As stated in Part I, the reluctance we have in disseminating our expertise is balanced by our desire to raise appreciation for masterpiece examples of “low culture” weaving. And, of course, to share these artworks with the public at large. It is quite obviously a difficult equilibrium to maintain and, after all is said and done, what we have done here on RK.com and on the WAMRI website seems to have satisfied these objectives.
It is in this vein we have decided to put the finishing touch on several sets of posts that appeared quite some time ago.
We are sure all longtime readers will remember the treatment here on RK.com the sale of the so-call Karapinar Medallion Carpet at the Brunk Auction Gallery received.
We still do not believe for one minute this Court Carpet, yes Mabel it is a shining example of high “culture” weaving, was woven in the dusty, back-woods village that somewhere like Karapinar was circa 1550.
We do have our thoughts on where it was actually woven but, for the present, will keep those quiet as they are in no way pertinent to this discussion.
Since we are not going to repeat the majority of what has already been written about the Brunk Rug and the questions that surround the use of the ubiquitous Karapinar attribution, we’d suggest re-reading the “Karapinar: Myths and Facts” threads, as well as all the others in the “Turkish Rugs” Topic Area on our discussion board.
In those posts we debunked, and it was about time for it to be, the ‘Karapinar myth’. They also laid waste to the claims of great age, intrinsic beauty or historical importance most of the so-called ‘Karapinar” rugs have been fraudulently anointed with by greedy, myopic dealers and collectors.
In those posts we traced forward the changes, read degeneration, the key designs all these rugs share have undergone and demonstrated how most of these rugs were inferior copies.
We purposely avoided the can of worms determining where those designs originated or could be traced backwards to.
It is our intention to breach this issue now, seeing this as an excellent example to express our modus operandi concerning the balance issue mentioned above.
Here is the photograph of a fragmented archaic Turkish Rug we believe was made in central Turkey:
Maybe some of you will remember seeing it before but, for those of you who take the time to read the “Karapinar: Myth and Facts” posts, you will see it posted there in the “Epilogue”.
It was illustrated then to show the most archaic, read archetype, example of what we called the “Group II” rugs.
This fragment encompasses for us the myriad of factors (beauty, history, color, materials, technique and design) all masterpiece weavings possess.
To say it is a masterpiece might be an understatement—it is one of our all-time Turkish Pile Rug Favorites.
Sure, for monetary reasons, we would rather own the Brunk Rug but, dollars aside, we would not trade this fragment for it.
Why you might ask? Simply put because the Brunk rug, like almost every “high culture” weaving, has a subtle ‘sterility’ about it.
After all it was made from a cartoon, i.e. an artist drawing, and woven, not for love or cultural determinants, but as a royal commission.
This is a major reason why archaic masterpiece “low culture” rugs are superior – they often have historic content unadulterated by the artistic processes inherent in producing weavings from cartoons.
It’s a cultural thing and one that is the undercurrent of our preference for these weavings.
We will continue this discussion and trust by then you all will have read our published thoughts on the so-called “Karapinar Myth” -- doing so will surely help you to comprehend this “Talking About Rugs” segment.