Old and Abstract Symbols

Dear folks –

Randall Morris, in a post in another thread, calls attention to the existence of a “female symbolic language” that weavers might use in their rugs. If I understand him correctly, he is in part suggesting that this language is unlikely to be literal and that meanings would have to be sought.

In her “The Oriental Rug Book,” first published in 1904, Mary Churchill Ripley, discusses symbolism in rugs at some length. In her treatment of Chinese symbols she gives the following:



[Notice the Ms. Ripley is a devotee of the "fine writing" that often characterized early rug books. Indulgence in it was probably one reasons while Dilley's book (and he knew his rugs and helped assemble the McMullan collection) did not really sell well.]

This reminded me of perhaps the oldest sexual image I know of that is often cited in rug literature. I refer, of course, to the Chinese symbol for “yang and yin.” Ripley also refers to it, but here is Peter Stone’s definition from his “Lexicon.”



Oddly, I have not been able to find this symbol in a Chinese rug. Lots of medallions but not this specific symbol. Don’t know what that means. The book I have on Chinese rugs that comes closest to providing a Chinese perspective treats lots of Chinese symbols but not this one at all. I wonder whether we westerners may not have in part have projected its importance onto the Chinese.

The permutations of the sets of broken and unbroken lines are sometimes combined to form what Stone calls a “Trigram.”



Notice that in this usage the most basic broken and unbroken line symbols have different meanings. At least the "male""female" references have dropped out.

And there is a second design element that is given a name that suggests reproduction or birth. That is the “mother and child” boteh.

Here is a South Persian rug from Opie’s “Tribal Rugs” with “mother and child botehs” in its field.



Here are three of these botehs a bit closer.



I am not sure how to treat this element. Are “mother and child” botehs seen by their weavers to be an actual reference to birthgiving or is this term, like so many we use just one imposed traditionally by rug dealers?

Regards,

R. John Howe

Hi John,

I doubt that the term "mother and child" as applied to these has anything more to it than being a descriptor arising from the fact that there are little botehs inside bigger botehs.

"Mother and fetus" would be more appropriate, bu doesn't roll off the tongue nearly as nicely.

Regards,

Steve Price

John...

Something I have noticed in this and a few other threads is that it is assumed the maker needs to know exactly what a symbol means. I think it is only we who have a fixation on origins. I am not sayin this is bad, of course, but when we use certain gestures for example consider even the rudest, we use them almost instinctively because they are embedded in our coultures and we don't spend one second debating in our minds their derivation or even sidereal meanings.

I think of this in terms of masks for example in say dances in mexico. Many have precolombian
iconologies but only to us as outside researchers.
The users and carvers of the masks may have already imbued them with layers of other meanings and transformed meanings of symbols.
This is important. The symbol may remain the same but the meaning transmutes. Tha tis my first comment.

Secondly...and perhaps to further clarify my earlier point... in other fields of cultural art many of the traditional artists are centrists. They pretty much adhere to the cultural or homeground language and stick to the traditional symbols and visual language of the community. In this category I would put the abstracted (over time) and symbolic images.
But in every tradtion there are also those who are iconoclasts and whose work spills over into
something closer to what we think of as art...in the case of folk art these are usually the people who take traditional imagery into a more personal realm. So what I am suggesting is that the more unusual graphic and/or figurative images are made by those who have deabstracted and taken the imbedded symbolisms another step. This is of course hard to go too far with without interviewing the makers who may or may not talk about it. To sum; the figurative pieces are extensions of the abstract language that was there all along.

Randall Morris

Hi John,

Well, here’s a Chinese rug with the Yin Yang symbol surrounded by trigrams (sorry for the moiré pattern):



About the trigrams: according to Chinese tradition, they were discovered by the legendary emperor Fu Hsi (24th century BC) on the back of a tortoise. In the 12th century BC, Wen Wang, sage and father of the founder of the Chou dynasty used them to form the hexagrams used for a divinatory system. His discussion on this system forms the main body of the book I Ching or "Book of Changes", one of the Five Classics of Confucianism.
Though the book was originally used for divination, its influence on Chinese minds and its universal popularity are due to a system of cosmology that involves humans and nature in a single system.

