A Yastik Adventure: The “Denny Derivatives,” A Dread But Enjoyable Disease

Pages (2): [1] 2 »  Author Thread

R. John Howe Member Registered: Jan 2002 Location: Posts: 18 A Yastik Adventure: The “Denny Derivatives,” A Dread But Enjoyable Disease Dear folks – A week or so ago I bought a Turkish yastik. There is color transfer onto the warps that strongly suggests that the red ground of this piece is synthetic, and there are other indications that it has no great age, but I liked its strong graphics, the use of color, and the simple little border that is effective and framing, but which does not compete with the largish, bold elements of the field, or even with the lappets. When I first saw this piece, I thought immediately that it reminded me of something I had seen recently. I had just been to Walter Denny’s walk-through of his “Turkish Carpets in the Classical Tradition” exhibition at The Textile Museum. In this walk-through Denny had a little fun with the notion of a design being “derivative.” Sometimes, he said, you read the rug literature and come away thinking that nothing could be worse than for a rug design to be “derivative.” He then proceeded to show how he had organized this exhibit to demonstrate precisely how some great Turkish classical designs had evolved as they came forward in time. “Derivative” got a little rehabilitation in this treatment. Denny showed that it is simply one aspect of what weavers do, while both following a tradition, dealing with the mundane problems of weaving, and sometimes attempting to make their own creative contributions. So I made an offer on this yastik and came home to research it (notice the wrong order here). In his useful little book, “Yastiks,” Brian Morehouse offers two examples that seem similar. They are plates 95 and 96. Morehouse says these pieces, which are both clearly much older than mine, are from Central Turkey, most likely from the Kisehir area. He says that the design with a small central medallion and the “rather flamboyant” motifs in the four corners are typical. He says that the the center medallions of both of these pieces have “zoomorphic appearances,” e.g., possibly a kind of bug. And the corner motifs have the appearance of “floral forms, although they are likely derived from representations of large plumed birds.” (As I write here, it seems to me that we discussed these "plumed" devices in another recent instance here on Turkotek, but I can't retrieve the occasion.) Morehouse also says the lappets treatment is typical of Kisehir usage. Comparing these two pieces to my own, it seems to me that the four corner devices and the lappets are quite similar to the first of the two above (Plate 95). So far, so good. But what was I remembering from the Denny exhibition that also seemed similar to me? I took down the exhibition catalog and began to leaf through it. There on page 78 was a piece with traces of one of the “painter” rugs. It is catalog number 18, described as a “Ghirlandalo-Pattern carpet, probably 18th or 19th century.” The caption indicates that this piece is itself richly derivative. “With a design inspired by a variety of sources, from the border taken from 19th century Ladik rugs, to the red-blue palette taken from Ushak carpets, and to the Ghirlandalo” medallion in the center, this carpet shows the ability of Anatolian weavers to create new compositions by assembling classical motifs." I showed my yastik and made this connection argument to an experienced local collector this week and he suggested that it was a kind of “stretch.” It probably is, but isn’t it fun? I’ve got the “Denny Derivatives,” a dread, but enjoyable disease. Your sternest comments are invited. Regards, R. John Howe Last edited by R. John Howe on 10-18-2002 at 11:51 AM   | I 10-17-2002 11:03 AM

Marvin_Amstey Guest Registered: Not Yet Location: Posts: N/A I don't think it's a stretch at all. Turkish rugs commonly use a 2-1-2 pattern in the field. Your yastik weaver has done just that. The same pattern has gone on for 500 years. "Derivative" may be too harsh a word. The weaver obviously used her own ideas about what to do with those "medallions" . I like it. Regards, Marvin 10-17-2002 05:28 PM

R. John Howe Member Registered: Jan 2002 Location: Posts: 18 Hi Marvin - Glad you like it. Of course, Denny's point is that the word "derivative" should not be a prejorative, since it's mostly what went on. So it's not so much a matter of avoiding a word that's been turned improperly into a kind of "swear word," but rather of noticing what actually went on and of acknowledging that more even-handedly. Regards, R. John Howe 10-17-2002 10:09 PM

