I read and re-read Jerry opening essay and at one point was tempted simply to go down his list of questions and to give my answers.

But the threads have started on a different and perhaps more focused basis and so I'm going to offer a different suggestion entirely.

The problems Jerry and his co-selectors face are not to be under-rated. We are dealing with them too here in Washington, DC, in preparation for ICOC X, in April, 2003. Wendel Swan, the chairman of our local organizing committee may be one of the best-situated respondents for Jerry's purposes and I look forward to his suggestions.

Meanwhile, I wonder if it might not be good to drop away entirely from the effort to define "rare" and "beautiful" and to construct instead a kind of decision process the selectors could use to make their selections.

First, I think it is critical to actually measure the space desired and then to make a fairly close estimate of the number of pieces it can accommodate.

Make at least two different estimates for this space. One would be for the number of large rugs (say 4.4 X 10 foot Kurdish or Caucasian pieces) and another for what the same space would accomodate if only bag faces and smaller pieces were shown. These two estimates should give you a "range" of the number of pieces you can in fact consider.

Second, give up tussling about synthetic dyes, since you can't chemical test and let the raters factor that into their estimates of "beauty" and "rarity." (That is, if they think they can recognize a likely synthetic and it detracts from their estimate of the beauty or rarity of a piece, let them rate it down on that score.)

Arguments can be made for the utility of "themes" but it seems to me that you have made that more difficult with your initial criteria of "beauty" and "rarity," so my advice is to give that up too and adopt a firmly ecletic stance. Let estimates of beauty and rarity fall where they may in making selections and consider only after the selections have been made and it is known that they fit into the available space, what organization and sequence might be best for the pieces in this exhibition.

Now you are ready to make selections. I suggest that you equip each judge with a series of rating sheets.

The rating sheets will look something like this:

Rarity:

Rating score:

3 = Know of only a very few pieces like this one. Likely less than about 10 known.

2 = Know of quite a few others (e.g. more than 10) but it is legitmate describe this piece as "rare."

1 = This piece is "unusual" but is not one I could call "rare."

Beauty:

Rating factors:

3 = To my mind a piece of "outstanding, unquestionable" beauty.

2 = Beautiful, but not dazzling.

1 = This piece is "attractive" or perhaps "interesting" but not one I would describe as "beautiful."

Ask the raters to rate "rarity" first, individually and without conversation. When they have done so, add up their scores for each piece and display the scores so that they can be seen comparatively and ask the raters to use these indicated and aggregated scores and their own further judgments to select to agree on a consensus basis on the rugs to be rated "unquestionably rare" and "legitimately rare."

Compare the number of rugs selected with the number that can be accommodated and if there are too many have the scorers rate the rugs selected on a forced ranking basis.

That is, each would indicate from this smaller selected group first the rug seen to be "most rare" and then the one seen to be "least rare," then the rug seen to be second most rare and the one seen to be second least rare, and so on.

In this way, it will be possible to settle the question of "rarity" for the number of rugs that can be accommodated. Keep track of the order of estimated rarity in the rugs rated less rare in the forced ranking so that adjustments can be made should they be needed later.

Now eliminate all the rugs that have not been selected by the raters as at least "legitimately rare," and ask the raters now to use the checklist and to rate these piece on the beauty dimension. Again, this is done initially without consulting one another and again the resulting scores are posted so that they can be seen comparatively.

The raters now agree on the most beautiful rugs. If there are still too many to be accommodated in the exhibition space, they use the force ranking device on the beauty dimension too.

Again someone keeps track of the rugs seen to be less beautiful among those selected in case adjustments are needed.

The number of rugs rated both "rare" and "beautiful" are counted and compared again with the estimated space and adjustments are made to add or eliminate pieces based on the data at hand.

Now this is complicated to explain and needs firm facilitation but I would argue that it will produce a result that is likely to be satisfactory both to the selectors and to those viewing the exhibition.

It may be claimed that this process only systmatizes "prejudice" and "subjective views" and I wouldn't debate that, but it does systematize them on a transparent and defensible basis and that may be an advance over our usual practice which is often largely opaque and, which some have pointed out, often leads to untoward results.

Now as I said above, considerations of "theme" and "optimim placement and sequnce" can be taken up once these selections are made but this is, I think, a workable process for making the selections themselves.

Good luck to Jerry and to his co-raters.

