura” may be
accompanied by a hint, a fragrance, a memory, of music. One has an
emotional response to this. It may be subtle and exquisite, or quite
violent. Hell, some people “fall in love” with it. I think that the issue
of first importance on interacting with a rug is the perception, or lack
thereof, of the “aura”. If it is there, are you home free? Of course not.
One can succumb to an infatuation, rather than the real thing.
Alternatively, one may be unreceptive to the “aura” due to any number of
factors. It is, to get back to the question of relative dating, my feeling
that only the oldest weavings embody an “aura” that is not only palpable,
but is enduring. If the above is true; why might it be so? There are three
important possibilities. 1) From about 1800 (you may substitute an earlier
date) to 1980 there has been a widespread decline in the “quality “ of rug
weaving over the entire area where “oriental rugs” have been an integral
part of the culture and the economy. This deterioration has corrupted
every aspect of rug production including: wool selection and preparation,
dye preparation, wool dying, and sensitivity and fidelity to traditional
cultural aesthetics. 2) Time beautifies rugs. Physical changes in the
wool-dye complex are salutary. The fabric becomes more pleasing to the
touch. The colors become fuller, mellower, and more harmonious. This is
not just a consequence of exposure to abrasion and light (i.e. wear), but
also to exposure to oxygen (i.e. lengthy existence). 3)
Psychology/marketing/peer pressure/fashion. The result being that rugs
which are perceived to be older are also perceived to be more beautiful
and valuable. The element of relative scarcity could be a dominant factor
in this. In any event, balisht #1 doesn’t have it (“aura”) as best as I
can judge from the image on my computer screen. #2 ...?
Patrick? |
That is quite a range. This is
the opinion of an antique rug dealer of 25 years experience. I know it is
not as romantic as a carbon dating of 13% 1659-1712 or 97% 1880-1920, but
is most likely accurate. Regarding the likelihood of the pink knots in the
middle branch being synthetic, the conclusion is: problably, but one of
these days we won't quibble about it and consider the weaving on its
inherent merits. We can discuss the relative probability of this weaving
being closer to 1880 versus 1920, but "first quarter 20th century" is a
pretty good guess. The balisht #2 is suggested as being "3rd quarter 19th
century". Patrick Weiler