| Subject | : | The eyes have it |
| Author | : | Jerry Silverman |
| Date | : | 08-01-2000 on 07:06 p.m. |
| rug_books@silvrmn.com Sam's given me plenty to think about. And despite the vivid objections that others have raised, I find myself siding with him. Our first introduction to a rug is entirely visual. Before we touch it, examine it, decide whether to buy it, we see it. If that sight doesn't ignite something (emotional) within us, we probably will never get around to touching it, etc. In fact I'd venture to say that there are few among us who would own a piece merely for its purely intellectual content. (I know it's ugly, but look at those nifty jufti knots!) That's not what motivates me to open my checkbook which is the truest measure of my appreciation of a rug. Once I've bought it I'll spend some time examining it, trying to do all those things that let us categorize a piece and make a knowledgeable attribution. But not if I didn't find it visually arresting in the first place. Cordially, -Jerry- |
| Subject | : | RE:The eyes have it |
| Author | : | Steve Price |
| Date | : | 08-01-2000 on 10:12 p.m. |
| sprice@hsc.vcu.edu Dear Jerry, You're right, but incomplete. I think it is true that nearly every collector is attracted to a piece first by its aesthetics, but what he is willing to pay for it (and its market value) depends on a number of factors not strictly aesthetic at all. A 300 year old rug is worth much more on the market (that is, to most collectors) than a visually identical copy made last year. The Caucasian knockoffs being made today are often aesthetically superb, but have nothing like the value or collector appeal of the old ones. That is, aesthetics is important - I wouldn't own a piece that I didn't find beautiful - but it doesn't determine value all by itself. Steve Price |
| Subject | : | RE:The eyes have it |
| Author | : | Jerry Silverman |
| Date | : | 08-02-2000 on 04:28 a.m. |
| Dear Steve, You're right, but you're responding to a claim I never made. There were plenty of qualifications hedging what I said. Maybe too many. I find the virtue in the aesthetics. The rest is just gravy. -Jerry- rug_books@silvrmn.com |
| Subject | : | RE:The eyes have it |
| Author | : | R. John Howe |
| Date | : | 08-03-2000 on 06:55 a.m. |
| Hi Jerry - I don't want to debate deeply what you have said here but rather to describe something I am seeing now with some local experienced collectors that does suggest that they are sometimes making purchases primarily in terms of intellectual rather than aesthetic criteria. These folks have become interested in age. They read Elizabeth Barber's work and similar things closely and are looking for evidence of what the earliest weavings might have been and what they looked like. Pursuing this vein at the levels at which it is perhaps accessible today, they have identified some pieces that seem similar but of course much younger and are buying such pieces. Sometimes, the pieces they are buying are not by any ready standard beautiful. Sometimes they are buying examples that have pretty obvious synthetics in them (something they would definitely not do in their other collecting decisions). It seems to me that their interest in what ancient textiles might have been has drawn them into purchases motivated primarily by the intellectual and in pursuit of it they are sometime willing to give up not only aesthetic qualities (although these pieces do on occasion have some graphic impact) but also other standards that they treat very seriously in their other collecting purchases. This phenomenon seems to me perhaps a small counter instance of the predominant pattern you have described. Regards, R. John Howe |
| Subject | : | RE:The eyes have it |
| Author | : | Michael Wendorf |
| Date | : | 08-03-2000 on 09:59 a.m. |
| Dear John: I think I understand what you are describing, perhaps I am even one of those "local experienced collectors" you refer to. If so, I would like to point out that what you describe as an interest in age is probably more accurately described as an interest in origins. What I think we are describing are rugs which John Wertime has described as "primitive." The aim of studying and assembling examples of such weavings has more to do with exploring and understanding how weaving may have evolved from man's first domestication of sheep and goats than age per se. The term "primitive" is merely a label of convenience for a variety of weavings that seem to have no commercial incentive behind them but rather reflect a long tradition of weaving for home or local use. Many of these use dark wools or hairs, undyed wools, coarse knotting and have an aethestic that is somewhat "acquired" or "intellectual" rather than "emotional." Because these weavings had no commercial value at the time they were woven, all that is left are relatively recent versions. These are studied and sometimes collected not because of their age, but because of the tradition they reflect and the insights into early weaving that they reflect. Best, Michael Wendorf |
| Subject | : | RE:The eyes have it |
| Author | : | R. John Howe |
| Date | : | 08-03-2000 on 08:20 p.m. |
| Michael et al - Your word "origins" is more accurate than my word
"age." The example I was offering, I think, still stands on the ground on
which it was offered: it is an instance in which the interests and
purchases are seemingly motivated by what you graciously |