Posted by Sophia Gates on December 31, 1998 at 19:04:12:
In Reply to: Re: TRANSFORMATION OF FLORAL MOTIFS INTO ANIMAL ONE posted by Steve Price on December 31, 1998 at 16:49:03:
: Dear Sophia and Everyone Else,
: I'd like to address just one or two small points in your posting, since I think you have misunderstood mine a little. You state:
: "First, I feel that the assertion that the animal forms actually evolved from the floral or tree palmettes, is a difficult one at best to substantiate. (I've always wondered just exactly how tribal weavers would have gotten ahold of a city carpet in order to be inspired by [and "misunderstand"] it in the first place!)"
: 1. I wasn't arguing that zoomorphic motifs always evolved from floral ones, but that all sorts of things easily morph into each other, floral to animal, animal to floral, either on to geometric (or to military hardware!), etc.
: 2. A tribal weaver doesn't have to get hold of a city workshop rug to see a flower, although it is plausible that in the course of raiding villages and towns many nomads did, in fact, get their hands on urban goods.
: Steve Price
Actually, I wrote my post before I saw yours and pasted it in from Word. Probably I should have made that clear but I was getting cross-eyed by that point.
I agree with both your assertions, that all types of forms call morph and that flowers are not unusual! However, as it happens I was responding more to the general idea posed by Daniel and also other articles that I've read previously on this subject.
Thanks and best wishes for the New Year!
Post a Followup