The introductory essays for Archived Salons can be accessed by clicking on
those words, or you can return to the Turkotek
Home Page. Our forums are easy to use, and you can get
HELP or you can SEARCH the Discussion Boards.
Please enter your full name (name by which you are usually addressed plus your
last name) in the field labeled "NickName". Anonymous posting, ad hominem remarks, comments bearing on the value
of any item currently on the market or on the reputation of any seller are not
permitted.
As I have sometimes mentioned in another incarnation I was
a fairly serious practitioner of the very "democratic"
(because of its accessibility) art of macrame.
When we begin to examine and to describe rug structures
closely, I am frequently reminded of macrame structures and
practices that seem similar to me.
Now there are differences to be sure and the analogy can
break down quickly. Macrame is mostly a matter of knotted
structures formed mostly of warps. Yes, the double half-hitch
is tied over a cord that serves as something very close to a
weft but usually even that cord is a "borrowed" weft, since it
takes for this purpose one of the warps cords and most usually
returns it to serve again as warp in a different position
amongst the vertical cords.
Offset knotting always reminds me of the very frequent use
by macrame artists of alternating square knot. Alternate
square knotting is also a matter of shifting the four-cord
square knot by two cords from row to row so that the knots on
each subsequent row fall "in between" to some extent, the
knots in the row above it and often below it.
Macrame knotters like rug weavers can readily move from
alternate square knotting to another variation or knot between
rows. It is at the sides of sections done in alternate square
knotting that potential problems are encountered.
To make this a bit concrete, here is a detail from a
macrame sampler that I have made in a number of varieties over
the years. The center square in the top row is done in
alternate square knot.
Here is a closer image of that portion of this sampler.
Look at the sides. Notice that the macrame knotter using
alternate square knotting, faces a situation at the sides that
is similar to that faced by the rug weaver using offset
knotting. There are some extra "unknotted" warps in every
other row of knots that can be seen to provide a potentially
"unfinished" appear to the side edge.
Now for the macrame artist, this fact can be less
problematic than it likely is for the rug weaver, since the
"lacey" edge is sometimes seen to be attractive. But among
skilled macrame folks, one also looks to see whether a knotter
has at least sometimes demonstrated that he or she has a
sufficiently advanced order of skills to produce a more
finished edge that has its own subtleties.
For example, one can make the edge look more "woven by
simply bringing the outside cord over and inside the cord to
its left (or right depending on the side you are working with)
when the next row of knots is made. A more sophisticated usage
is to combine this practice with a "pointing" of the end of
the square knot ( notice that each square knot has a vertical
"node" on one end of it) alternately to the right and to the
left in the outside two rows of knots. This produces both a
"finished" edge and one that has just inside it a subtle
vertical row of detailing formed by the lining up of the
square knot "nodes" as they are reversed from row to row.
A macrame knotter who does not at least sometimes deploy
such more sophisticated usages can be suspected of not having
advanced sufficiently to have acquired them.
This leads me to an analogous question concerning the use
of offset knotting. Such usage, usually presents the weaver
with two unknotted warps, at the edge of either the rug or a
transition to regular knotting, in every other row. Marla and
Daniel have described, in the initial salon essay, some
strategies rug weavers use to deal with this problem. They
mention "warp sharing," "knots over three warps," "knots on a
single warp," and even "unknotted warps."
My question is whether the use of some of these
compensating strategies can ever be seen as the potential
occasion for "bad weaving?" I notice that the discovery of a
knot over three warps or on a single warp or of an unknotted
warps violates my own sense of good craft and I wonder whether
this is trivial (perhaps the result of what the Freudians
might see a an "anal" tendency of mine) or whether there are
preferred compensating (or "finishing") weaving practices to
be noticed (as Marla has with regard to the use of slit weave
tapestry) when offset knots are employed.
Regards,
R. John Howe
Date: 09-24-2001 on 10:33
a.m.
R. John Howe
2. Re:Offset Knotting as
Bad Weaving?