R. John Howe Member Registered: Jan 2002 Location: Posts: 18 Hello? Hello? Is anyone other than Marvin out there? Isn't someone going to take me on about my "derivatives are dandy" thesis? I thought that by now I'd be experiencing feelings of "penetration" as folks began to "nail" my "hide" to the wall about this claim. Where are the champions of weaver design creativity? Regards, R. John Howe 10-19-2002 12:13 PM

Michael Bischof Member Registered: Apr 2002 Location: Posts: 22 Hi R. John Howe, my anser is already there: but on the other thread "dyes and ethnographical value". For me it is clear anyway: the older yastiks are quite a crude copy of some alien designs, the first one has a better border - on the whole your piece is more and better adaequate for this type of textile. Again: age itself does not mean too much .... haven't seen it, of course, in front of me. Look a bit "dull" ? Or this due to the magics of digital picture handling ? Greetings, Michael Bischof 10-19-2002 12:18 PM

David R. E. Hunt Guest Registered: Not Yet Location: Posts: N/A derivative Dea R.J. Howe and all- From whence the derision of derivation? Perhaps the simularity of pronounciation leads to a transposition of meaning, the type of error elucidated by Freud in his Psychopathology of Everyday Life, and the frequency with which this term "derivative" is found associated , either temporally or in print, with the term"deterioration". Turning to the dictionary, we find : not origional or primary, based on or originating in other sources; to draw or recieve, as from a source or principal; to deduce, as from a premis, draw a conclusion. And so on. But most revealing is the latin origin of the word itself, "derivare", meaning <de=from + rivus= stream, for this essentially describes the process by which carpet design evolves and change over the course of time. In The Art of Islam, Dr Carel J. Du Ry states that "Textiles form only a verry small portion of the Muslim's artistic heritage, the growth of which can be followed more closely than in any other civilization". Hence derivation is primary, and I suspect the derision accorded derivative proceeds more from a ubiquity of application than from a percieved inacuracy of usage. Being an example of familiarity breeding contempt, perhaps we should substitute the terms "inspired by" or "drawing upon" in the place of the dreaded derivative.But then, perhaps not. Seems easier just to put it into perspective.- Dave P.S. I do like the new piece, but think much positive could be said about the old ones. 10-19-2002 03:03 PM

Michael Bischof Member Registered: Apr 2002 Location: Posts: 22 Hi everybody, dear David: the new is not new in the sense of the word ... if R. John Howe mentions that there is some staining of the warps it means at least something "semi-antique", 20 - 90 years old, may be even an early "over-dyed" red. What I meant was: except the central medaillons ( but not their centers !) the big corner motives are "something " undecipherable, apparently taken from some other source, and not adaequate to this type of pile weave. That such transfers are ubiquitous in Islamic art is true: but village rugs and kilims are not "Islamic art". They are arts done in Islamic countries by people whose religion is Islam. But it is not the same, I would guess. The category is wrong for them. So, from a textile point of view, I would prefer the piece of R. John Howe over the other two which are indeed older. But age alone can mean , well, that it just looks older, that's all. The term "derivative" for this case is misleading: the weaver of John's piece dared to go one step back from the "derivative". The two older pieces are the derivative ones. Greetings Michael 10-19-2002 04:38 PM

