Hi Marvin,

Sounds like the two selection committees you were on had an easier time than most of the ones I've heard about. You said, ...the selections, in the long run, turn out to be easy in spite of what biases we all might have. The eyes of the curators are no different than the eyes of the "beholders".

Two points:
1. The selection of pieces in many exhibitions involves a number of political struggles, sometimes leading to long term rifts between members othe committees. The "Pacific Collections" exhibition, for example, wound up with some considerable discordance between the published catalog and the actual exhibition, as a result of some internal power struggles. I'm told that there was also considerable political jockeying within the "Atlantic Collections" committee. That is to say, your experience - the committee just kind of looks at the rugs and arrives at consensus rather easily appears not to be what happens every time.
2. Some of Jerry's questions relate to matters that the committee must deal with even before looking at any rugs. How much space will they have (hence, how many pieces, and of what size)? Should the exhibition include things from outside the orient (although the organization is called American Conference on Oriental Rugs, I guess the question of whether it goes beyond rugs per se has an answer so obvious that it's not worth raising)?

I hope Jerry's committee has as easy a time with it as the two that you were on had with theirs.

Regards,

Steve Price

---

Steve Price (11-11-2001 10:03 a.m.):
Hi Marvin,

Sounds like the two selection committees you were on had an easier time than most of the ones I've heard about. You said, ...the selections, in the long run, turn out to be easy in spite of what biases we all might have. The eyes of the curators are no different than the eyes of the "beholders".

Two points:
1. The selection of pieces in many exhibitions involves a number of political struggles, sometimes leading to long term rifts between members othe committees. The "Pacific Collections" exhibition, for example, wound up with some considerable discordance between the published catalog and the actual exhibition, as a result of some internal power struggles. I'm told that there was also considerable political jockeying within the "Atlantic Collections" committee. That is to say, your experience - the committee just kind of looks at the rugs and arrives at consensus rather easily appears not to be what happens every time.
2. Some of Jerry's questions relate to matters that the committee must deal with even before looking at any rugs. How much space will they have (hence, how many pieces, and of what size)? Should the exhibition include things from outside the orient (although the organization is called American Conference on Oriental Rugs, I guess the question of whether it goes beyond rugs per se has an answer so obvious that it's not worth raising)?

I hope Jerry's committee has as easy a time with it as the two that you were on had with theirs.

Regards,

Steve Price

---

Steve;

You observe that selection committees have historically encountered problems selecting items for inclusion to high level exhibitions. I will simply ignore the political aspects of the selection process, for I have no possible control over that, but on the subject of aesthetic merit, here we have fertile ground for discussion! I suggest we start with color. Pile weaving's in their three-dimensional depth's display to observer's very special visual experiences of color. These experience's change with the angle and intensity of the incident light and for this reason I propose that the next ACOR selection committee consider the source of dyes in any and all weavings, if possible, and set a new precedence by addressing this most salient of features. I think that color is primary and in Turkoman weaving there are two schools, possibly originally relating to the inner and the outer Salor confederacy. These two schools are represented by a very simple color bias. One group preferred the pure purple of Roman times, that of fresh venous blood, and the other preferred the bright red of arterial blood. It is essentially axiomatic that the primary aesthetic evaluation of all classical Turkoman weavings begins with the quality of their ground color. There are two ground colors for classical Turkoman weaving's; they can both be judged as to just how representative they are for venous blood on the one hand and arterial blood on the other hand. The subject of this association, your own blood, arouses the strong emotions associated with the high values these weaving's have achieved. All of this happens at an unconscious level but is so strong that given the proper setting these weavings transfix observers and arouse a most satisfactory experience. Jim Allen

Hi Jim,

The relationship of the two schools of color preferences to the colors of venous and arterial blood is a neat idea, but falls on its face before it even gets past the facts on which it is supposed to be based. The royal Roman purple doesn't look a bit like any venous blood with which I'm familiar. Venous blood is a less "clear" red than arterial blood, but not royal purple by any stretch.

Interesting thought, though.