Dear folks -
One correction in what I have written above:
I said in part:
"...Such usage, usually presents the weaver with two
unknotted warps, at the edge of either the rug or a transition
to regular knotting, in every other row."
I think the usual situation for the weaver is that only one
warp is unknotted at the edge of the piece or at the point of
transition in a row.
Regards,
R. John Howe
Date: 09-24-2001 on 12:30
p.m.
Marla Mallett
3. Re:Offset Knotting as
Bad Weaving?
Dear John,
You’ve opened a major can of worms with your astute
observation. Your macramé parallel, in which “extra” warps
occur, is excellent. Two extra warps in your macramé, one
extra warp in offset knotting--the principle you are
illustrating is the same.
Viewed in one way, offset knotting is a perversion of
knotted structures. That is, unless one only places the
offsets at the selvage, where a specialized selvage technique
can compensate for the “extra” warps. Placing the extra warps
within the woven design, a knotted-pile weaver essentially
tries to “hide” them within the pile. In weavings like the Jaf
bags or rugs in which the entire field is offset, this
“problem” occurs only at the transition between field and
border, and indeed, in my first illustration, the indecision
on the part of the weaver is visible in the knotting
irregularities.
For exactly this reason, I see offset knotting as nearly
always a sign that the design material used by the pile weaver
originated elsewhere—in another technique/structure. In the
process of “copying” it the original forms may be replicated
(with small corrections, or transitions) or an altered
(corrupted?) version may be presented as an adaptation (as in
some of the provincial eastern Anatolian renditions of
workshop medallion designs).
An exception to this occurs when the weaver uses offsetting
to “square” a weave that is unbalanced due to a much higher
vertical than horizontal knot count, as in some of the Turkmen
weavings I showed.
Another exception occurs when the weaver purposely uses
offsets to produce diagonals with different slants in her
design, as in the Luri example on my first page—the one in
which we showed two contrasting diamonds in detail. This also
occurred in the Yomut asmalyk I illustrated. But you’ve
already pointed out that doubling up the knots in the diagonal
steps is another way to do that.
Other exceptions, and those that I find perhaps the most
interesting, are examples in which the offsets are integral to
the design itself. The small figure that appears in some
Turkmen mafrash and khalyk and that the literature calls a
“cup” is one such example—a motif made with offsets continuous
across the entire weaving’s width. It’s a structurally
generated motif. The isolated border that I showed illustrates
its purest form, and alternates bands of offset and vertically
aligned knotting. Although I’ve seen several of these borders,
I have only been able to examine one mafrash in which this
appeared as a field motif; I’d be interested in knowing how
the motif has been articulated in other examples. The
evolution of the “drooping flower” in Saryk ensis is another
example that fascinates me, as so many varieties appear, and
one could do a major study on just the development of that one
motif. For me, the earliest examples seem to be those that are
the “purest”—those that combine pattern parts so as to allow
horizontal areas in which the knotting is not interrupted so
often by “extra” warps—as in John’s macramé.
This could go on and on—so I’ll just stop. Thank you very
much for your example, John, and your observation. It’s
valuable one.
Best,
Marla
Date: 09-24-2001 on 01:46
p.m.
Marla Mallett
4. Re:Offset Knotting as
Bad Weaving?
Dear John,
I see I didn’t answer the question at the end of your
initial post above. I didn’t understand your reference to slit
tapestry. Here are a few more random thoughts:
When considering the question of “bad” weaving, we have to
realize that in other structures, there are often “unfinished”
sections at the horizontal ends of pattern parts. In brocade
patterns, for example, we can expect “transition” areas where
motifs may be incomplete, and ragged-edged. With twill
structures, ragged selvages are the norm, and one may even
need to incorporate a floating warp to accommodate the
irregular floats. In both Baluch and Moroccan
weft-substitution weavings there are often severe pattern
irregularities where borders and field meet. We see these as
quite normal for the medium. Of course in these cases, we
might question whether the “best” weavings are those with
vertical borders.
