In our essay we have the following lines:
"Like: If we now look at the subtle rendering of this .... motive we
feel tempted to suggest that .... it was this language, and the fact I
could not find anything else in a book about 10 good kilims that claimed
to be the most important existing flatweaves ,that prevented me (M.B.)
from performing any serious critical review of that special
publication end of the eighties and from acknowledging any importance of
these weaves. They most likely have some but this still has to be
shown – but by another author. Arguments cannot be replaced by a kind of
charging synthetic „aura“ to the object. "
We had not given a name of this books author. What we had not known is
the fact that this person had been banned from publishing notes at
Turkotek, Cloudband etc. ... so he could not defend his position. For
our standards it is unfair to attack somebody who cannot defend. We are
sorry but in fact we did not know that.
It would have been easy to use the kilim descriptions in the McCoy-Jones
catalogue. They are of the same style, but more boring.
Note added by editor: I did a preliminary edit of Michael's Salon, and was aware of the sentence to which he refers. It mentioned neither the title of the book nor the name of the author, and was no more critical than comments made about some other books in our Salons. Had Jack Cassin chosen to respond to Michael's comment instead of ranting about the unreasonableness of criticizing anything associated with him, we would have permitted him to defend his book here. In fact, we set up a forum specifically for him, and finally removed it because of the constant repetition and lack of substance of his posts.
All times are GMT -5 hours. The time now is 12:51 PM.
Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.2.1
Copyright © Jelsoft Enterprises Limited 2000, 2001.