Question is: how much of this could have reached tribal weavers? The only thing coming to mind is the similarity between the boteh and the Yin Yang elements.
Regards,

Filiberto

Filiberto -

Thanks for the yin yang device in a Chinese rug. I was surprised that I couldn't find one.

Mr. Morris -

Re your first remark in your post just two above, some devices "transmute" so that the weavers no longer know what meanings they have.

That seems to be where we are with most rug design devices.

Asked what they are, the weavers tend to agree with anything or to give names that have clearly developed more recently, and that are quite literal, like "finger-nail" design.

The conversations we seek would need to have been held at least 150 years back.

Regards,

R. John Howe

Steve -

One thing that made me wonder about the "mother and child" boteh form is that there are lots of South Persian animal forms that have other animals inside them and we don't hear these described as "mother and child" devices.

But I suspect this is a "market" term.

Regards,

R. John Howe

Randall -

I have been rereading your posts, because it seems to me that there is more there than I have taken in at first.

I have talked about an exhibit that opened recently on classical Anatolian rugs at the TM. In it and in the catalog for it, Walter Denny, who curated it, says in part that one of the main tensions that gets displayed in rug designs is that between the "traditional" and the "creative." Sometimes it gets resolved in one way in a given rug and sometimes in a quite different way in another.

Trying to relate this notion to your thoughts above, I can see how a weaver, endowed with both substantial weaving skills and some real creativity, might take a traditional design and "imbue it" in the creative act with meanings that are quite different from, or that might even be evaluated (had we had access to them) to trancend those, that obtained in the traditional design.

Without denying that that can happen, it strikes me that most weavers work in a much more mundane world more hedged about with such things as "running out of warp" or of a given "dye lot" and then making some alterations to deal with that situation. I wonder if you don't give the usual weaver too much credit on the creative side with regard to new meanings.

I was at one time a fairly serious "knotter" (macrame). Similar things can happen as one ties a complex macrame piece. I remember a particular complicated piece that had not turned out at all as I had planned it. But the result was somehow unusual and attractive and I displayed it. Because it was unusual people often asked questions about it. Many experienced it as indicating that I had some creativity. They would say things like "What is the source of your creativity?" I would have to reply, "I couldn't do what I wanted." There were no great new meanings imbued in this piece (despite the fact that many macrame knots have seemingly significant names). I was merely trying to salvage something I had started but found I could not complete as I had wanted.

I'm impressed with how much the mundane infects and affects life.

Just a thought.

Regards,

R. John Howe

John-

The great jazz saxophonist Ornette Coleman once related a story about how his avante garde style came about. It was simple. He was walking one day and tripped. He suddenly realized that he had been walking with a rhythm and established form and by stumbling he had broken the unconscious and comfortable patterns. Yes, the tripping was an accident and from that accident came some of America's most complex theories of jazz composition.

I appreciate your relooking at my notes because you are right. I am speaking of something not really touched on here yet. What you say about the mundane is very true. And in ethnographic art and much folk art the mundane is represented in the majority of what we see. I am not going to define masterpiece here but to gloss it lightly a masterpiece can be either a wondrous summation of formal qualities in one place or it can be a mastery of form and a pushing of a conceptual envelope. A new idea. And we mustn't forget that today's edge often becomes tomorrows' mundane.

Part of the attraction of this field to me especially in the tribal weaving is to hear something of the voice of the maker in the work. That's why we are attracted to the quirky pieces. They are based on the traditional forms but she has done something somewhere to impress her unique personality upon the piece. This has certainly happened forever and it is how art creolizes over time. Sometimes the innovation becomes part of the tradition if enough others begin adapting it into their work. This is universally how forms can change.