So are irregularities in knotted pile “uncraftsmanlike”? Or
are they just “stretching the medium” to allow more design
possibilities? It seems to me that this is one area where
structure becomes very much a part of the artist’s overall
esthetic decisions. And the connoisseur’s judgments. Do you
find the two unknotted yarns at the edges of those macramé
sections unpleasing? Depends upon the whole composition,
doesn’t it? As well as the sensitivity with which those
elements are incorporated into the overall design. How about
the wide range of knotting irregularities that some Chinese
weavers have used to articulate their patterning? “Bad”
weaving, or not? In most cases they could have avoided the
necessity for these irregularities by using a finer weave—more
knots per square inch. But with a change in scale, some of the
vigor and strength in the pieces may well have been lost. Just
imagine a bold Kazak rug done with 800 knots per inch, and
short clipped pile—some of its impact would definitely be
lessened. So there are constant trade-offs.
Best, Marla
Date: 09-24-2001 on 04:12
p.m.
John Howe
5. Re:Offset Knotting as
Bad Weaving?
Marla et al -
My allusion to slit weave tapestry was likely a kind of
"stretch" and at bottom not the same thing at all. With regard
to slit weave tapestry I think you made the point that bad use
of that technique not only results in less pleasing aesthetic
effects but often also in fabrics that are structurally
unsound. With offset knotting, we are likely dealing only with
aesthetics and, as I will suggest in a moment, senses of what
constitutes good craft.
Your suggestions that in some senses offsetting knotting
could be seen as a kind of "perversion" that requires
"compensation" in the form of "hiding," captures pretty
precisely the center of my uniformed suspicion here.
Your comments also nicely work over the ground of some
circumstances in which offset knotting seems likely to be
something like a perversion of best weaving practice and some
in which it is not.
You ask, appropriately, whether there are not some
instances in which the "laciness" of the unknotted macrame
warps is not attractive and if you can tolerate a couple more
macrame examples, I think I can make the distinction I feel
clearer.
Here is a women's belt that I have made a few times. (It is
not one with much alternating square knots but it does have
lots of unknotted warps.)
In this design, I think the laciness of the unknotted warps
cannot be objected to, since they are central to the positive
aesthetic effects of the design.
Here are two more belt designs, both of which do use
alternating square knot for the basic body of the belt,
including the edges.
Now both of these designs are good enough to be published
and perhaps some will think that I "strain a bit at knats,"
but for me, the belt on the left is a little better as an
instance of craft than that on the right because the one on
the left employs a technique to give the edge a more "woven'
look. More, I would argue that that the strategy employed on
the belt on the left, not only provides a more finished edge
appearance, it is more functional since it will likely wear
somewhat better. Isolated warps are less exposed to catching
and to wear.
Perhaps the best macrame analogy for the concern in which
my original post in this thread is rooted is the practice of
"splicing." Offset knotting, in its forms that might be seen
as perversions of the best weaving practice, does not appear
to damage the structure of the fabric at all. The compensatory
strategies to hide the extra bare warps at edges and points of
transition are concerned only with aesthestic effects. So also
with "splicing" in macrame. It is possible to indulge in a
great deal of splicing in a macame piece without its being
visible at all. But I learned from an old retired merchant
marine sailor, who had one lung and one kidney, but whose
macrame pieces were sheer poetry, that the knotters whom he
admired most were those who produced very beautiful pieces,
with entirely "finished" appearances, beginning, middle and
end, without any resort to splicing whatsoever.
This is the sort of standard that I thought might be
applied by experienced weavers to instances of offset knotting
that might be seen for this reason to be a kind of perversion
of best weaving practice.
Regards,
R. John Howe
Date: 09-25-2001 on 09:55
a.m.
Marla Mallett
6. Re:Offset Knotting as
Bad Weaving?
Dear John and all,
I think your photos exemplify the close tie between a
sensitive use of structure and aesthetics. Consistency is an
important element in a successfully designed object, and the
old saw, “Form follows function” is also in play. I agree that
in your lacy belt the unworked yarns do very well, as they are
used as a main ingredient, essential to the concept. On your
more sturdy, solidly worked examples, the unworked elements
seem less consistent, or as you have put it, “unfinished.”
