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

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

Posted by Steve Price on December 19, 1998 at 05:12:56:

In Reply to: Re: Why weavers didn't make fragments to begin with posted by James Allen on December 18, 1998 at 22:02:45:

Dear Jim,

I think I do get Yon's point, and yours, too. Art collectors don't want perfect copies, they want originals. Likewise for rug and African art collectors, including you and me. That's why nobody cares much about Nashville's copy of the Parthenon, tooo. What I suggested, and continue to believe, is that if there had been two Parthenons on opposite hills, one was perfectly preserved and the other was the one that now exists, interest in the perfect one would far exceed that of the other.

As for fragments, while there are some that we find interesting and personally collectible, those are only collectible because intact versions are so rare as to be unaffordable. Most fragments of rugs are not good for anything except making pillows - cutting them up and destroying the weaver's work even further. None of us would consider it reasonable to take, say, your Salor juval and cut it into three fragments so you, Yon and I could share it and all get the pleasure now available to only one owner.

Finally, if fragments in general are such wonderful items, how do we answer the question, Why didn't weavers make fragments to begin with?


Steve Price

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

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