Pictures 3 & 4

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

Posted by Irwin Kirsch on December 13, 1998 at 20:32:27:

Dear John:

When I first looked at picture 4, the fine color and the balance of the border with the medallian and the field is what attracted me. This is a harmonious weaving with each design component (border, medallian, filler motiffs) having a synergistic effect (1+1+1=4). The extremely well executed border design and corner resolution in my opinion was created by a master weaver. The medallian has different diagonals in the bottom from the top and is slightly off center to the left. The medallian top horizontal is wider than the bottom horizontal, no doubt because of the difference in the diagonals and she was running out of space. I feel that this was done intentionally and I like it better since it is not so rigid a design and for me, not perfect. Because of the well executed border, I feel this weaver could have made a perfectly symmetrical medallian if she so desired.

As for picture #3, this border is the complete opposite of what picture #4 does for me. While I like the field motiffs, the border competes with it and the design detracts from my overall enjoyment of the khorjin. This is particularly bothersome to me in viewing the somewhat different borders of each half of the khorjin. It looks as if the field motiffs and the borders were done by two separtate weavers. In fact, I might like it better if the two khorjin halves were separated and I only saw one of them. I'm sure that the crude rendition and execution will appeal to some or many collectors because of real or perceived ethnographics of the weaving. While I have and enjoy pieces that do not have the perfect border and corner executions of #4, this border has too many "mistakes" for my taste.


Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

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