Among other qualities,it is the consistency which pleases
me in some of the pieces which use offset knotting without
constant breaks in the knotting sequences. I like when we can
see the process reflected in the design itself. I am less
content with the idea of “hiding” the tool or mechanism.
I had not anticipated that this subject would arise, and am
delighted with it.
Best, Marla
Date: 09-25-2001 on 03:21
p.m.
Ludwina Akbulut
7. Re:Offset Knotting as
Bad Weaving?
Hello, when an offset
knotting is used over the complete width of a piece the
'extra' warp is woven in with the edge weaving, here we see a
difference with macrame. carpets have, usual, an edge extra
added while weaving and knotting, and there you can add this
extra warp in your edging warps without problem. when
offset knotting is used in a part of a pattern the 'not used
warp', one on each end of the offset knotted design, falls
between the surrounding knots. Personaly I would not call
this a bad weaving. It shows the expierience and the
creativity of a weaver to adept a technique to the design she
wants to create. For me this can not be called a Bad
Weaving!
Date: 09-27-2001 on 07:02
p.m.
Patrick Weiler
8. Re:Offset Knotting as
Bad Weaving?
John,
When I first read your topic, Bad Weaving, I immediately
thought of the ubiquitous Jaf Kurd bagfaces. They have a
beautiful center field of rigidly geometric diamonds, yet the
sides of the field are almost invariably distorted. The
regular diamonds morph into disintegrated shapes, wedges,
lumps and jumbles. Is this from an attempt to transition from
a field of offset knots to a border of vertically aligned
knots? These distortions do not seem to appear on flat woven
examples of diamond field bags. These jumbled vestigal diamond
forms do not detract from the impact of most of these
weavings. They even add a bit of folksy charm to some.
Distortedly yours,
Patrick Weiler
Date: 09-27-2001 on 09:07
p.m.
John_Howe
Team member in Moderator Group posts: 4 since:
08-10-2001
9. Re:Offset Knotting as
Bad Weaving?
Ms. Akbulut (welcome), Patrick
et al -
Thank you both for your additional thoughts here.
I think that the possible objections I have raised about
some uses of offset knotting are debatable and that, in part,
is why I posed them in the form of a question. I noticed that
sometimes my own, perhaps inappropriately transplanted sense
of macrame craft was offended a bit by some uses of offset
knotting and I wondered what experienced weavers would say
about it.
Marla seems to agree that there are some instances in which
she shares at least a degree of my discomfort about uses of
offset knotting that might not be seen to exemplify best
weaving practices.
Marla's comments anticipate Ms. Akbulut's about the use of
offset knotting at the side selveges of a pile weaving but I'm
not sure that Ms. Akbulut's thought about the defensibility of
such usage in the field addresses sufficiently Marla's thought
the best field uses of offset knotting may be those where its
use as a tool is visible and needn't be hidden or compensated
for in a sense.
And, Patrick, I agree with most of what you've said,
excepting perhaps the "charm" part. Some time back we devoted
a salon, entitled "The Oops Thesis," http://www.turkotek.com/salon_00005/salon.html
to the exploration of the character of variations that can
be seen to have positive aesthetic effects and those that are
likely better described as instances of bad weaving.
I think that for myself, the instances of offset knotting
that occur in Jaf Kurd bags and result in less than finished
transitions from field to side borders, are better described
as instances of less than accomplished weaving.
To do otherwise, as the old dog judge said once about her
field, is to like a piece not in spite of its faults but
because of them. This, she felt, signaled that aesthetic
re-education was needed.
Thanks to both of your for your thoughts here.
Regards,
R. John Howe
Date: 09-28-2001 on 07:15
a.m.
Marla Mallett
10. Re:Offset Knotting as
Bad Weaving?
John, Pat, Ludwina and all,
You have each made such good points, I wonder what you
think of the way offset knotting has been used in three pieces
on the third web page: the Kircheim “Faces” rug, the Anatolian
rug in Berlin with large stars and animals, and third, Chris
Alexander’s “Pregnant Bird” rug. These are all instances in
which offsets have been used to incorporate or adapt kilim
motifs. The URL is: www.marlamallett.com/offset-b.htm.
