Home > dennis dodds >More On dodds and his Machinations
Author:jc
email:
Wed, Jan 5th, 2011 11:41:52 PM
Topic: More On dodds and his Machinations

(ed. We have posted this here, as well as in the thread below, because we feel it is important for as many people as possible to become aware dodds's charades are only self-promotion and surely not done to meet the far more lofty aims he, and others like hali magazine, falsely claim.)

Seems we are not the only ones who have serious doubts about dodds's ability to discern the age and provenance of the goods he curates or those he owns and sells. Often, as we have shown, the line separating his role as "curator" from that of dealer is, in dodds's case, very blurry and undefined.

So much so that the better minds over in professor price’s clownland, too, have started to realize dodds's egregious penchant to seriously over date his goods.

Not only does dodds add mythical centuries to his dating but he also provenances his pieces with little regard for reality.

Here are two rugs from the Arthur Ross Gallery exhibition that demonstrate dodds in action:

The rug on the left has been given a so-called Konya/Karpinar attribution by dodds and, as for the prayer rug on the right, he is equally on thin ice by calling it an Ushak.

Here is the entire Arthur Ross Gallery label, written of course by dodds that charlatan and shyster curator, who think nothing of hyping his own rugs and then trying to sell them while they are hanging in the University Art Gallery exhibition he orgnized :

“Pile Rug, 17th century
Central Anatolia, Konya/Karapinar region
Collection of Dennis Dodds and Zinaida Vaganova”
"In several of his paintings, the German artist Hans Holbein the Younger (1497-1543) featured a distinctive group of 15th-century Anatolian rugs woven in this style. The “Holbein” nomenclature has been adopted in the literature as a useful descriptor for the group as a whole. The earliest versions, known as “small-pattern Holbeins,” employed an overall repeat of small medallions.

"This carpet displays one of the design variants within the small-pattern Holbein group: a solitary medallion on an open field dyed with pale madder. Its outline is stepped with four graceful volutes on stems that issue from opposing axes. Inside the medallion is a quadri¬partite floral form consisting of four connected stylized blossoms. The eccentric spandrels in this village carpet are analogous to earlier 16th-century court versions— sometimes known as double-niche prayer rugs—that are rendered in a more fluid and curvilinear manner. An energetic and angular meandering vine attaches stylized flower heads and leaves in the broad, soft yellow border. The carpet displays unusual simplicity, scale and openness in the design."

This rug was also published as Plate 20 in the "Atlantic Collections" catalog from ICOC VIII in Philadelphia. Dennis Dodds likely wrote the caption for it there. It begins "Central Anatolia, 18th century..." The caption seems to relate it to another Central Anatolian rug with a similar design (Plate 17 in the same catalog) but one Dennis describes as having more "courtly refinement.""

By the way not only does dodds own this rug but he also owns the “Ushak” prayer rug as well and both are being actively marketed as they hang in the University Art Gallery.

The most disturbing fact here is not dodds’s overly optimistic and bogus dating and provenance but his using the Arthur Ross Gallery exhibition to sell his inventory under the guise of providing public “education”.

Phooey, the only reason we can see for this “exhibition” is for dodds to use it as a selling vehicle and to ply is inventory on the unsuspecting visitors who trip into the gallery. Frankly, RK thinks this stinks, as we similarly believe dodds’s selling that late period genre “Bellini” to LACMA also reeked to high heaven.

Reading the dreamingly dopey and verbose “description” dodds blessed this rug, and many of the others in the show, with provides nothing more than one person’s (dennis dodds) highly optimistic and specious “opinions” – they are far from fact. Nor are they shared by anyone who has proven credibility or expertise with Early Turkish Village Rugs.

What dodds has done and continues to do is obvious – now, so much so, the amateurs in professor price’s circle even have raised these issues.

Here is some of the published debate going on between a couple of the people who post there regularly. RK must comment when ruggies like these, who are not very experienced, realize dodds’s attributions are fabrications, with hardly any supporting documentation or chance of being reality, how can the rest of rugdom turn a blind eye to dodds’s machinations:

“I also find the "Konya/Karapinar" rug intriguing. It is (obviously?) a villager's interpretation of the classic double niche prayer rugs that are typically attributed to Ushak of the 17th and 18th century… Interestingly, I have not been able to find a similar village rug published in the literature, only the classical Ushak rugs. Has anyone seen something comparably?”

The fact no other similar rug exists bodes poorly for dodds's claims as does the following observation:

“So, I am wondering, ‘Why is this rug to come from the Konya/Karapinar" region?’ and ‘Why is it labeled as 17th century?”

Everyone should realize anyone who knows anything about Early Turkish Rugs would pose the same query and observation – dodds’s provenance is fanciful at best and downright disingenuous and deceitful at the worst.

RK feels his true motivations lie somewhere between.

Of course, there are those, like dead-eye jr howe, who believe the pabulum and hype dodds spins.

