Posted by Marvin Amstey on February 07, 1999 at 18:22:52:
In Reply to: Another possibility.... posted by Jerry Silverman on February 07, 1999 at 03:41:48:
: Could this have something to do with politeness?
: What I mean by this is that it is easy to imagine that pre-1900 era rugs woven for actual use would wind up on the ground and trod upon. Folk art/primitive representations of people are merely decorative and can be walked on with no disrespect. Highly realistic images might be another matter. If the image is good enough to be recognizable, wouldn't it be rude to walk all over it? (This also conveniently ties in with Sophia's earlier point about very realistic images on tapestries. They weren't meant to be walked on.) It just doesn't feel right to step on a family portrait or a picture of an honored ancestor.
I would put this in the less plausible category; I don't think it's "plausible". The great rugs - 16, 17th c ones with people - better drawn than the "primitive" figures - were meant to be trod upon. No one has found any examples of any rug type from the 18th, 19th c with realistically drawn people; I'm still looking. Regards, Marvin
Post a Followup