But in this particular case we are speaking of the bands. My point was that those amuletic symbols are part of the language of the weavings. But the examples that Mr. Mushkat showed are more literal interpretations of those abstractions. The graphic figures might be common but they are not necessarily traditional depictions (or are they...do we know?). They might even be reinventions of the wheel because the abstract amulets are not necessarily understood anymore (one theory among many possibilities).

We lose the idea of art authorship sometimes because of undocumented weavers. In other ethnographic disciplines the names of the makers are being found and it is being seen in some cases that what was thought of as traditional art were really combinations of traditional forms and the innovations of individual makers. I wonder if the figurative bands might not be examples of the same thing....innovative gestures by charismatic individuals.

I understand your example with the macrame.
Actually I have heard the same sort of example applied in music and writing etc. and it explains your entirely individual position perhaps but it doesnt explain a Coltrane or John Cage or Jackson Pollock or Picasso. A great maker can push the envelope of the mundane from within the terms of the mundane and make great art. It doesnt have to be noisy. We have all seen quiet masterpieces. The nude figures need to be assessed from the makers homeground (culture acting on the maker and the maker acting on the culture). Given their rarity it would seem to me that the maker was making
a different commentary than usual.

Your observation on the weaver worrying about warp length is well taken but the same tactical strategies will apply to the innovator and the weaver who follows the usual. Both have to make sure the weaving is a weaving. It doesn't eliminate the possibility of development. And by the way we mustnt forget that this can go the other way as well;
formal elements get left out and lost over time. As a tradition weakens makers lose skills over time and the work becomes what some call 'decadent'.

It is important to say also that even though our hypothetical weaver might make an innovation most often it will be done in the langaug eof the immediate culture. She is still going to speak in a language everyone around herunderstands and one that adheres in general to being in her cultural milieu.

I appreciate your comments

Randall Morris

Dear folks -

You may also know that one of the textiles on which the version of the trigram surrounding the ying yang symbol appears, is the South Korean flag. I passed an oversized one hanging in front of the South Korean embassy buildinng on Massachusetts Avenue, yesterday morning during my walk.

The version of the ying yang device on this flag does not include the dots of opposing color included and described in Stone's definition and illustration as an indication that the real world is untidy.

It may be that at the level of national symbol nation-states are unable to acknowledge such realities.

Patriotism often entails oversimplification.

Regards,

R. John Howe

Hi Everyone,

I apologize in advance if my commentary is clumsy and pedantic. Through an accident of fate I was prevented from obtaining formal education and my English skills, to say the least, are quite lacking ... I will try keep my commentary as brief as possible.

It is my humble opinion that many of the design motifs and symbols we see in oriental rugs are a type of "teaching device" similar in intent and effect to the geometric devices called Yantras that are used in Tantric art and the Shamanistic art from many diverse cultures. Even though these devices are used in Sufism and other forms of Islamic expression, I feel that they were also extensively used for the same purposes in cultures and times far earlier and distant (but that is another subject).

The devices I refer to are used to transmit types of information that transcends linguistic interpretation. In other words, they give expression to that which is inexpressible. One of the ways it does this is to show you a device that can be viewed from one, and then by optical illusion, another, perspective, or by several other perspectives. Each perceived perspective producing a "new" image with new meaning.

As these new images are perceived and "learned" by perception, they then work in conjunction to produce a "phantom" design that does not exist in reality, but can clearly be seen in the minds eye. Once the "phantom" is "seen" it can then be seen at will because the knowledge that it exists now resides within the viewer as a learned reality (but generally not before the "seeing" process has transpired).

I have been told that the path requires one to see both with the external organs of perception (the eyes) and with the internal organ of conception (the brain). When the brain accepts that it is conceiving something that is not in physical existence, but is in cosmic reality, insofar that a cosmic "truth" is being assimilated via the medium of geometry, then the shock of that "realization" is quite enough to allow one to have the direct experience of an undifferentiated state of unity, one form of which is commonly known as Enlightenment.

don wheeler

Mr. Wheeler -

Welcome. I do not detect any difficulties with your English usage. It seems both articulate and lucid, although, I speak only the "American" variety myself.