Furthermore, what do you think of knotted-pile pieces in
which knotting “irregularities” are hidden, until the pile
wears, when they then take on a "jumbled" appearance, as in
Pat's Jaf bags? Should we hold that against the weaver? Should
the weaver be concerned with the future appearance of her
piece, or only with its look when it comes off the loom?
Best, Marla
Date: 09-28-2001 on 10:10
a.m.
Ludwina Akbulut
11. Re:Offset Knotting as
Bad Weaving?
Hello ,
I think I was not very clear so I try again.
Making macrame you can use the effects of -for example-
alternating knots, to form a good looking selvage. Of course
you can add an extra selvage. In carpet there is (almost?)
always a selvage using extra warps and wefts that gives you
the possibility of taking in one more warp coming from the
knotted part to the selvage part. This isolated warp will
appear between the knotted part and the selvage.
Using Offset knotting to make a design possible, when by
using the standard Vertical knotting, this design is not
possible or not 'fluent' enough (diagonal lines) shows for me
the skill of a weaver, and than she finds solutions to handle
(I do not want to use the word 'hide') the unused warps.
Is 'trying to find new ways to create' not one of the
definitions of ART ?
It is certainly not easy to use Offset knotting to obtain
an aesthetic design. You need skill and a good eye for the
design!
When it is not necessary to use Offset knotting to make a
design or a part of it, and only occurs on small irregular
parts in a piece it are just mistakes.
When knotting a carpet you start knotting a new line with
design colors, guided looking at the last knotted line.
Finishing this new line by adding the color of the background.
So you control your Vertical knotting following the design. On
large one-colored parts you can 'loose control' and when you
are knotting a finer carpet it needs more skill to avoid such
mistakes. But who wants to knot a very fine carpet with big
designs? If you have possibilities, you want to use them.
And Marla I suppose that most weavers are very concerned
how a piece will look when it comes from the loom ....and do
not think of how it will look after long time of using.
Best regards
Ludwina
Date: 09-28-2001 on 09:26
p.m.
Michael Wendorf
12. Re:Offset Knotting as
Bad Weaving?
Dear Readers:
John certainly has opened a can of worms here with his
analogy to macrame and the resulting hard questions.
Personally, I find that not being a weaver, it is difficult to
grasp all the nuances of this craft without reference to
specific weavings.
It is somewhat easier for me, however, to understand much
of this in connection with Jaf bags as raised by Patrick. I
have examined many, many examples first hand and have made
some observations. Among these observations (consistent with
what Patrick has observed but I would go further)is that many
of these Jaf bags that appear to me to have among the most
carefully planned and executed fields ( and utilizing offset
knots to form the diagonals) also exhibit what has been
described within this thread as distortions or less than
finished transitions from field to side or border transitions.
These "distortions" or so-called transitions may take many
forms, but it often tends toward subtle (or sometimes quite
dramatic) distortion of the latched devices such that they
become rather serpentine or zoomorphic. In many examples, this
effect can be quite delicate.
Since these are generally weavings with remarkable color
range and depth, great wool and seem to embody a bold self
assurance that I would attribute to a mature weaver (with a
crisp presence both in drawing and color choices) it has
struck me that these transitions or distortions can or must be
something more than either a clumsy jumble of vestigal diamond
forms or unfinished transitions. Indeed, many of these same
weavings tend to have similar "transitions" or distortions in
the second to last horizontal register of diamond latchhooks,
however usually more subtle. Once again, it is difficult for
me to imagine this is the result coincidence much less of an
unfinished or jumbled weaving.
Still another group of equally colorful weavings of similar
drawing, material and color quality make a clean but abrupt
transition to straight diagonals or chevrons. Generally, the
transition is abrupt, but clean. Perhaps, the weaver has a
structural reason for this but to me it has seemed more an
aethestic choice that results in a more dynamic field.