David R E Hunt Guest Registered: Not Yet Location: Posts: N/A Dear Michael and all-You bring up a good point, that of inclusion or exclusion of indigenous tribal and village weaving under the umbrella, so to speak ,of Islamic Art. Were there a clear and distinct seperation as in space or time between the three I would argue for the creation of a seperate category(ies), as in say pre -Islamic weaving of the Anatolian regions, but as a practical matter if for no other I believe the inclusion of these tribal and village weavings under the heading of Islamic Art both adequate and appropriate under these circumstances.This is not of course to say that these are mutually inclusive, but kindered. Most telling, and accurate I do believe, this assertion that the two older Yastiks are derivatives.As pointed out by Mr. Amstey, the 2-1-2 arrangement of field pattern has a long and illustrious history in Turkish weaving, being represented by both the Ushak and some manifestations of the Holbien carpets. These two weaving cultures, the Ushak and the Holbien, are interesting and important to the history of weaving in that they were both manufactured on a large scale and were traded extensively. It is not at all surprising that the 2-1-2 format demonstrated by these extensively traded carpets would be seen and copied by village and tribal weavers. Also, as an interesting aside, one will notice that if they take either a small pattern Holbien or a Tekke Turkmen main carpet and form a square in which the superior, inferior, and two lateral dimensions bisect the larger design element or major gul, the resulting space demonstrates a 2-1-2 design format. This could come in handy when trying to memorize a carpet design. One need look no further,I believe, than the Ushak carpets for the inspiration of the Yastik designs in question.The undecipherable corner motives,as simplified rectalinear executions, make sense.I'm afraid I would have to disagree, however, with the assertion that the drawing of R.J.Howe's piece does not constitute a derivation of design. If we compare image #1, Mr. Howe's rug, to image# 2 the first of the antique rugs, their simularities and differiences are immediately apparent. With the exception to the end stripe, situated between the applets and the main border at each end of rug#2, all of the design elements of the older rug are found in the newer rug.In the antiquated rug, the applets, situated at either end, are of differing size and configuration at one end of the rug than the other. Also, in the newer rug the trident or plant devices are just suggested, where in the older rug they are drawn in full.In the new the coloring of the applets are symetrical, in the old, asymetrical.In the old the border consists of flowering plants, with discernable leaves and flowers. The new consists of a simple geometric border with no variation aside from color.I could go on like this for six paragraphs. The latter weaving is a rectilinear simplification of the old design and as such is derived from the old rug. It is a simplified copy. If it were a Turkmen rug it would be refered to as being a degenerated design.But don't get me wrong, it's a beautiful rug with good rich color. But given my choice I would take the second of the three Yastiks, although the third might be older.The fourth rug is a whole other story- to die for!- Dave Dave asked to attach some images to his posting. Here they are. Ed. 10-20-2002 07:32 AM

Michael Bischof Member Registered: Apr 2002 Location: Posts: 22 Dear David, hi everybody, I agree: the lappets in the Howe-piece are "younger", but the piece is for sure younger than the other ones anyway. No doubt. What I cannot see is how it should be derivative of these two other yastiks, except the general lay-out scheme (which is indeed quite common, as you work out). The corner motives I cannot link to classical carpets. I suggest it is a kind of coarse and deranged kind of fabric design, in both pieces. How it is related to Ushak carpets I cannot see either. Without any question more often than not village rugs may be coarse (and often degenerated) variations of classical carpets. But in order to put it into its correct historical perspective one should not forget that the design roots of village rugs are much older than classical carpets are - these are derivatives of this design repertoire, not opposite. Look at the central motif of the Howe yastik. There is a star motive which is the oldest motive that one has on Anatolian soil. There is a grave yard near Malatya where we have runic letters plus this star motif together. Apparently a part of the Turcoman people who used this area as a yayla (their kisla was in Mesopotamia, to about Bagdad) were still in a kind of pre-Islamic culture. This material is quite older than Selcuk carpets are. The main border of the Howe piece "simple geometric border with no variation aside from color" we find in very early village rugs of the 15th century in a quite close form. Nothing simplistic then. My main argument for voting for the latest piece is an aesthetical one. These two older pieces are much more a kind of "mini-carpet" than the Howe piece is. If you see what kind of use a yastik has in a Turkish house, what size it has (the older pieces seem to be much finer) I find the Howe pieces design more appropriate, a good textile solution of its own and not a "mini-carpet" - except the 4 motives in the corner which are, for me, in all 3 cases simply ugly. I would not put these weaves under the umbrella of Islamic art as I can see no other reason for it than the plain fact that the people who made it were Muslims (with a strong pre-Islam accent in case of all Turkic cultures, by the way). Not only for Raki drinking ...How many parts of our own culture are "Christian"? Greetings, Michael    10-22-2002 08:29 PM