The idea you present is interesting. The difficulty for those of us, perhaps too steeped in philosophical positivism, is that of finding a basis for deciding whether such arguments should be treated seriously.

The notion proposed, for example, seems by definition to be incapable of empirical test. It seems a species of the sort of elitism that , at bottom, suggests that some will be able to "see" but that others will not. We have this in the rug world, as you may know, in less august versions, for example, the claim by some that someone else has a "dead eye."

The notion of a "phantom design" seems particularly troublesome in this respect, as does the phrase "direct experience of an undifferentiated state of unity" which seems to suggest a species of unmediated perception is possible (something which we positivists have trouble conceiving).

Am I mistaken in believing that part of this argument is that most people will likely not be able to achieve the ultimate state recommended and will therefore not have access to the "highest" level of "seeing" being described?

Interesting thoughts, though, that seem to resonate somewhat with aspects of those presented earlier in this thread by Randall Morris. He also suggested that some designs are open to multiple readings and in fact to transformation in the meanings conveyed. He seemed to tie such transformations to acts of artistic creativity while your own treatment here seems to relate them to the ability to see some great "truth."

Regards,

R. John Howe

Mr. Howe,

Thank you for your well studied and faceted reply to my post.
It was not my intention however to strain your credulity by
proposing a hypothesis that is incapable of scientific testing.
I meant only to share an opinion based on personal experience.
I find great difficulty in discussing artistic and aesthetic concepts
using only scientifically provable logic and terminology.
In a subject like art such methods are notoriously insufficient to
describe phenomena like the ones I mentioned.

Just as ignorance does not necessarily imply stupidity, an analytic
perspective such as the one I described does not necessarily imply
elitism in those who would employ it , Just as suggesting an
alternative view of something does not imply that others are blind.

I did not mean to create a "particularly troublesome" problem for
anyone when I wrote the phrase "direct experience of an
undifferentiated state of unity"
I was using the language that the University of California
Psychologist, Dr. Charles T. Tart used in his book
"Altered States of Consciousness"

Yes, you are mistaken to assume I was implying that most people
are incapable of "seeing", and more than just being simply mistaken
by suggesting that I am recommending a state of seeing for other people
to employ.

This post and the one it is in response to shows me that I have
made a mistake in choosing this group to write about my perspectives
of Oriental Carpets in. I beg your pardon, It was not my intention to
disturb, and will cease further comment.

don wheeler

__________________
I realized I was insane when I found
myself watching TV and petting a Tekke
Bag face in my lap as if it was a big
pussycat.
"Even worse than being misinformed
Is not knowing you are"

Hi Don,

I think that if you rummage around in our archived discussions or simply follow what goes on for awhile, you'll find that there are a few more or less regular contributors with views similar to yours.

The essence of productive discussion is the presentation and debate of differing points of view in a civilized manner, and while it is clear that John doesn't share your viewpoint, I don't read his post expressing that as lacking civility. That is, he doesn't say (explicitly or implicitly) that you are an idiot, dishonest, intellectually timid or ignorant; only that he disagrees, and what his basis is for doing so.

Anyway, I want to assure you that alternative viewpoints are not seen as intrusions on Turkotek, and that you are most welcome to present yours and open it to debate any time.

Regards,

Steve Price

Mr. Wheeler -

I want to add my assurance's to what Steve Price has written above. The fact that I have offended with my response (something I did not intend in the slightest) makes me wonder if perhaps I should be questioning my own command of the "English" language.

It is true, as I tried to acknowledge, that I am more attracted to views and interpretations for which some evidence can be provided but I acknowledge that this is a view not entirely shared world-wide. I grew up in a group of fundamentalist Protestants among whom "faith" was a primary element of belief. I think my own tendencies in thought are marked by both this experience (I feel fortunate to have escaped with some portion of my mental faculties intact) and the fact that for awhile I "hung out" on the fringes of a community of scholars seriously interested in philosophy.

