Home > Archive >Case In Point re: Mystery Rug, Not
Author:jc
email:
Wed, Oct 5th, 2005 01:52:18 AM
Topic: Case In Point re: Mystery Rug, Not

We have stated ad nauseum having ignorants like price=clown and company on the Internet is detrimental to the rug world.

We have no doubt about this but proving it with concrete examples is difficult because the damage these cretins cause is virtually impossible to document.

However, today, a case in point has appeared.

A researcher from the Laboratory of art research, at the Catholic University in Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium sent the following photo to professor clown’s website:

Here is his query:
“As a researcher on paintings in Louvain-la-Neuve, a Belgian university, I am confronted with a rug with an extraordinary (sic) design, painted on a probably 16th century painting. The rug specialists I already contacted (Barry O'connell and Gerard Paquin) thought it was not a Turkish knotted rug. They guessed it might be a European weaven (sic) tissue, but actually nobody really knows...

It is of great importance for the painting to know the origine(sic). It is important for it's history (where does it come from?) and for it's price... I would be very happy and grateful if you could help me find out some more about this rug (table-cloth?). Have you seen this kind of design somewhere before? Have you got any idea at all about it?”

Well, first let us send our condolences to Mr. Louise Decq for contacting any of the above rug posers.

Secondly, let us bemoan the fact that anyone who is unfamiliar with the world of historic oriental rug and is interested in researching, as Mr. Decq is, or is just interested in finding about more about these weavings on the Internet, will use a search engine to locate websites that hopefully will be able to answer their questions. Or, if not, at least put them on the right track to finding that information.

Regrettably doing that, as Mr. Decq did, landed him, and who knows how many countless others, in the lap of wanna-be experts like o’CONnell, pacquin and price=clown.

This is the major reason we have waged our campaign against price=clown’s turko-tub website and spoken, what might appear to some as, harsh words about the other two posers mentioned above.

There are a few others websites besides RK.com and WAMRI where high-quality information about historic rugs is available but those websites do not appear at the top of the list in search engines like their's do.

Why is this you might ask? Well that’s a long story we will not go into now but suffice it to say usually in life what is easily found or acquired is most often not very valuable. And in regards to information about historic rugs that which is easily come by on the Internet is not only not very valuable but is patently worthless, as this case in point proves.

OK then we have learned from Mr. Decq’s posting on turkko-trekk that o’CONnell and pacquin did not believe this was a “rug”. What did price=clown and company say? Here are the responses offered so far:
price-clown says:
“The textile on the table in that painting doesn't look like anything familiar to me, so I can't help with its identification. It does give the impression of being heavy enough to be a rug, and the colors look more typical of western Asian rugs than of European tapestries. It also gives me the impression that it is in the form of a big, rectangular box rather than a flat sheet.
Cargo bags used in the Caucasus and northwestern Iran are of such form, and although the design isn't the same as any cargo bags I know about, it sort of reminds me of them. That's not very compelling evidence for anything, of course.
Some of our readers may be able to give it a reliable attribution. I'm afraid that we will not be able to help you with its monetary value; that is something we don't discuss here.”

With his usual dopey, pseudo-intellectual and pompous style professor=clown response proves only one thing – what a know-nothing he is. And on top of that his ability to even comprehend Mr. Decq’s inquiry is piss-poor.

For your information, steev, Decq was interested in the monetary value of the painting not in the value of the rug in the painting, you fool.

And by the way referencing this weaving to Caucasian ‘cargo bags’, made in the late 19th and 20th centuries, is about a stupid as reply to a well put question as we have ever witnessed.

Next up at the plate, filiberto chimed in:
“Very interesting. I agree on the fact that it could be an (sic) European flatweave. I need time for more research…”

Nice work filly, you dummy. And by the way the type of research you have proven yourself capable of would be shamed by a 6th grader with a collection of Classic comic books. Give it up filly and go back to whatever it is you did before professor=clown enlisted your services as his trusted lieutenant.

