Posted by Yon Bard on December 18, 1998 at 13:36:49:
In Reply to: Why weavers didn't make fragments to begin with posted by Steve Price on December 18, 1998 at 08:48:38:
: Dear Friends,
: I know that there are folks who collect fragments, and I hope they will read this through before getting angry at me.
: It is an inexcapable fact that the most you can get from a fragment is its tactile qualities, colors and a feel for the technical skill of the weaver. Everything else is lost. I've seen a few fragments in which these factors were sufficiently intense to make me reach for my Visa card, but not very many. And, when a fragment becomes an image on a computer screen you can get none of these characteristics from it very accurately. Even though #1 is a big fragment (and, therefore, closer to being an ensi than most fragments are to being rugs), most people find it unattractive.
: That's probably why weavers didn't make fragments to begin with.
: Steve Price
Steve, I really don't understand what you are saying. By and large #1 has the usual format for Ersari Ensis, therefore it doesn't take much imagination to figure out what it looked like when intact. But to judge a fragment that is missing one third of its area as though it was complete isn't right. I don't think the question of whether one likes it as a fragnent is relevant.
Post a Followup