Steve Price

Jim:

Out of curiosity, which group would you propose being exhibited; rugs with venous or arterial ground colors?

To your knowledge, does the elevation at which a tribe was living at any given period in history affect the ground colors of their weavings from the same period (you know more or less oxygen in their blood)?

One other question, why are you omitting the influence of Alexander the Great on classical Turkoman weavings and their ground colors? Alexander's blood lust is well documented.

Regards, Michael

Don't even mention blood.

Our little committee is going to try to avoid bloodletting in our deliberations.

Interestingly, some of the pictures that have been submitted so far were passed around among the committee members who were at last Friday's Chicago Rug Society meeting. As you might expect in a room where people are milling about, folks gathered and peered over shoulders to see the pictures. What I found most revealing was that people liked pieces that were like those they collected and were lukewarm to those they didn't collect. Probably not unexpected, but - still - maybe a foretaste of a mixed response no matter what pieces are ultimately selected.

-Jerry-

Hi Jerry,

You wrote, ...people liked pieces that were like those they collected and were lukewarm to those they didn't collect

Do you suppose people collect things they like?

Regards,

Steve Price

---

Steve Price (11-11-2001 07:16 p.m.):
Hi Jim,

The relationship of the two schools of color preferences to the colors of venous and arterial blood is a neat idea, but falls on its face before it even gets past the facts on which it is supposed to be based. The royal Roman purple doesn't look a bit like any venous blood with which I'm familiar. Venous blood is a less "clear" red than arterial blood, but not royal purple by any stretch.

Interesting thought, though.

Steve Price

---

Can't argue about the color of venous blood depleted of oxygen but in Turkoman weavings you do have two purple types. The Yomud in the 18th century produced a clear purple with madder. Not an easy thing to do. The Tekke of this period produced both a blood red and a red/purple ground color. I didn't state my case very well but the Tekke red/purple does look a bit like venous blood to me. Jim Allen

Dear Jerry:

I have recently developed interest in oriental rugs. My ancestors, I mean those who could afford it, always had at least one of those blue-red-flowery Persians in their living rooms. They bought those rugs because this is how a living room had to look like in old Europe. That is all they knew about rugs. Obviously, I needed advice.

When I was looking for people interested in rugs I met a nice couple from SF and they shared with me one of their fellow ruggie's view. He has defined the rule of the "8 Cs": What distinguishes a great rug from a good one is Color, Composition, Content, and Character as opposed to Construction, Chronology, Condition and Cost. The notion is that when in doubt, go with the first four. But that can be a difficult call, especially since the last four are so much easier to measure!

Should my friend look for a word starting with "C" for rarity and add it to the definition as the 9th "C"? Can the rule of "8 Cs" be used to distinguish rare rugs from "average" rugs? Generally speaking, rugs are a conservative art form and the same designs were produced over and over, so we do get "types." It occasionally happens that an unfamiliar type comes up at auction and brings a high price because it is "unique". Then in a year or so afterwards another several examples materialize, but they don't sell as well because the type is recognized as not being as rare as was thought. I think one conclude that Content already includes rarity. Thus, I would say, if you want rare rugs, go by Content. As a novice, I am not the one to judge what is considered rare within the wide variety of rugs in terms of Content.

Beauty is something that pleases me without interest. Would you like a Monet if you would not know it is a Monet? Or, Assume you were offered two paintings. One is a no-name beauty worth nothing and another is an ugly Picasso for $XM, which one would you pick? If you want to pick the beauties, let the selection committee rate the rugs on Color, Composition and Character. Again, as a novice, I am not the one to judge what is considered a beauty: e.g. colors made by venous blood or arterial blood. This blood issue to me looks like something to do with Construction, which I am suggesting to ignore anyway. Not to mention that this issue raises the problem of separating beauty from anything else. Jim Allen wrote: “All of this happens at an unconscious level but is so strong that given the proper setting these weavings transfix observers and arouse a most satisfactory experience” What is wrong with this? This is what beauty is all about. This unconsciousness is what helps in defining beauty that pleases without interest.