I also do not agree with Patrick completely that these
transitions or distortions do not seem to appear in flat woven
examples. I have several examples where there is some of this,
but it is true that generally this is less common in flat
weaves than in knotted pile pieces. But what conclusion can we
fairly draw from this observation? I believe the knotted pile
examples of these bags have probably been woven for a very
long time and may have evolved separately from the flat
weaves. I suppose it is also possible that these distortions
are strictly tied to offset knotting. It seems more likely to
me that we have several influences converging in these
"distortions." In any event, I do not think one can appreciate
Jaf Kurd weavings without carefully examining these
"transition" areas on nearly a case by case basis.
Thank you for the fascinating discussion.
Michael
Date: 09-29-2001 on 12:05
a.m.
John Howe
13. Re:Offset Knotting as
Bad Weaving?
Dear folks -
Here is a flatwoven pushti, likely Khorrassan Kurd and
woven in a fairly coarse sumac in a way that appears often to
ape offset knotting. That is there are lots of areas in which
the weaver chose to move horizontally only one warp at a time.
For me, it has good color and I have always admired the
seeming control of this weaver over her craft. For example, if
you examine the top border, you will see that she can move
while working horizontally, into and out of simulations of
offset and regular knotting with apparent ease and in a short
distance and with only relatively little distortion of the
design used on the side borders.
But when she works the field she uses the arena of the half
diamond before the side borders to make her transition from
simulated offset knotting to simulated regular knotting
differently. (She does this on both sides but I think somewhat
distinctively on each of them.)
Direct scan left top:
Direct scan right top:
Her work here may demonstrate the point that Marla,
Ludwina, Pat and Michael Wendorf have all made: that
irregularities in such transitions may not always be faulty.
It appears to me that this is an experienced weaver who in
this instance takes advantage of the transition she needs to
make, but can do in a rather short distance without
difficulty, to add a little asymmetric "spice" to her design,
perhaps even showing off for us a little by demonstrating some
different ways she can make this transition.
What do you think?
Second question. Michael Wendorf indicates that he thinks
that the Jaf Kurd diamond design may have evolved separately
from flatweave. Marla seems to see the presence of offset
knotting in pile pieces as an indicator that a design likely
came from another technique, likely a flatweave. In this piece
of mine we have a seeming aping in sumac of offset knotting, a
pile weaving technique, which Marla, I think, is suggesting,
is itself a kind of compensatory move needed when this design
was taken from a more restrictive flatwoven source. Or is it?
Sumac is as flexible as pile weaving. Can we tell, in the
case of my piece, which is the most likely "chicken" and which
is the most likely "egg?" Is the apparent aping of offset
knotting in my piece likely that ? (that is a flatweave
technique aping a pile technique which in turn was aping a
different and more restrictive flatweave technique?) or is the
sumac weaver of my piece moving directly from the more
restrictive flatwoven source that also inspired the offset
knotters in pile?
Regards,
R. John Howe
Date: 09-29-2001 on 10:58
p.m.
Daniel
Deschuyteneer
14. Re:Offset Knotting as
Bad Weaving?
Dear John, Isn't the
technique offset reverse
Soumak? Thanks, Daniel
Date: 09-30-2001 on 01:08
a.m.
Daniel
Deschuyteneer
15. Re:Offset Knotting as
Bad Weaving?
Dear all, Isn't it
"curious" that a skilfully weaver begins to be "creative" as
you suggest, only in the "transitionnal area" between the
field and the borders, exactly where she meets difficulties to
articulate perfectly two different designs.
As Patrick would say,
Strangely yours,
Daniel
Date: 09-30-2001 on 01:18
a.m.
Ludwina
16. Re:Offset Knotting as
Bad Weaving?