Steve Price Administrator Registered: Dec 2001 Location: Posts: 34 Hi All, I'm glad to see that someone else (Michael Bischof) regards those two yastiks as ugly. I was at ICOC in Philadelphia and saw the yastik exhibition that is catalogued in Morehouse's book, and thought the majority of the pieces were uninteresting, many seemed downright ugly, a few were quite beautiful. My reaction was that my taste simply isn't refined enough for this kind of textile. Now I wonder. I do own two yastiks, by the way, and think both are very beautiful. And, like Michael, I find John's piece most attractive; miles ahead of the other two in his post. This, of course, assumes that the colors I see on my monitor are reasonably accurate for all three. Regards, Steve Price | 10-22-2002 08:47 PM

Michael Bischof Member Registered: Apr 2002 Location: Posts: 22 Hi everybody, a quick shot: to make a book it something that may hurt - from financial consideration you are light years away from that great print quality that you find necessary to come a bit close to some (!) magnificent colours in the pieces that you show or exhibit. A lot of the yastiks that Brian Morehouse showed I knew from before - and some are great! And the "quality average" is not bad at all. Plus: the first book about a type that is by far the most important piled textile type from the view of "authentic weaving" for the 19th century in Anatolia - a pity that we hardly come across earlier material. There must have been quite a lot - once. So, please, Steve, do not play it down too much. But, I agree, antique or not, natural dyes or not - yes, it may be sometimes ugly. Life is too short to be wasted with polite lies - so sometimes I should express the thumbs down expression too. Forgive me, whoever owns these two yastiks, and bravo to John for good taste, Michael Bischof 10-22-2002 10:11 PM

Filiberto Boncompagni Administrator Registered: Dec 2001 Location: Amman, Jordan Posts: 11 Well, well. So… it seems there is a wide agreement on the good aesthetic qualities of John’s yastik in spite of its red ground being probably synthetic, and the fact that it has no great age. I’m very happy to see there is a softening on the general position of "it MUST be 100% natural dyes and OVER 100 years old" already discussed in the thread "dyes and ethnographic value"! Optimistically, Filiberto 10-23-2002 06:58 AM

Chuck Wagner Member Registered: Jan 2002 Location: Saudi Arabia Posts: 2 What He Said... Hi All, Picking up where Filiberto left off, I'll also note that by now I would have expected the degenerationophobes among us to be grousing about the less rigorous approach to the design implementation, as well as the dyes. And yet they remain surprisingly silent (demure?). For me, the "bold but simpler" design gives Johns piece an uncluttered and "easy-to-take-in-at-a-glance" character that I find quite agreeable. It allows me to focus on the colors, which seem nicely balanced. And not enough pure white to scare me off... Regards, Chuck __________________ Chuck Wagner 10-23-2002 10:30 AM

R. John Howe Member Registered: Jan 2002 Location: Posts: 18 Dear folks - I think the preference for all natural dyes and an age of not later than about 1875 is still the norm for what might be called "experienced" collectors. They are likely not speaking up here because they see the seeming temptation to "elevate" the collecting merit of later pieces with at least some likely synthetic dyes as benighted and beneath consideration as the subject of an opposing post. I should mention that I took the yastik that begins this thread to the Show and Tell session (photos soon) that concluded last weekend's Textile Museum Rug Convention, and, while pieces in the Show and Tell are moving by at a pretty high rate, because of the number of pieces that need to be shown, it drew almost no comment as compared to two other well-known, older, natural dye pieces owned by an experienced collector here. So the graphics of this little piece did not "grab" the Turkish experts (and they were formidable) in the room. My own view is middling. I do think that very frequently older pieces with natural dyes only are better, but I sometimes find pieces that clearly are not old (e.g., some contemporary weaving, some of which I have ordered custom myself) or that have what seems very likely to be some evidence of the presence of synthetic dyes (the yastik of mine above is such an example) that have compensating features that make them still attractive to me. I have decided in my own collecting (and this is in part likely an opportunistically adopted rule since I collect on a fairly restricted budget) not to bar myself from enjoying a piece that does not meet the all natural dyes, before 1875 standard, if it has such appeal for me. But I would not urge my own standard on others, excepting to caution them not to adopt any rule mechanically, but rather to continue to look at the pieces to determine the actual appeal they have for you. Now if someone follows my rule and decides that they like, perhaps even prefer, the bright palette often produced with synthetic dyes, then they and I are calibrated differently with regard to our color preferences. Regards, R. John Howe 10-23-2002 12:11 PM

