No Spellchecker used. Didn't work.

Where are the sceptics? Where are the oriental art lovers? I've been strugling since 1994 with this aspect of the oriental rug art. I've never seen anyone adressing this aspect. I think it can be a new way of looking at our art. Maybe it's because we don't like to know everything about our art. Maybe it's to confronting.

v. Gogh has a very specific color range in his paintings. Is this the genius at work? Now, we know it was the stuff he drank that affected his brains and his sight. Are his paintings less beautiful because of this?

The painter that wants us to believe he made his most beautiful paintings before, after or at the time he had sex with the woman he loves. Does he wants us to think about him having sex while painting? No. He wants to tell us that painting is rooted in his life, a perfectly normal way of living. Eating, having sex, sleeping, writing, painting etc.

Rock & Roll? No L.S.D. around?
Flower Power whithout war around?
God whithout slavery and excile?
Christ without repression, poverty, exploitation of people?

Is the oriental rug scene a sort of heavenly art? I do not think so. It has always been, and stil is hard labour and rooted in the lives of the people that create it. While making rugs they had sex, made war, etc. Life goes on.

In the making of art, it's the artist that sets the boundry. The artist, designer decides what impact his/her art will have. That's obvious. But the artist is allways limmited by technical or cultural restrictions. What can be created, what is allowed to create. If we look at art as a sort of communication, isn't it strange we are discussing Internal Elems, only Allah is perfect, what specific tribe made this specific gul, cotton or woolen warps/wefts, natural deyes etc. but fail to adres the very obvious aspect of perspective and the solution that was invented by people.

In 17'th/18'th century, France had an import stop on oriental rugs, because Western Europe had it's own, more sophisticated production. European rugs where made to decorate Royal Palaces and architects, Royal mistresses decided what the art would look like. Verry symmetrical indeed. So here we do allow the cultural enviorment to mingle, and accept the influence. It has been said that the Oriental rug making was allready degenerated. Was it? Or did European "superior" culture decide this. So did the original oriental art become "Upper Class" toys, primitive art that you could "improve"? Evolution?

It's likewise in African sculpture. Pre-commercialysation it was the art of woman, when commerce came in it became the work of man. Evolution?

Music: Where are the great female composers from the 19'th century? I do think this is cultural realated. (A poor culture indeed, not allowing 50% of worlds population to participate). We do accept this. Evolution?

Chine de Commande? Do we realy think the Chinese liked it? Evolution?

Oriental rugs, transformed into our western culture and worse...western culture becoming domminant in the Oriental rooted art. Evolution?

-I think, some technical data has been provided for.
-I think, some cultural data has been provided for.

Best regards,
Vincent.
Am I male or female? The internet has some culture shocking influence, don't you think?

I would much prefer this debate over a couple of good beers . . but the net is what we've got . . .

you said under Facts in your salon just before the conclusion:

'In art it is normal to place oneselve[s]in the time and place the object under investigation was made'

I believe that this is very definately NOT THE CASE. I do not see people in museums trying to do that, nor in concert halls, nor while reading a book. One of the things that art is good at is allowing you to be for a moment with the perceptions and feelings of another human being. [And perhaps eliviate the loneliness of existance.] It is the art historian, musicologist etc. who are concerned with the "time and place" of the object created. I believe that this is the same with you second 'fact' about art
'. . .normal to contemplate the impact an object has [had] at the time and place. . .[of its creation]. I have a fairly good education in the arts and I find this EXTREMELY difficult to do. I cannot really imageine the impact of Fidelio at its premiere . . .or Warhol's can of soup . . .or an embroidery to the people who first saw it . . .

I believe you want a debate, hopefully an honest one . . so here you go . . .

as to your theory ... I am waiting for information about rugs that are ,at first consideration, directional--engsi and arch forms-- so that I can understand more

Sincerely

Richard

Didn't you study Music, before composing, didn't you study drama, before directing it?
I'm allowed to have an opinion about how to direct an Opera, but it wouldn't make any difference. Looking at the Opera you directed gives me a good or terrible feeling, does that matter? If it gives people, in general, a good feeling, you'll be famous, does this really say anything? Did you do a good job?

I'll post an image of an Ensi.But why looking at Ensi? It's crystal clear Ensi has a direction. And the point is: I'm not really intrested in top or bottom that is a side effect. I'm giving rugs a perspective. At least I'm trying to. The beauty is, most ensi's I encounter in the books show an elongated bottom (except the one I'm posting), because an ensi was supposed to hang as a curtain, as a sort of door. Looking at an Ensi in original situation gives you a look on top of it, looking down. So the top needs to be compressed for a good perspective. But I think the older pieces tend to be elongated in the upper halve. I don't know what to think of this. I'll post the image in 2 hours. First I'm having to deal with an elongated line of cars, in order to get home again.

Thak you, and have a drink Richard,
Regards,
Vincent

Should be obvious. We all know how people are getting taller and taller. In those times people were so small they looked at ensis from below.

Regards, Yon

I believe that one should deferentiate in between those that 'consume' the artistic product and those that 'create' it.

I stand firm on the statements I made in the previous letter about 'consumers' of art and there RELATIVE lack of concern with the historical, sociological etc. circumstances of the creator. They are concerned with the input they get from the piece itself.

As to your ideas about compression-elongation and perspective my gut feeling is that you have raised important questions. I will have a look embroideries with central medalions, lattices etc that might show this phenomena.

bye

Richard

I kind of see it (your topic) and yet I kind of don't.

While the phenomenon (elongation and compression) that you have attracted attention to, occurs, it often isn't obvious. That's why you had to draw the graphics. To show us what was there that we likely hadn't noticed. So one reason that perspective might not have been talked about much is that its actually fairly subtle for the average viewer of a rug.