Dear John , The picture of
your pushti immediately reminded me of some new pieces here
coming through from Ýran (by the way I live in Turkey) As I
am always very interested in the techniques used, I looked at
one of them, and yes it is a reversed sumak, moving
horizontally over one warp. Ýt is in combination with vertical
lines between the borders and in the middle border is a little
'stairs-like' design. So there is combination of both although
most of the design is ...can I call it 'Offset reversed sumak'
? I remembered one of my Turkish pieces : a huge double
bag. I always liked this piece. I always thought it was a
reversed sumak but I did not understand completely the used
technique. And yes also this one 'Offset reversed sumak'
Looking now very quickly to Mut and Malatya çuvals I see now
the same technique used often(?)
This all makes me think that to make some flatweave design
possible in sumak they started using the 'Offset' in this
reversed sumak and after that also in knotting. But who am
I? John maybe you did find the missing step between
flatweave designs and Offset knotting...
I thank you
all and specially John now I understand finally the technique
used in this pieces, my fingers are unpatiently waiting to
start some experiments in Offset knotting and ' Offset
reversed sumak'.
Thanks you all for teaching me
Ludwina Akbulut
Date: 09-30-2001 on 02:47
p.m.
Michael Wendorf
17. Re:Offset Knotting as
Bad Weaving?
Dear All:
Responding to Daniel's last message in this thread. Yes,
that would be strange if these distortions were only in the
transitional areas. However, I also regularly observe them in
the second horizontal field row from the bottom of Jaf bags.
Not always, but often enough to make me always look for it.
As to John's referencing to me regarding my sense that
Jaf Kurd weavings in knotted pile may have evolved separately
from a flatweave tradition requires a point of clarification.
My point was not that knotted pile examples evolved
independent of flatweaves. Rather it is that although knotted
pile examples probably have their origins in a flatweave
tradition, they have been made for a long time and over that
time have evolved such that they now embody their own
tradition with their own style and aesthetic.
Now, back to the discussion.
Michael
Date: 09-30-2001 on 11:35
p.m.
Marla Mallett
18. Re:Offset Knotting as
Bad Weaving?
Well, John, you’ve led us into
another quagmire! Into one of the most confused technical
areas involving Middle Eastern tribal weaves. The piece you
have illustrated above is probably reverse offset soumak, but
one can never be positive, without taking a very close look at
the back. That’s because from the front, reciprocal brocading
sometimes looks almost the same.
Often, the immediate clue to the identification of reverse
offset soumak is a slightly more irregular front surface; the
yarns are not so strictly and horizontally aligned. Both
structures employ two-warp units, with designs made primarily
of diagonal pattern parts in which two sets of two-warp units
predominate. The second textile shown on my first website
Offset Knotting page is reciprocal brocading (the one I
compared with a Jaf knotted-pile bag), and this is the
technique used for pieces throughout Turkey—both in the
well-known Bergama storage sacks, and also in the very
numerous sacks from the Antep, Maras and Malatya areas of
eastern and southeastern Anatolia. I have never encountered an
Anatolian piece that is reverse offset soumak, while pieces
with this “look” from Western Iran invariably are reverse
offset soumak. I’ve pictured one of these examples in WOVEN
STRUCTURES in Fig. 5.15, and pictured several reciprocal
brocade pieces in Figures 8.23 through 8.29. (Some Anatolian
pieces combine reciprocal brocading with regular soumak.) I’m
assuming, but am not positive, that it’s the soumak (wrapped)
structures that were used in Khorasan.
To tell these two structures apart, it is easiest to
examine a broad pattern area of one color on the back side
(maybe the diamond centers are the broadest single-color areas
on John’s piece), and then one can see whether the yarns
actually WRAP, or INTERLACE. When we look at narrow pattern
segments the structures can be very confusing. Below is a
diagram used by John Wertime in an article several years ago
that contrasts the two structures in narrow design parts. “A”
shows the reverse offset soumak (wrapped) construction; “B”
shows the reciprocal brocade (interlaced) construction.