Michael Bischof Member Registered: Apr 2002 Location: Posts: 22 Hallo everybody, Well, I did not mean to "soften up" - I simply find John's yastik, as compared to these two other ones, more "successful" as a textile. With the caution: we discuss here on the basis of digital photos!!! Whether the red is synthetic (that would mean it is much more dull than it seems here to be) or if it is a middle natural red overdyed with some synthetics makes a huge difference in the visual perfomance of the piece. Aesthetically, designwise, John piece is closer to the "roots" of this type of textiles than the other two pieces. By the way: the real stunning pieces in Morehouse's book are all 100% natural dyes and that makes their success, unfortunately not easy to be seen in the book (which has a lot of merits, as I want to insist). In addition: after having published the book Brian Morehouse came to Central Anatolia to follow up the real origin of some of the pieces that he had published. This is, if you compare it to some of the much better known names in his profession, an unusual motivated and thorough approach in an environment, that some time ago produced a catalogue showing a Mut cuval with the comment "Western Anatolia, close to Sivas". Greetings, Michael Bischof   10-23-2002 04:24 PM

Steve Price Administrator Registered: Dec 2001 Location: Posts: 34 Hi Michael, While my reaction to most of the yastiks in the Philadelphia exhibition may, indeed, simply reflect lack of refinement in my own taste, it has nothing to do with the photographic reproduction in Morehouse's book. I was at the exhibition in person and went through it more than once, figuring that it might grow on me with repeated exposure. I'm also a little puzzled about how Morehouse's visiting the homeland after publishing the book could have contributed to the book being better than most of its predecessors. Regards, Steve Price 10-23-2002 04:35 PM

Michael Bischof Member Registered: Apr 2002 Location: Posts: 22 Hallo Steve, "lack of refinement" concerning taste, hmmh? No, I guess the usual case. An exhibition that was put together from several collections. I know that Morehouse had access to the biggest and, according to what I know, best collection of this kind which is outside the United States. What he selected on how it was done he is responsible for - and overall I like the focus that it moved to yastiks. They deserve that - many, but not all, even if one accepts this "pre-1875" standard. That he went to Central Anatolia after publishing the book is, I want to repeat that, unusual in this business where most of the intelligence is still collected by comparing pictures and pieces in the West, in other terms: far away from their real context in which they once had been made. Yes, to do such thing before publishing would have been better but above what a single dealer can normally do. Most of the famous guys never did more than some shopping trips, isn't it like that? Therefore his behaviour I found, yes, in a positive way unusual. Maybe later this book will have a second edition and then this will be improved by more first hand informations? Greetings, Michael PS. I repeat my statement done in the "neighbour thread" of "dyes and ethnographic value" that the red-ground yastik that was in that exhibition, from a place not too far from Konya (an A-piece) has the nicest red dye that I have ever seen in an Oriental Weave. But the photograph cannot give even an impulse into that direction. 10-23-2002 08:45 PM

Filiberto Boncompagni Administrator Registered: Dec 2001 Location: Amman, Jordan Posts: 11 Chuck, I’m afraid ours was only a brief triumph of hope over experience. Pessimistically, Filiberto 10-24-2002 11:13 AM

