Dear all, I can't see the "naturally" in elongated güls, in elongated
rugs. It's more "anti-natural". It could well be it's more "natural" to
shrink the length of the gül, so the rug looks wider and more balanced.
The word "elongated" suggests the original was shorter. This contradicts
the observation that older güls tended to be more squarish and recent güls
became more "flattened". How to look at a rug-design: Pictures from
rug-design are mostly made with a "western" technical disforming
objective. So I begin with my bottom, sitting on the rug If we look at
architecture, the shortening effect of height or distance, was known. I
think it is on some of the heroïc Byzantine pillars where the design,
circling around the pillar towards the top, is elongated bit by bit. This
was done in order to keep the design visible in the top, from the ground
looking up. The pillars of the Parthenon do not have the same distance.
The three corner pillars are more close. The pillars at the front and back
side are placed with greater distance then the ones at the left and right
side. Heliodorus, Optica: 1 century AC "The purpose of the architect is to
make his work look as properly proportioned as possible. His purpose must
not be the factual, but the possible equality of sizes and concepts". The
güls: From the perspective point of view the rug can be looked at from
both sides in the length (unlike the heroïc pillars). Normal squares
(under my bottom) would make the distant squares flatten, and become
rectangles in the wide. The "diamond" shapes under my bottom, don't look
at all like diamonds from a distance, and the design in the "diamonds" is
lost from visability. "Elongated diamonds" (the left and right corners cut
off) look as if they have more internal space from a distance, but in
reality they have less internal space. I do think, architects had their
say in the rug designs, and if not? The struggle for perspective was still
on, in art, in the middle-ages. And rug design must have had it's own
struggle, seen from the "sitting on the rug" perspective. I also noticed
that a 70% of the large 16/17th century rugs tend to be asymmetrical in
the length of the design. So it looks as if the medallion, or the central
point, has been shifted down. This probably Kashan, (16th century, silk
pile with metallic brocading) is an example.  Is it because the production was
bad? They couldn't get it right? If we look at the recent, more Western
oriented production, they're all symmetric. Maybe the reason for shifting
down the central point was because the rugs had to have a direction, a
balanced appearance in the eyes of the ruler. So the perspective was
achieved by elongating the second, most distant half of the design, or by
extra design insertions, in order to keep the central design point, in the
middle. The assertion that such design "failures" are the result of the
knotting proces, are in my opinion too convenient because I think they
could have made it "right" if they wanted to. Best regards,
Vincent |
Something
similar happens in the medallions found in bags and pile carpets from
Northwest Persia and the Caucasus. Look at these images from one pile and
four sumak bags. The vertical axis is clearly more pointed than the
horizontal. 
One can observe
the same phenomenon among Turkmen guls, particularly those of the Tekke
and Salor. 
I have not
made a tabulation of the number of medallions displaying the "blunted
sides" syndrome, and there clearly are some exceptions, but it is a design
feature that seems to be almost universal. The question is: why? If these
medallions originated in slit tapestry, one would, I think, expect just
the opposite result; the points would be on the horizontal axis. The image
of the "Coptic" medallion is not to demonstrate any particular connection
with any of the other medallions, but merely to illustrate that this
phenomenon has at least one precedent from over 1,000 years ago. Any
thoughts or comments, readers? Wendel
A is B with the horizontal corners
missing. A1 = perspective A2 = Same size all three. B1 = perspective B2 =
Same size all three. A1 compared with B1 doesn't show much. A2 compared
with B2 looks as if A2 gets bigger the way up but they are all the same
size. B2 all look the same size. Conclusion: The greater the distance the
more flattend the object looks. So if I make it longer, by stretching it
vertically from my point of view, it will look more balanced. But if I'm
having the chaotic mind-switch again, don't hesitate in correcting me.
And....I'm very happy, no tessellation is involved here........there
isn't....is there? Good night, sleep tight, Vincent
[©enter]
3/ I don’t think there are any technical reasons to explain this
phenomena. Thanks, Daniel
This kilim has a very strong elongation
effect. I've pictured it from both sides, in order to show this. In the
second picture the elongated "blunted top" medallion is most near. It
doesn't show because of the perspective. 
Hope it is visible, but the fringe left is a closed warp. The
right panel has open warps. But the elongation happens symmetrically, left
and right in both panels. 
At the
other side it's the same story. Some possibilities: 1. The panels have
been woven on different looms, next to each other. This isn't possible
because then the elongation at one loom is at the start, and at the other
loom it's at the end. So it was not possible for the weavers to interact.
2. The panels have been woven on one loom, as is usually the case. This is
the case. I put the two panels in the length and the weave shows: starting
elongated and getting more compressed, the suddenly changing to elongated
and getting more compressed again. Having the closed warps as a given
element, the last conclusion would be the most reliable and the weavers
were, and are, capable of deciding at which point "elongation" or
"compression" was needed. If this is the case, the "sloppy" 16/17th
century jobs in our Museums and in "The Books" aren't sloppy at all. They
are as intended. I would like some feedback on this, for I think it's
essential in our appreciation of the "oriental carpet art", in general.
Best regards, Vincent Keers PS. I think this Salon has to be "elongated"
because: Tesselation, elongation, compression, 2 dimensional perspective
are essentials. As my English spelling is to, and I will never write any
English litrature. Because the more easy I'm with English words, the more
firmly English, as "communication" tend to be beaten
down.