Sabahi's Distinction

Filiberto -

As we've indicated above, Taher Sahabi's book "Varigeh" has (so far) been published only in Italian. This is a source of frustration for those of us who have only high school Latin and went once into Gaul with Caesar, but did not survive to see the beauties of Virgil or Cicero.

So we are dependent on you to dig out whether Sabahi provides any concrete evidence for the intriguing distinction he makes in the quote you provided from his book.

Here it is again:

"To begin with, we have to distinguish between a proper Vaghierh and a sampler – the second is a model for a carpet on a smaller scale.

"First - Vaghirehs were for weavers’ personal use, to transmit old motifs or also made by master weavers for selling to less skilled ones. Used in areas of small, rustic output. This kind is rare because seldom it came out from its “territory”. It presented generally several examples of borders with one filler motif, suitable for only one “model” of rug.

"Second - Small workshops started to use them as samplers for promotion (from small workshop to big customers like Ziegler). They were more complex, presenting a wider variety of designs suitable for different “models” of rugs.

"Third, they could be just a “study” made by master weavers to experiment new designs. They were generally very small with only one motif repeated in different scales and colors.

"Then, the Ziegler(s) and similar organizations found that Vaghirehs were good means to disseminate new designs to village manufacturing which wouldn’t be familiar with the more sophisticate (but also more restraining for creativity) cartoons or graph-paper loom-drawings."

Does Sabahi give any concrete evidence for his intriguing distinction?

Regards,

R. John Howe

Hi John

I hereby bestow upon you this month's Turkotek Award for the most different spellings of one word (wagireh) in a single post.



Regards

Steve Price

Hi Steve -

Yes, this word for some reason has given me trouble ever since I first encountered it.

And there is the sort of variation between "w" and "v" that we often encounter, but I agree my variations are richer and suggest strongly that I need an editor.

If my creative spelling is too distracting, please correct it since because I'm not posting at the moment under my most registered state, I cannot revise it myself.

Of course, if you do you'll also need to delete the entertaining repartee in the last two posts here.

Best,

John Howe

Hi John

Actually, there probably is no "correct" spelling in English, since it's a transliteration from language that doesn't use our alphabet. I hope I didn't offend and that it will be OK to leave things as they are. It adds a homey, informal touch.

Regards

Steve Price

Steve,

This month's award? He must have retired the trophy on that one! Do keep it, as it will be a useful resource for future spellers.

__________________
Rich Larkin

Back to Shabahi's Distinction

Hi Steve -

And notice the humble grace of my response.

I, in fact, only typed this word (whatever it is) once in my post and (following Sabahi) think I got it right.

The rest is copied from the initial essay, where this richness is still exhibited.

Filiberto - Does Sabahi provide a basis for his distinction or is he mostly just asserting it? It would be nice if he gave pictorial examples of the two sorts, but that's likely hoping for too much.

Regards,

R. John Howe

Hi John,

Does Sabahi give any concrete evidence for his intriguing distinction?
Well, no!
He does say that he had his first “encounter” with a wagireh when he was a child, following his father in the countryside of Persian Azerbaijan. He saw a small weaving on the lap of an old weaver working on her loom and he asked her what it was.

On the book's dust jacket there is a short biography of Taher Sabahi, from which we learn that, albeit he came to Italy from Iran to study for physician - and he lives in Turin since 1961– he preferred to continue the family tradition as rug dealer… So my guess is that his father was exercising his trade and Taher got his information in the same way… On the field, I mean.
Steve, about the different spelling, (and besides John’s mis-typing), so far I found two versions: the English one (wagireh) and the Italian, from the book (vaghireh).

Regards,

Filiberto

Dear folks -

No, I have to take it back. I was creative after all. Maybe I'm a little dyslectic (sp?).

Too bad there's not more behind Taher's distinction.

Regards,

R. John Howe

The question is well taken, John. We all know that theories like this have a way of taking on a life of their own, once published.

I'm not sure this is the right thread, or even an appropriate question, but I would be interested to hear some views of afficionados about the aesthetic merits of these pieces (I can't spell it, either). How are they viewed as contrasted with, for example, the sorts of weavings for which they provide a sample?

__________________
Rich Larkin

Rich -

I think the question of which wagirehs we think are beautiful is a good one but let's do start another thread for it.

Filiberto and I grappled with that question as we chose images to share.

We'll contribute if you start a new thread on it in this salon.

Regards,

R. John Howe