I intended to use the term "elitism" in a purely descriptive and non-prejorative way, to indicate that it would seem that not everyone would be able to achieve the sort of "seeing" recommended. You say not. I hesitate to ask further, but one question that occurs is that since the deepest "seeing" here seems to be entirely an "in the mind" experience, how would one decide that this is the case?

Similarly, I used the world "troublesome" only in the sense that philosophers sometimes use it to mark a part of some argument that seems particularly difficult to demonstrate. I did not find your suggestions or the fact that you have made them here personally troublesome at all.

And I definitely did not intend my response to be off-putting as it clearly was to you. I was merely commmenting on, from my own perspective, a view that you offered. We disagree frequently or at least offer countering views, here on Turkotek, without giving offense. We also, as Steve has indicated, welcome new voices and perspectives, so no suggestion of intrusion was intended.

I hope that you will be encouraged to continue.

We do share something: I, too, find myself "petting" Tekke rugs quite a lot.

Regards,

R. John Howe

"Interesting thoughts, though, that seem to resonate somewhat with aspects of those presented earlier in this thread by Randall Morris. He also suggested that some designs are open to multiple readings and in fact to transformation in the meanings conveyed. He seemed to tie such transformations to acts of artistic creativity while your own treatment here seems to relate them to the ability to see some great "truth.""

I think that is a very thin interpretation of what I was saying, actually. An act of creativity is only one means by which art changes over time. The culture itself changes, for better or worse, and the art reflects that cultural change as well. It might help to see cultural influence as part of a two-part process: One is the culture acting upon the artist and the second is the artist's location of him or herself within that culture.

My comments on the artist transforming that imagery was in the context of the natural permutations of the culture in combination with the charismatic idiosyncracy of an occasional artist. It would never be the norm for an artist to change the imagery.

hope this is more clear for you,

Randall

Randall -

I agree that my characterization of your previous indications was noticeably "thin," (it may even have been inaccurate) and I cannot promise that I have taken your thoughts in yet as fully as they deserve. But thanks for the further elucidation.

Regards,

R. John Howe

quote:

---

Originally posted by R. John Howe
Mr. Wheeler -

I want to add my assurance's to what Steve Price has written above. The fact that I have offended with my response (something I did not intend in the slightest) makes me wonder if perhaps I should be questioning my own command of the "English" language.

It is true, as I tried to acknowledge, that I am more attracted to views and interpretations for which some evidence can be provided but I acknowledge that this is a view not entirely shared world-wide. I grew up in a group of fundamentalist Protestants among whom "faith" was a primary element of belief. I think my own tendencies in thought are marked by both this experience (I feel fortunate to have escaped with some portion of my mental faculties intact) and the fact that for awhile I "hung out" on the fringes of a community of scholars seriously interested in philosophy.

I intended to use the term "elitism" in a purely descriptive and non-prejorative way, to indicate that it would seem that not everyone would be able to achieve the sort of "seeing" recommended. You say not. I hesitate to ask further, but one question that occurs is that since the deepest "seeing" here seems to be entirely an "in the mind" experience, how would one decide that this is the case?

Similarly, I used the world "troublesome" only in the sense that philosophers sometimes use it to mark a part of some argument that seems particularly difficult to demonstrate. I did not find your suggestions or the fact that you have made them here personally troublesome at all.

And I definitely did not intend my response to be off-putting as it clearly was to you. I was merely commmenting on, from my own perspective, a view that you offered. We disagree frequently or at least offer countering views, here on Turkotek, without giving offense. We also, as Steve has indicated, welcome new voices and perspectives, so no suggestion of intrusion was intended.

I hope that you will be encouraged to continue.

We do share something: I, too, find myself "petting" Tekke rugs quite a lot.

Regards,

R. John Howe

---

__________________
I realized I was insane when I found
myself watching TV and petting a Tekke
Bag face in my lap as if it was a big
pussycat.
"Even worse than being misinformed
Is not knowing you are"