A. Reverse offset soumak. B. Reciprocal Brocading.
In the portion of an Anatolian (Bergama area) bag below,
you can see how an interlaced (reciprocal brocade) structure
looks on the loom—in both wide and narrow pattern areas. A
tiny ground weft is inserted, then two interlacing pattern
yarns. When these two pattern wefts are packed into place,
they make up what appears to be a single pattern row. I think
you all can recognize, in comparison, how soumak yarns look
when they wrap around each new warp pair--at least when there
is a row of wrapping to look at. (Incidentally, pattern yarns
must wrap or interlace PAIRS of warps, or it’s not possible to
create offsets.)
Reciprocal brocading. NW Anatolia.
So, to the question you are pondering, John: What has
derived from what? And what are the limits of each structure?
The way the process has been used in your bag and in most
other “pure” examples of each of the techniques—that is with
design units of predominantly two pairs of two warps, offset
diagonally in successive rows—the restrictions are very much
the same. They are the same in offset knotting. Ordinary
soumak (especially 1:2 soumak) is very non-restrictive, while
offset soumak becomes another matter. In any of these
techniques (wrapping, interlacing, or knotting), when you
start offsetting pattern parts across the weaving the sequence
can continue without interruption until you meet a vertical
pattern element, where you must make some kind of transition.
The transitions can be done in a regular fashion, right at the
vertical boundary (which can be a problem), they can be placed
at the edges of the nearest diagonal, or they can be scattered
randomly—with any of these three techniques. The transitions
can be awkward and messy in any of these structures, and
certainly invite improvisation.
My gut feeling is that reverse offset knotting was some
weaver’s attempt to simulate what she saw in reciprocal
brocading, but that she simply didn’t understand the
technique. Then she taught others how to duplicate her work.
Pieces constructed in the reverse offset soumak structure
usually don’t have quite the finesse of the brocaded pieces.
I’m also inclined to see the shared patterns as having been
devised first in the brocade medium, but anything’s possible.
By the way, neither of these flatweave techniques (reverse
offset soumak and reciprocal brocading) appear anywhere else
in the world, to my knowledge.
Marla
Date: 10-01-2001 on 11:09
a.m.
Marla Mallett
19. Re:Offset Knotting as
Bad Weaving?
Dear Ludwina and all,
I’d like to go back to an idea I brought up earlier. I was
thinking of how weavings with offset knotting look when
transitional areas are somewhat messy. A piece may look fine
when the pile is plush and irregularities are hidden, but the
craftsmanship may not appear so wonderful after the piece
receives some wear. Ludwina, you said, “I suppose that most
weavers are very concerned how a piece will look when it comes
from the loom...and do not think of how it will look after
long time of using.”
I disagree with this, and believe that most weavers are
indeed concerned about how their pieces will look after they
have been used for some time. For many years I produced large
weavings on commission for public buildings: banks, hotel
lobbies, government buildings, etc. I spent a lot of time
worrying about how well my work would hold up physically and
aesthetically over time. It would be quite an embarrassment to
find a piece sagging from its own weight, or coming apart from
handling, etc. Why should tribal or village weavers who
produce weavings for their own use not have similar concerns?
And the same pride in their work? Since most keep their sacks,
kilims, bags and brocades around for many years, they have
plenty of opportunities to see how they look after they
receive some wear, and to observe the results of mistakes.
They often carefully reinforce areas along selvages or in
corners where they expect their pieces be subjected to special
stress. Knotted pile weavers frequently stack knots or overlap
them in borders to make their bags more durable. Why should
they not be concerned about a piece’s appearance too, as it
wears? Do you suppose this attitude changes when weavings are
produced for immediate sale, and the unfortunate results as
their products’ deteriorate won’t reflect on them personally?
Any ideas, anyone else?
Marla
Date: 10-01-2001 on 11:55
a.m.
John Howe
20. Re:Offset Knotting as
Bad Weaving?
Marla et al -
I didn't intend to get us into a "quagmire" with my little
jufti and if looking at the back will help, here is a direct
scan of the top left corner.
And on the chance that the look needs to be very close here
is a smaller section of that area in a larger scale.
Perhaps this will permit you to make the needed
distinction.
Regards,
R. John Howe
Editor's Note: This thread continues on another page.
You can get to it by clicking the "Next Page" button at the
lower right corner of the
screen.