Regards,

R. John Howe

That is an interesting process, workable, but I think it could be refined. Here are some modifications I'd suggest:
1. Go through several iterations, progressively eliminating the lowest ranking rugs, rather than trying to do it all in one step. Jean and I use such a method (progressive reduction in number of alternatives) when faced with a large number of wonderful pieces at a single session, rather than trying to pick the best one (or two) out of a group of, say, fifty to seventy-five without a few stages of filtering. Not only is it more workable in practice, it has the advantage of letting us spend more time looking at the best stuff.
2. Forbid any member of the committee from voting on (preferably, even commenting on) a piece that is his property or that he sold to the present owner. Owners or dealers who sold a particular piece have a clear conflict of interest when it comes to selection for an exhibition, especially an exhibition that will be published. This modification of the process will work best if the selection committee is fairly large (say, at least 6 members).

Regards,

Steve Price

The process you attempt to describe and define just makes me numb. I think this is absolutely the wrong way to look at rugs much less make selections.

Of course, a curator does need to be aware of the exhibition space, I think. One also needs to decide whether there will be a theme or whether it is just a collections type exhibition. Beyond that I think you do basically what Jerry is doing. You request people to submit pieces for consideration, then you look at the pieces with an experienced and tested eye and start picking the obvious ones and culling the obvious ones. If you are lucky, a group emerges that holds together. Then you start to test your selections a little by showing them to a few other experienced people who might be able to steer you toward a particular piece or away from another.

In the end, you need a strong curator to make the tough decisions and avoid a process that tries to objectify a subjective process. I think you need a curator who can "see" the exhibition before it is even hung. Exhibitions with too many curators tend to reflect none of them - a "too many cooks spoil the broth" scenario.

Best, michael

It sounds as if you have many threshold decisions yet to be made. Planning exhibitions is a gigantic chicken and the egg process. What you exhibit depends on what you get but what you get depends on what you go after and what you go after depends on what you want, but the order can sometimes be unexpectedly reversed.

Remember that the pieces exhibited must be compatible. As an eclectic collector, I have encountered difficulties in my own home in mixing certain "worthy" pieces and I face the same issue in putting together the ICOC exhibitions. The greater the diversity, the greater the potential for clashes. Problems could arise with competing color, texture, graphics or size. While you can easily imagine that a Nazca feathered mantel might fight with a Chinese kang cover, you might discover that a Karabagh would clash with a Kazak or that a fine sumak bag can't go next to a gabbeh from the same region.

You need to decide on some theme or a purpose for the exhibition, although that decision may largely be based on what is available. If the offerings are diverse, you need to segregate the components as is almost always done with general collectors' shows.

I find it hard to imagine an entire exhibition based upon a theme of saturated color, however prone I might be to base my personal collecting decisions on a factor such as that.

As to the actual vetting process, I think the success will be far less dependent upon creating a quantifiable process such as John suggests as it will on the experience of the selection committee. Steve's idea of using a process of elimination is sound simply because it is based upon comparison and it works well if you have a wide offering from which to choose. You don't need a calculator sheet to get the cream to rise to the top.

It's not an easy job. Good luck.

Best,

Wendel

I think Steve's refining suggestion for the method I have proposed is sound.

And I quite understand the objection that Wendel and, especially, Michael Wendorf raise against "systematizing" our evaluations, and providing degree of "transparency" to the bases on which selectors make their selections.

I would only ask them to examine somewhat whether there is not a rather marked, and hard to defend, elitism visible in their trust in judgments not made openly and that are not at bottom checked by anything excepting the curators' (pardon) prejudices presenting themselves as experience or worse, erudition. (Why, I have asked before, should we pay any attention to claims by anyone that they "have a good eye?" It is very hard to justifiably distinguish "I like" from "it is good.")

I am unpursuaded by the wisdom of an elite. The elites often disagree with one another --- violently. And jusst as often neglect to offer reasons for their views.

Regards,

R. John Howe

You wish to construct a decision process, make checklists, impose transparency and systematize a selection process with ratings. I respect your opinion, I just do not agree with it. I would rather have a curator with a lot of experience and tested judgment or even, god forbid, erudition look at a lot of rugs and put some together to form an exhibition. In fact, I think it is essential to any great exhibition.

Whether what I am describing is elitism or not, I think it is easy to defend. The judgments of the curator/s are ultimately open or transparent; they form the exhibition as hung and are checked or measured by the success or failure of the exhibition as it is experienced by the viewers. I think the system you would impose extracts an essential and difficult to articulate part of what makes an rug or other art exhibition sometimes larger than the individual pieces.

