Posted by James Allen on December 18, 1998 at 22:02:45:
In Reply to: Re: Why weavers didn't make fragments to begin with posted by Steve Price on December 18, 1998 at 21:32:38:
: Dear Yon,
: You are right, I did miss your point. I certainly agree that it makes no sense to negatively judge the weaver's ability to create by looking at a misshapen, incomplete piece.
: And while I don't sneer at all fragments, most are not very interesting unless they are all we can get our hands on of some rare, usually very old, category of rug. I doubt that there are many who'd want a fragment of, say, a turn of the century Tekke juval (except to make a pillow out of it), but there's a pretty good market for intact ones. And you're right, too, that the Parthenon is impressive. But I also suspect that if it had a twin that was in original condition the interest in the one we have would be very minor compared to the interest in its twin.
: Steve Price
: Steve: I think you'd better go back through Yons' posts again. He has made a very relevant point. While I look at it differently, a fragment has the virtue and value originally put into it by the weaver or maker. Fragments are fun and educational not to mention serious pieces of art. Take your parthenon example. There is an exact copy in Nashville Tennessee. Never heard of it huh? Absolute perfect copy and almost nobody has ever heard of it. get the point? I considered the ensi in pic.#1 as if it were whole. I have seen it in person and know how powerful it really is. What looks naieve is very effective in person. I also want to know where everybody gets off dogging one of jacks' pieces. Mr. Cassin may be difficult ,I admit, but bad taste? I doubt it. My experience has been that Jack has excellent taste and a lifetime of learning, it isn't to be discounted so easily.
Post a Followup