Once noticed, I don't know what we do with it unless we talk with some contemporary weavers in whose weavings it still occurs. I think our attempts to devine weaver intent are usually unsatisfactory and are often fairly pathetic. I wonder how often it's just the result of a weaver trying to "get out of trouble" as he/she goes along weaving.

Richard, I want to take up what I think is your point about how frequently we attempt to take a "vehstehen" view of a rug. To see it as the people who made it might have seen it and to relate it to their lives. I think that those of us who are attracted to "tribal" weavings do this all the time. It is one of the aspects of these weavings that make them interesting to us. I do not think we do very well in achieving this "perspective," but that doesn't appear to interfere with our continuing efforts. Now if your thought is directed at a "man on the street" viewer of rugs, I think such folks do not wonder much about the world of the weaver but that's not the case among collectors.

Have I misunderstood your thesis?

Regards,

R. John Howe

The points made were not a thesis but a rebuttal of Mr. Keers statements just before the conclusion of his salon.

Do you really mean that you attempt to relate to the tribal weavings that you collect with a consideration of the standpoint of the people who first used them?

Sincerely,

Richard

N.B. Have you heard the cello concerto?

Thank you for the contribution. Case closed. Let's get on with important things like the evil eye, only Allah is perfect etc, 3 ply zs spun, left/right, upward/downward, and my rug has something that sets it apart from all other rugs, therefor it's worth a great deal more. But I'm not in it for the money, no way...it's art, and I did buy it cheap.
I think it's strange that up to this moment the struggle with perspective goes on in architecture and design but in oriental art, (I do think a rug creates perspective when looked at it from an angle.)it's not done. I do think it strange we pay 1.000 dollars for The Book, that claims to tell us everything, with rug-images upside down.
But I do appreciate your sense of humor and you being straightforward. That's what I'm looking for.

Dear Richard,

The Ensi image I promised.

It is not because of warp tension etc. It's elongated because of extra knots/design in the upper halve. Now I could say that this proves my case, because it has been done intentional, but that's to easy and it's only one rug.

An aspect I did not mention is: If elongation is available in the field, it doesn't show in the border design. If you can get Shurmann Caucasian rugs, have a good, open minded,look at plates: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 43, 44, 62, 63 (is upside down), 67, 87, 92, 93 (is upside down), 94, 95?, 97, 108, 120 soumack (upside down), 122 all pre 19'th century small rugs. Plates 18,20,21 (is upside down),22 (is upside down),33,45,47,48 (is upside down and compressed). Plate 82 a Verneh. 98, 100, 112, this is one book, no extra large rugs.
Couldn't they get it right? Even in small rugs? One problem is, all these rugs have woolen warps, so they tend to elongate more easy compared with cotton warped rugs.
But in cotton-warped old rugs elongation is the message.

I do not think textiles in general show this elongating aspect. As you did mention before, (I think), it doesn't make sense if the textile is used as cover etc. to talk about perspective.

Best regards,
Vincent

The pathetic discussion is what I'm so afraid of. That's why I didn't need Allah or whatever, I only forgot to mention the weaver. If a weaver has influence or not, the elongation aspect doesn't go away. If elongation is available in pre-19'th century rugs, but isn't available in Spanish etc. production, and after the 19'th century elongation in oriental rugs changes into compression, or nothing at all, what's going on there? It's something I noticed, and I'm trying to get an explanation for. Marla has been a great help in the end, by simply taking the cow by his horns? Elongation is the product of warptension. This is something that Wendel noticed before and that got me on the right track, I think. The only problem was that marla was discussing warp per warp, while I, (and I think Wendel to at that time), discussed loom per loom. Internet problem.

I thank you for your kind, and open minded approach. So maybe it's the perspective, maybe it's because the looms did change. I don't know. But it wouldn't hurt if the rugworld got an extra, unique PERSspective. Not only to the benefit of Mr. Money, but for all that participate in this wonderful art. If this could be the outcome of this, I don't mind being the fool.

And I do agree with Richard, art is what you see. But I'm happy I'm looking at my art a little different then the time I was 16. I hated it. I found it disgusting. Old fashioned, grandmothers stuff. Oeps, suddenly I'm feeling young again...so nice being obstinate.

Best regards,
Vincent

Please understand. I mean nothing perjorative about either the central question in your salon, nor about your own attempts to answer it. I think your insight very perceptive, perhaps even important.

My word "pathetic" was directed at the efforts of all of us (me too) to attempt to divine weaver intent and the weaver's world on the basis of the weaving. Not only is it often not possible but often even a conversation with the weaver might not help. I've quoted what follows before but it applies here. A noted poet was asked after a reading what he "meant" by a certain figure in one of his poems. He said, "Madam, when I wrote that two knew what I meant: myself and God. Now only God knows."

Richard -

Yes, I think I do attempt to adopt the perspective of the weaver and her world. One sign of this is that I have recently obtained a crude frame loom and am beginning to grapple with the problems that faced the weavers of the weavings I collect. For a long while I have been a pureist about this, delaying in the hope that I could find a Turkmen weaver to introduce me. Now I am simply going ahead as best I can. I do not expect to become a Turkmen woman or even a particuarly competent weaver but I think I will learn useful things by grappling concretely with problems of the sort that these weavers were faced with. Perhaps I will experience elongation of a Turkmen gul in a way that will make talking about it beside the point.

P.S.: I have listened to the cello piece and to several of his other compositions with an open mind. I think I will learn to enjoy this music but it takes some adjustment. (By the way, the jacket on this double CD, credits him with using a 12 tone scale albeit without observing all of the related strictures. Probably like rug books: one can't believe everything you read.)

Regards,

R. John Howe