Tim Adam, who is often slightly more astute than price=clown and filly but is still almost always lost in the sauce stated with assurance:
“To me this looks like a brocade, rather than a rug. The fabric gives the impression it is thin, and the surface structure would be consistent with needlework.”

Sorry Tim but you too should forget ever writing anything about a historic Islamic weaving in public, unless you enjoy the taste of shoe-leather, as you invariably put your Florsheims in your mouth every time you try.

Not to be one to leave well enough alone, filly came back for a second strike:
“Yes, the way the border turns around the corner suggests a “box” construction and a rather flexible sort of brocaded textile. It looks like it was custom-made to cover the table... Which rules out the Oriental origin in favor of a local one.
Here you can see an example of possibly Italian (or ispano-moresque) Oriental-like textile: It’s a detail from The Marriage of the Virgin by Vittore CARPACCIO (1504-08)
Points against an Oriental origin: - No fringe. - The layout of the borders is not Oriental (no main border enclosed by secondary ones on all sides). - No attempt to render a “piled” effect.
In the 15th century there were in Italy several centers of carpets production connected with the Courts of Milan, Mantua, Ferrara and Naples. In Naples, given the family ties of the rulers with the d’Aragona, they imitated the Spanish production, which in turn imitated the Ottomans…
I don’t have more information about other European countries, but for sure they had their own “Oriental-like” carpet production centers, especially given the high prices of the real things."

More stupid ideas anyone with even a mediocrum of knowledge about historic carpets would have a good laugh about. But sadly this is not a laughing matter, at least for Mr. Decq and us.

First this is a rug and not a woven textile. How do we know? Number one the practice of using small, 4X6, rugs as table covers is a well documented fact supported by numerous literary and inventory references. Using brocades or needleworks, as pacquin, ‘CONnell, and the price-clowns have suggested, as table cover is almost unheard of and while we are not stating it was never done chances are this painting doesn’t portray one.

Also, the designs on the table cover are totally unlike any brocade or needlework, European or Islamic, we have ever seen.

Since the “experts” Decq has contacted are all too ignorant or full of themselves to know any of this or the final point we will raise let the following put this issue to bed.

Like many of these early paintings with rugs, what we see here is an artist conception of what a rug of this period looked like.

As often as the designs on these rugs were faithfully reproduced, in what today would be called a ‘photo-realistic’ style of painting, so do they also often exhibit what is called ‘artistic license’. This later style could also be called pastiche, where the artist takes designs from several rugs, or even makes up some, to combine with others from actual rugs he has seen. And that is what we see here.

We have no doubt what we see here is an artist’s conception of an early Turkish carpet combining real and not so real designs. It is not a box cover made for the table as a novices like steev and filiberto state. Nor is it a textile as the rest of these magpies were so willing to suggest.

Yes, it is time for the turkko-trekk clowns to face the music, realize the damage their posturing as experts can and does do.

And as for o’CONnell and pacquin? We can only suggest the same.

It’s time to say goodnight, Gracie, as George Burn’s always told his ditsy wife and, we are sure, would agree with us as far as these wanna-be rug expert’s public careers are concerned.

Author: jc
email:
Wed, Oct 5th, 2005 01:52:18 AM

Hey professor=clown:

Why don't you do Decq a favor and refer him to RK.com.

He might learn something here about his "rug", the least of which would be to realize posting any query on turko-trekk would be about as informative as putting it in a bottle and then throwing it in the ocean. In fact, even less so as the message in a bottle's answer is nil while an answer from your sandbox is sure to be wrong.

You really are an invidious jerk of the highest order to prevent the unfortunates who innocently fall into your play-pen from accessing real info.

And as far as your recommendations to him went Mills is surely OK but let's remember that thompson character vetted the LACMA rug as circa 1550 -- shows what he knows about Turkish rugs. 'Bout as much as you, clown.

Home   Buy/Sell at the Kazbah   Terms Of Service