To my thinking, your system would probably be ok if we were discussing an exhibition of postage stamps or another item with a generally agreed upon standard, but rugs do not lend themselves to such a rating standard or system. Just as you are unpersuaded by what you call the wisdom of an elite, so I am unpersuaded by the wisdom of a process that would try to systematize and objectify what is inherently subjective and creative. In this case, I would prefer to trust experience, taste and erudition (assuming it exists) to a process.

I do not think Jerry has made any specific claims of erudition, wisdom or taste and is too modest(?) to do so. Nonetheless, I would still prefer to trust him to pull this particular exhibition together relying on his judgment and experience rather than try to systemize the selection process.

Regards, Michael

You wrote in part:

"...The judgments of the curator/s are ultimately open or transparent; they form the exhibition as hung and are checked or measured by the success or failure of the exhibition as it is experienced by the viewers..."

My thought:

The exhibition displayed by a curator says "what" but does not necessarily say "why." Sometimes curators give explanations that help us understand why they chose this piece rather than another. But I have repeatedly heard "experienced" people sorrow in wonder about such selections.

In the dog world, judges also make decisions about which dogs are best and have reference to a written standard which does help somewhat. Sometimes (not often enough in my own view) judges complete their judging and then offer an oral critique in which they explain and rationalize their choices.

This is the sort of thing that is for me too often missing from rug exhibitions curated by a single person. It is a very healthy and useful exercise and skills and knowledge are driven in sound directions through its practice. It does nothing to impoverish the creative process associated with mounting an exhibition.

A "camel" is not a "horse" built by a committee but if built on that basis, gives wonderful evidence that multiple viewpoints can produce wonderfully creative, beautifully adapted results.

I also think that most who would champion the lonely curator approach, would disdain to say that the success or failure of the curator's efforts are indicated by whether he/she had "pleased the mob."

Footnote: Nothing I have said here reflects on what Jerry Silverman is about. The fact that we are writing these sentences indicates that he is reaching out for help from others rather than retreating to a "tower" of solitary introspection.

He may ultimately find that the quality of assistance he receives here encourages him to take that latter tack, but it has not been his starting point.

Regards,

R. John Howe

"Footnote: Nothing I have said here reflects on what Jerry Silverman is about. The
fact that we are writing these sentences indicates that he is reaching out for help
from others rather than retreating to a "tower" of solitary introspection."

Actually, John, the Internet allows me to reach out for help from others while remaining firmly ensconced in a tower of solitary introspection. That's the beauty of the 'net. They're not mutually exclusive. Perhaps I'm soliciting input to enrich my solitary introspection, he said with a wink and a nod.

And as for "pleasing the mob," John, I don't think there's a snowball's chance in Hell of accomplishing that - no matter what process is used to arrive at the final choices. Rug collectors are a diverse, opinionated bunch unlikely to achieve a concensus about a single rug much less sixty. There's never been an exhibition so well-conceived and executed that it hasn't been criticized.

It's a little early in the selection process to say for sure how it will turn out, but I think Michael Wendorf may be on to something (except the "modest" part) when he wrote:

"I do not think Jerry has made any specific claims of erudition, wisdom or taste and is too modest(?) to do so. Nonetheless, I would still prefer to trust him to pull this
particular exhibition together relying on his judgment and experience rather than
try to systemize the selection process."

I wonder if Superman would mind if I used his Fortress of Solitude for a little while. It might be good to have to retreat to after the exhibition as well.

-Jerry-

OK, but then why ask at all?

The act of asking others would appear to suggest that a "socially constructed" approach is at least being considered.

I only talked about "pleasing the mob," was in caricature of, Michael Wendorf's perhaps well-thought-out suggestion that the success of the solitary curator approach would be evaluated in some way in reference to the "success" of the exhibition as estimated by some others.

When I have sometimes pressed the professional staff at The Textile Museum to articulate the standards by which they determine whether the various actions (including exhibitions) they take are successful, they, not Michael, have responded with various vacuous suggestions that seem to add up to a wish to please a variety of publics. The data they collect in this regard is less than systematic, as are methods of its collection and so their "evaluation" seems often a species of "slight of hand."

I was merely expressing dissatisfaction not just with a solitary selection process but also with the order of evaluation device to which I thought Michael was alluding.

Regards,

R. John Howe