Posted by Marvin Amstey on February 02, 1999 at 07:11:22:
In Reply to: Re: More Caucasian Human Figures posted by Irwin Kirsch on February 01, 1999 at 23:04:56:
: : Dear Irwin,
: : While I can understand an Armenian Christian weaving a prayer rug for commercial purposes, she/he did not use it for prayer - at least in the Christian religious tradition. Given this fact, why would it be sacriligious to include human figures - dressed or undressed? Certainly important Christian art from medievil times, though the Renaissance, etc depicted undressed human figures which were not considered sacriligious. Regards, Marvin
: Dear Marvin:
: Funny you should ask! The owner of the rug termed it sacriligious and I asked him the same question, stating that the rug was not meant to be a prayer rug and was probably made for the commercial market. He vehemently disagreed saying the rug was made explicitly for prayer by the Moslems. He is quite knowledgeable, has been selling rugs for a long time, and there was no way that I was going to pursue the argument any longer. Too bad he doesn't have internet access and missed out on Jerry Silverman's past salon concerning ethnocentricity.
Perhaps he can have his cake and eat it too. The rug was sold to a Moslem. On the other hand, I've never been convinced that pile "prayer" rugs were used for prayer unless they were a gift to a mosque, or left there as floor covering for prayer.
Post a Followup