Posted by Marvin Amstey on February 03, 1999 at 08:12:40:
In Reply to: Are the human figures especially "primitive"? posted by Steve Price on February 03, 1999 at 05:36:54:
: Dear Friends,
: While the human images on the Rudnick rug are certainly not photo quality, they are at least as realistically drawn as the images of anything else I'm accustomed to seeing on rustic and tribal rugs. After all, we usually have to explain to non-ruggies that rosettes and palmettes are actually blossoms, and what I assume to be goats often look more like stick-figure dogs with antennae than anything else.
: Even the more typical human image on rugs is, in my eyes, not significantly less refined than images of other objects. Clearly, Marvin sees the images of humans differently than I do, and this raises the issue of individual perceptions that has come up several times in the past.
: Steve Price
I agree that these are the same primitive images. My point is why don't the village (ethnographic) weavers make a BETTER image? They are capable of outstanding weaving and presumably are capable of good drawing. Regards, Marvin
Post a Followup