David R.E. Hunt Member Registered: Mar 2002 Location: Washington D.C., U.S.A. Posts: 1 A Humble Apology Michael and all-Please accept my most humble apologies, as I seem to have fallen off my horse. In a flash the muse was upon me,at two in the morning on Saturday night, and in an attempt to both preserve some vestiges of my inspiraton and to spur me on to construct an interesting post, I shetched a quick outline and then posted, knowing the wife and two children were to be away for the day, and I would have time to finish. (Wrighting for Turkotek is at the top of my wife's short list of important things for me to do, of course.)But things went awry, I couldn't log onto the site for whatever reason, and I was under the weather besides. By the time I had resolved the log-on impasse, my post had been decimated, deservidly I might add. The subject of the completed post was to be that of the derivation of design, with examples of both progressive and regressive designs as demonstrated by the relationship between Yastik #2 and the Ushak(including a rectilinear,village intermediary) and between the Holbein and the Turkmen cultures. Iv'e since even played with the ideas of convergent, divergent, and linear progression or evolution of design, and I will try to work something up to integrate all this into a coherent body, but it won't be ready tomorrow. While I do believe that the design of Yastik #2 is inspired by the Ushak or a derivative of the Ushak, this does not hold true for Yastiks in general, and at this point I personally have doubts as to this #2 weaving being a Yastik at all.It also seems to possess somewhat of a caucasian flavor but this is of course just an impression. I agree that it could well be a rug, as the scale and relative proportions of the design elements seem more appropriate to this type of weaving. Although, granted, it may be ugly, I personally find this #3 Yastik to be verry interesting an likely the oldest of the three( I do not for one second believe that the fourth rug, this vision from paradise, is a Yastik), as the design elements situated in the four corners closely resemble a zoomorphic design element from the Animal Carpets of the Seldjuk period. Convergent desigh evolution? In light of what these reflections, I am willing to concede that the first Yastik might not be derivative, or at least not so degenerated a design; I do seem to have commited a sampling error based upon an assumed progression of design over time. Yastiks may indeed be much more static and linear in progression of design. I do not however, accept the assertion that the presence of a single antiquated design motif denotes antiquity of design-of course it's a possibility but it's a stretch too-and when the boby of facts known about these primordial weavings and cultures constitutes more than a footnote I will gladly confer upon it the title of History or Primordial Weaving Culture of the Pre Islamic Era instead of relegating them to appendices.-Dave Last edited by David R.E. Hunt on 10-27-2002 at 01:39 PM 10-24-2002 11:30 AM

Vincent_Keers Guest Registered: Not Yet Location: Posts: N/A Dear John and all, I think there's another way of telling if a rug is post- or pre Industrial Revolution. And maybe another explanation of why pre- "feels" better because of the visual Horizon? One reason why I like Yasticks is shown in my image. Your Yastick is the youngest, and it shows because the centre is too high. (Only hope the Yasticks are all published pile down) This is what I mean: Did the weavers have problems caused by warp/weft tension in the older rugs? Yes. Did this disturb the weavers? No. It was as expected. As work proceeded the weaver adjusted here/his position. Especially on the horizontal looms. He/she couldn't adjust the loom, or role the work down. So the (left over) working space was constantly decreasing as the rug progressed. This resulted in higher warp tension. (Giving the wefts more ease, doesn't fix the problem, because then the rug would grow wider and wider as work proceeded.) This results in warp-eating wefts that gives elongation. Did the weavers have problems caused by warp/weft tension in the new rugs? Yes. But because most looms can be adjusted at working level, the tension in the warps will not rise at the level, as was in the older production. So more warp/weft ease, or stability, in the whole rug. This resulted in compression and therefore the centre gets higher. I've been looking at some newly made "Antiques" and the centres are too high. Looking at the original antiques, the centre is as expected, low. This can be of help for future generations. So, what do we think of this as a starter? Best regards, Vincent 10-24-2002 02:25 PM

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:18 AM. Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.2.6
Copyright ©2000, 2001, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.