In another thread here Pat Weiler has written in part:

"...The first criterion for collecting rugs in 2101 is that collectors will only be able to collect rugs that actually survive until then..."

My thought:

Although I haven't asked Sara Wolf, formerly the conservationist at The Textile Museum about this, I suspect that because knowledge of conservation has advanced considerably over that last century and because collectors today are applying it to some degree to protect the items in their collections, that proportionally more of the antique rugs and textiles we have today will survive into the 22nd century than did 19th century material into our own era.

Given that, and the seemingly persistent tendency of collectors to stiill admire most of the rugs traditionally collected, even as they move to new collecting arenas and fashions, I think that there will be a number of collectors in 2101 who still collect the things we collect now.

They are likely to be a smaller group, given the finite and declining universe of such material, and they will likely to be a good deal more prosperous than we are, since such material is likely to rise considerably in price.

This may be another factor that will make it likely that folks in 2101 will have collections of fewer and smaller pieces.

But to follow Pat's requirement, I think a remarkable amount of the material we currently collect will still be around in 2101 and valued by collectors then.

Regards,

R. John Howe

Regards, Yon

Wendel Swan has pointed out to me in a side conversation that, despite the general estimate that things are accelerating sharply nowadays, 100 years is still not a very long time.

He points out that the history that we have on rug collecting, now going back to at least the already rather sophisticated Pazyerik carpet, dated 2600 years ago, suggests that rug collecting, perhaps not terribly different from what has gone on to this point, will continue.

It is possible to get mesmerised unduly with the notion that 100 years in the future rug collecting is likely to be very different.

The historical "tail" of rug collecting that we drag as we attempt this prediction is, perhaps, even more impressively long.

Regards,

R. John Howe

I agree with you (and, by extension, with Wendel). However, treating the Pazyryk cave as an early collector's trunk seems like a stretch to me.

Regards,

Steve Price

I remember this debate. You mean I have to find at least one more 2600 year old rug at the Parzaryk site before you will allow that the first one is part of a "collection."

At that price I'll drop the example even if it means that I have to move to the 15th century.

The historical "tail" of collecting that meets your standard is still pretty long and weighty.

Regards,

R. John Howe

I agree that there were collectors, more or less in the sense that we use the term today, by 500 years ago.

Steve Price

I hope you will notice that I refrained from being as conceptually imaginative as we are trained in the Federal government to be.

I could have argued that, since more than one object was found at the Pazaryk site, and that since many of them seemed organized around the burial of an important person that the Pazaryk rug is, in fact, even by your very stringent standard, a part of a real "collection" of items, albeit not of rugs.

Aren't you glad I didn't argue that?

Regards,

R. John Howe

I was taught that it takes at least three objects before it's a collection. But that's an aside.

I guess the stuff in the cave at Pazyryk could be called a collection, but the guy to whom they belonged wasn't a collector in our sense (that is, someone afflicted with a neurosis that is manifested by a compulsion to acquire a particular category of things).

And if the collection was assembled after his death, would we allow that someone could be a collector while dead?

Steve Price

I disagree: the stuff in the cave at Pazyryk was not a collection, but the personal wealth of the deceased. Like burying today somebody with his furniture, jewels, car, TV Color and so on.

But let’s go back to the topic of this thread: it is obvious "that collectors will only be able to collect rugs that actually survive until then..." since, to my knowledge, it is quite difficult to collect something no more existing . And it is likely that they will collect the things we collect now, with a considerable increase of the value of such (by that time) rare material.

It is also likely, I think, that collectors will increase the range of collectibles, like the DOBAG rugs and similar. The Afghan War Rugs are already collected…What else? All the kinds of ethnographic flatweaves and textiles - OK, this is happening too but it will increase steadily…
There is already a revival in the demand for low-end material, see Nick Purdon’ s Editorial "The Low End Theory" on http://www.cloudband.com/magazine/

Let’s see …what else? In his book, Azizollahoff writes:
"A small number of the very best machine-made carpets may even retain value over time…and some of the best new Couristans from Belgium… could be collectible."
"Antique nineteenth century power-loomed rugs from the cities of Axminister and Wilton in England may be very valuable today."
"Antique American Wiltons…may be good investments…"

So, if today old and new machine made rugs are already candidate for collections, what will happen to the hand made city rugs and curvilinear decorative rugs, old and new, we now disdain?

In a century they will be, respectively, antique and old. An old object has always had an attractive charm on the human mind, and I suspect the "hand-made" aspect will be much more valuable in a century from now. No matter if the dyes are natural or not. They will be collected for sure.

(Provided the Civilization As we Know It will survive. On the other hand, it is even possible that some of us could still be around, perhaps in a brand new cyborg body. )

Regards,

Filiberto Boncompagni

My comment about the nobleman buried at Pazaryk being a collector was not meant to be serious, just to point out that we can easily get tangled up with words (there was quite a collection of stuff in his tomb; that doesn't make him a collector).

I also think that we (that is, the folks who use this forum) tend to underestimate the current collectibility of formal workshop carpets - in Filiberto's words, the hand made city rugs and curvilinear decorative rugs, old and new, we now disdain. In fact, there are lots of people who collect those and think that they're simply wonderful. I noticed in the most recent issue of HALI that the big advertisement for the carpet fair in Iran included photos of nothing except formal workshop carpets.

Regards,

Steve Price

You're right, of course. But there is a semantic problem. Here's some thoughts:
1. If the question is, "what will people like us collect", then the answer must be that they will collect what we collect. In the current context, that's what makes them people like us.
2. If the question is, "what kind of rugs will be collected", the answer must be, every kind of rug that exists will be collected by someone.
3. We can narrow the question a bit, to, "Assuming that HALI still exists in 100 years, what will be the main collecting interests of it's subscribers?" This, essentially, is equivalent to defining "people like us" as "HALI readers and subscribers".

I think number 3 is closer to John's intent than any other way I can think of to put it, although I may be mistaken. If number 3 is the question, though, the fact that the collecting habits of the current readers and subscribers include a pretty solid dose of workshop stuff is relevant.

Regards,

Steve Price

I just read again your first posting in "Ethnographic Rugs?" and I realize that I was saying something you already wrote - too many postings, one tends to forget some of them.
Regards,

Filiberto

As I have argued elsewhere in this salon, some things are worth repeating since this can give us opportunities to explore new facets of them.

Steve's analysis above of what I meant with my initial question seems a plausible interpretation of it but my actual statement was simpler and potentially broader.

I asked only "What rugs will be collected in 2101?" It may be in my initial essay that I provided fodder for more restricted readings but I intended to ask that question without delimiting it.

Regards,

R. John Howe