Re: Why weavers didn't make fragments to begin with

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Salon ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Steve Price on December 18, 1998 at 13:59:28:

In Reply to: Re: Why weavers didn't make fragments to begin with posted by Yon Bard on December 18, 1998 at 13:36:49:

Dear Yon,

I guess this relates back to an earlier exchange between several of us about what makes a rug aesthetically desirable. Some factors include the colors and their juxtapositions, wool's patina and tactile qualities, the workmanship in the weaving, the overall layout, the design details, the ethnographic significance, the age, provenance, and so forth. Different collectors place different weights on these various factors. For Jim Allen, for example, the ethnographic significance is obviously very dominant. In my own case, I find that most of my attraction to a particular weaving is the total impression it gives me as a physical object. Age and ethnography are significant, but less important to me than to some others.

So, you might be starting to wonder, what does this have to do with fragments? The overall impression given by a fragment is, obviously, very different than that given by the piece when whole. To the extent that the criterion of total impression is important, fragments lose points. Those generally sought by collectors are pieces of very old or otherwise rare items. Hardly any collector is attracted by a fragment of something readily available in its intact form. That is to say, judging fragments against intact pieces appears to me to be the norm, not the exception.

Does this help, or did I muddy the waters further?


Steve Price

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Salon ] [ FAQ ]