So that is all about theory. In practice, however, the definition of beauty has a "kink". As a novice who wants to know more about rugs, I am talking to ruggies, reading oriental textile related web sites (such as Turkotek ) and books, going to exhibitions etc., and got the impression that many ruggies simple cannot separate chronology and/or rarity from beauty. That is, if something is not very old and/or rare it cannot be a great rug. Therefore, I agree with others that the selection committee should decide on rarities first. That way you can help separating beauty and rarity (if you really want to do so) and have rarity a less influential role in selecting the beauties as rare rugs have reaped their award already and people might be willing to disconnect rarity and beauty and recognize beauty only.

However, your title reeds to me as if you went for beauties “only”. I do not want to be too picky, but just going by definitions, you title (partial title to be exact) “rare beauty” does not necessarily means the rug has to have a rare content. Or, going by definition only, a rare rug is not necessarily a beautiful rug. If you want to include rare rugs and beautiful rugs, I think your title should be “rarities and beauties”, or “rare and beautiful rugs” if you really want to stick to this kind of title.

Hope this helps and good luck with the selection.

Sincerely,
Csilla Klausner

P.S. Jim - Hope I did not offend you in any way. I have learned a lot from what you wrote!

As usual, Jim, you make some provocative suggestions.

Displaying the rugs in ways that recreate or imply their cultural context is fascinating. This has been done in the past, I believe, with mixed success. I wasn't there to see it, but some people who are reading this probably were at the exhibition where Turkmen pieces were rolled and stacked on a sandy floor. (Those of you who know which show this was - please jump on in with details.) It was reported that the collectors who contributed their rugs actually stormed in and grabbed their rugs right out of the exhibition. This doesn't diminish, for me at least, the potential power of staging an exhibition this way.

I'm not so sure about using candle/gas/fire illumination, though. First off, there's the logistics of finding an exhibition site that permits indoor fire. Then there will be howls from people who "can't see the damn rugs." Wouldn't it be equally valid to flood the room with dazzling halogen lighting to simulate the cloudless, unpolluted, vivid light of the desert/steppes/mountains? But that would just aggravate the "minimum lumens" crowd who, like vampires, think it can never be too dark to view a rug.

The sad truth, though, Jim, is that this exhibition is going to be held in a 28' x 44' hotel conference room. The opportunities for creative staging will be limited. And fire, I fear, is out of the question.

Maybe we could just give each person a flashlight.

-Jerry-

Hi Jerry,

The exhibition to which you refer was the Turkmen exhibition held in Hamburg with ICOC. It was held in the Museum of Anthropology, which has a fabulous collection of tribal arts of various kinds. Their curatorial staff decided to make it an anthropological rather than an "art" show, and forbade the ICOC people from participating in or even seeing how it was being staged.

I was there at the first opening of the show. It was quite an astonishing display from the standpoint of a rug collector. The floor was sprinkled with sand, the curators evidently thinking that walking on a wood floor with some sand on it would be a lot like walking in a desert. They need to get out in the field more often. Main carpets were hung on the walls with the lowest foot or so of their length on the floor, in contact with the sand. So, one of the spectacles for us early arrivals was watching the owners exchanging insults with the curators, then rolling up their rugs and leaving.

Not being intended to display rugs as art, many pieces were simply piled up in stacks, like so much dirty laundry. Others were rolled up. I doubt that any of this was anthropologically correct, and it was totally unsatisfying to rug collectors who came to see world class Turkmen textiles.

Please, don't do it that way.

Regards,

Steve Price

Jerry:

You said; "The sad truth, though, Jim, is that this exhibition is going to be held in a 28' x 44' hotel conference room. The opportunities for creative staging will be limited. And fire, I fear, is out of the question. Maybe we could just give each person a flashlight.

