Posted by Yon Bard on July 06, 1999 at 08:34:22:
In Reply to: Re: Elena's Khali Cover Rug posted by Harry Ulfan on July 05, 1999 at 20:51:33:
: : : Dear folks -
: : : I share Harry's admiration for this little rug. I especially like how the weaver has used color to create an asymmetric effect despite a largely (the design is also two and a fraction guls long on the warp length) symmetrical graphic design.
: : : It's rug I've been tempted to ask Chris Walters to have his Ersaris copy for me.
: : : One small correction. Harry meant "knots per decimeter" rather than "KPSI." Dividing 728 KPSD by 15.5 tells us that this piece has a KPSI of about 46. That's fairly coarse for an Ersari, which tend to average 50-70 KPSI.
: : : Regards,
: : : R. John Howe
: : Dear John, Harry, et al.
: : I respectfully disagree with you about the cover rug on Tzareva's book. At first I admired it - even coveted it - until more careful appreciation revealed too many things I disliked. The field has four very crowded, stylized gulli guls- Tmerjin saryk gul combos; the border is a very crowded stylization of Beshir design. To me the design is unsatisfactory, but the color combos look OK. The end finishes do not look like Ersari weaving to my eye. Could this rug be an Uzbek, or more generally, a middle Amu Darya commercial weaving?
: : Regards,
: : Marvin
: Dear Lady and Gents;
: Marla , if you read Jim's posts again , I think that
: you will observe some possible connection
: between examining age and aesthetic considerations. This is what prompted me to
: include my thoughts. John , thanks a lot for
: your conversion from the metric system to inches.
: Marvin , it is possible that your first reaction to
: that Ersari rug was the most "genuine" (from
: the heart) . The rationalisation that came later
: reduced your initial joy which to my mind is
: The bottom line is , in my modest opinion , that
: a piece of art that does not grab our senses
: aesthetically can be 20000 years old and still
: not cut it. So , in some cases it is poinless to
: put such a piece under the microscope or
: subject it to carbon tests.
Pointless? There is such a thing as knowledge for its own sake. That's what pure science is all about - even if in practice it may be rarely so. I, for one, am interested in knowing how things really were, with no ulterior motives. I have no expectation that any of my pieces were made in the 16th century. However, I find it fascinating to know that a bottle of old Madeira that I drank was layed down during the French revolution, or that Meissen figurines of musicians that I have were made while Mozart was a child. Similarly, it would be fascinating for me to know that some Yomud chuval was made while Vambery was visiting the tribe, or some such thing.
Post a Followup