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

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

Posted by Michael Wendorf on December 19, 1998 at 16:11:01:

In Reply to: Re: Why weavers didn't make fragments to begin with posted by James Allen on December 19, 1998 at 08:35:37:

: : 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?

: : Regards,

: : Steve Price

: : OK I give. When it comes to spin on rug related matters we make even the political pundits seen like hackers. I think it has to do with the dearth of commonly held beliefs, facts. There are so few facts and the objects themselves so warm and satisfying! Let me make an analogy: we all like certain colors and choose to wear them like a chamelion changes hue. We seldom delve deeply into the whys of color selection but many of us will argue vigorously to defend our color choices. These facts are so salient that Lusher developed an outstanding personality inventory test based on nothing but subjective color choices. You see these choices are deeply ingrained as is most of our aesthetic predilections. We defend our aesthetic choices just like we do our color choices and it all boils down to being a reflection of who and what we are. To move off into the actual field of inquiry takes a lot of study and a deep affection for the pursuit. This should be a lot of fun but as we have seen these issues are damn close to the bone. James Allen

Dear James:
Your point is equally valid turned around and redirected toward yourself. It is absolutely true that there are so few facts. It is equally true that it is warming to sit in front of their glow and try to see things. What I sense may be sometimes lacking is the humility to admit that none of us can know very much beyond what we grow to love, our aesthetic, after handling numerous examples- some handle more than others and some value certain attributes more than others. Isn't it at least possible that what attracts one person to love something as prototypical that other persons see as clumsy is an aesthetic that is based less on fact or depth of understanding and just as much on, to use your words, a color choice. Of course, that color choice is defended, but how? On fact or on basis of a choice reflecting as much about the person choosing as the choice?
Also, isn't one of the reasons so many Turkoman and other collectors analyize structure is because structure, and perhaps dyes, is the place where we can begin to talk about facts and the sum of those facts.
Something to chew on. Regards, Michael Wendorf

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

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