Two things: When Munkcasi and I exhibited our Turkoman collection in New York City we had a similar size constraint. We used moveable walls and created nooks and crannies that led people to congregate around certain pieces and conversations were greatly facilitated. I think this was a very good idea. One problem that it created, however, was a nightmare for lighting. Let me warn you now, collector's tend to place their better pieces around their homes where the light is "right" for a particular piece. Weavings with their pile slanted toward the floor need uplighting and if they don't get it their owners are going to be quite distressed, for their beautiful masterpiece is going to look very lackluster under the glaring overhead lights. It may sound crazy to some of you but I would really like to see these smaller tribal weavings presented as we might in our homes, with lamps and chairs and floor rugs. I can tell you from experience that very few Turkoman weavings will look good under halogen overhead lighting. As we have previously discussed, only the most saturated and fully piled examples will stand out and look suitably scintilating for their owners or fans. Secondly; if you choose poorly the show in the individual rooms will again outshine the show on the floor. Maybe, on second thought, that might be better for some of us. Jim Allen

Hi Jim,

A rug on display, pile up, is like a painting upside down.
If my old Gabeh hangs pile up, it's less attractive, because the silklike wool doesn't show. Think the same goes for old, used, hand and feet, polished Turkman rugs.
So this "normal" down lighting seems to be no problem if the rug is ok.

Dear Jerry,

I can't help you. Nobody seems to like my rugs. My color appreciation is different. I was once advised not to post, the kind of rugs I like most, on this board, for people where skipping the site as bookmark
One suggestion:
Hang them pile down.

Best regards,
Vincent

Hi Vincent,

You wrote, I was once advised not to post, the kind of rugs I like most, on this board, for people where skipping the site as bookmark. You're kidding, I hope. You are kidding, right?

Regards,

Steve Price

Dear Vincent,

I absolutely agree with Steve.I hope you are kidding?

If the enthusiasm you have shown for Sam Gorden's Baluch on the current Show and Tell is any indication would you please start listing your favourites on Turkotek. I can't wait!

In anticipation,

Glenn

Dear Steve,

Do you feel it coming?
My memory is like a steel pot.
I once posted a rug, a kazak 270x160cm dated 1917. Think it was 1998/9? Very oriental colors. Indigo blue as well as a gray (fuchsine). Holes, etc. You told me "en plein public" Turkotek people didn't like this sort of rugs.
After three years it is still one of my favorite rugs. It's in the center of my living. I took your advise as a lesson.
My color appreciation seems to have changed in the last twenty years.
So one needs to be corrected from time to time. This doesn't mean I agree, but I do respect different ways of looking at colors and rugs.
And because I'm a guest on this great non-commercial site, I highly appreciate anything, anyone has to say.

Best regards,
Vincent

Hi Vincent,

My memory is more like a sieve than a steel pot, but I don't remember ever telling you (or anyone else!) that a rug they had would be unsuitable for showing to our readership. It surely doesn't sound like something I'd say about an early 20th century Kazak with some fugitive purple in it - I have a terrific example of such a rug myself, and think it's wonderful (although I like to think of it as late 19th century, not early 20th century).

Could I ask you to post it, perhaps on the Show and Tell Board? If anyone complains, I'll show him the door.

Regards,

Steve Price

Dear Steve,

I allready had my private revenge in salon 64 in my Home sweet Home posting. Looking again at the rug it's 1911!
And I still love it.

Best regards,
Vincent

Hi Sam,

Museum curators are educated at doing museum stuff, and some of it is more sensible than what we might think at first. We had a Salon awhile back about museum practices and their bases.

Exhibition curators are sometime museum curators, sometimes not. Most of the time the curator of an exhibition is someone with credentials in the field covered by the exhibition. DeWitt Mallary curated the TM exhibition of the Boucher collection a few years ago, for instance; Dennis Dodds has curated several well known exhibitions; the list of rug people curating rug exhibitions is very long.

The nature of Rugdom, sadly, is that the state of knowledge is poor and the level of scholarship on which it is based is mostly amateur. That being the case, it isn't only the museum curator whose wisdom must be taken with a grain of salt, it's practically everyone.

Regards,

Steve Price