Why, howe, even though he is a proven dumbbell ruggie could write the following, after reading the myriad of questions dodds’s attributions raise, is unbelievable:
“My sense is that he sees it as a nice country cousin of some more refined rugs of this type. Dennis seems now to see things in the spandrels that are analgous(sic) to some 16th century usages and has apparently decided that it should be estimated as older than it was in 1996. He apparently also thinks that a more precise geographic attribition(sic) can be made.”

Unfortunately, howe represents a fairly large group of ruggies that have been so indoctrinated and hypnotized by dodds’s rug world reputation and accolades (most of which RK feels are totally undeserved – especially in light of dodds’s growing belief he is untouchable) that they will swallow anything dodds says without question.

And this, dear readers, begs the central and most important issue --rugdom’s inability to self-regulate and govern. For if there was any semblance of regulation, a greedy duplicitous carpet-bagging dealer cum pseudo-academe like dodds would have been run out of rugdom long ago.

We will end this with a comment uttered by one of professor price’s posters:

“…the dating of the Konya/Karapinar rug seems quite aggressive…what indicates that these pieces are possibly from the 17th century and not from a later time period?”

While this query has, so far, remained unanswered in clownland, RK can flatly state: There is nothing to indicate, support or verify dodds’s dopey claims for his rugs and we challenge dodds, or anyone else, to try and prove different.

Author: vzeldah@gmail.com
email: vzeldah@gmail.com
Thu, Nov 18th, 2010 12:00:37 PM

RK REPLIES:

Please do ask any of the "fellow members of the rug community" you're defending to either sue us or report us to any authority for "slanderous comments".

We would and will welcome any of them to try .... after all, zelda, no one has ever been convicted of slander or defamation for saying the truth and RK stands one hundred and ten percent behind any statement we have ever made.

This is the reason a thief and liar like dodds, or a cheat like hoffscheister has never done anything to try and silence us -- they and others we have exposed know what we write is truth and fact.

So go take your prissy, stupidly posed comments elsewhere, honey, your wasting your time and ours by making them here.

PS: hey "zelda": your boy dodds is a weasel.

RK offered him 5000 dollars to get up on a stage with us and debate his views about his bogus "bellini" and wadda know? dodds has never responded. Go tell that liar, thief and cheat dodds RK is still waiting...

-------------------------

Please remove slanderous words about fellow members of the rug community!

Author: Sue Zimmerman Thu, Apr 13th, 2006 01:03:07 PM

Hi Ashok/Candy, I'm thinking you WISH Dodd's Ghordes rug could be thought older than it is. I'm thinking you are fishing at RK for more convincing design ideas since you can probably see the writing on the wall for your current ones. These are my thoughts and my thoughts only. I don't think you are Cevat either. Sue

Author: Candy
email:
Wed, Apr 12th, 2006 07:09:43 PM

RK Replies:

Here is one of the photos you cited – the one you believe is most like dodds’s rug:

We are glad you recognize our attribution of this rug to Ghiordes and not “Ushak” as mr myopic, dennis dodds, foolishly tried to claim.

However, we are not please with the fact you are either impersonating the anonymouse who posted here as “Candy”, or were, in fact, Candy all along.

It would be impossible not to realize the fractured English in this post could have been scribbled by anyone other than cevat kanig.

Plus citing such www.com references, which is one of cevat’s predilections, also goes along way to substantiating this conclusion.

So, if you are posting here again, cevat, please do it in your own name. But if in reality, there is a “Candy” we would appreciate that person emailing us to tell us so.

Regardless of who this poster is dodds’s spurious misattributions and gross overdating methodology are fooling no one other than the deaf, dumb and blind of rugdom – and even that group is showing signs of waking up.

RK believes it will not be long until dodds will have to face the music. Then, the bogus ballet he has somehow managed, with impunity, to shindig will be revealed to all as nothing more than the dumb two-left-foot jig it truly is.

Lastly, we must mention the close association between the prayer rugs made in Ghiordes and Kula during this period (1750-1850) and the difficulties this presents in attributing them.

We would opine the rug you cite is more the Kula-"type" and dodds's more the Ghiordes version. All that said, whether it is really Ghiordes or Kula remains to be positively determined -- the fact it is not an "Ushak" is a done deal as far as we are concerned.

================================================

Hi Jack,

Now it clearly appears to me that the rug is a Gordes rug.

Sultan Ahmet Hali Museum/Istanbul says that it Transylvania type Gordes prayer rug, below is a web site 3 Gordes rug images from Sultan Ahmet Hali Museum/Istanbul.

http://rubens.anu.edu.au/raid4/turkey/istanbul/museums/sultan_ahmet_mosque/carpet_museum/gordes_17thc-18thc/

Below images from Turkish Islamic Arts Museum/ Istanbul

http://rubens.anu.edu.au/raid4/turkey/istanbul/museums/turk_ve_islam/textiles/carpets/gordes_18thc/

And other images from Austria Vienna Museum, the Gordes rug In Vienna museum is very similar to Mr. Doods rug

http://rubens.anu.edu.au/raid4/austria/vienna/museums/angewandete_kunst_mak/textiles/carpets/dscn0280.JPG

http://rubens.anu.edu.au/raid4/austria/vienna/museums/angewandete_kunst_mak/textiles/carpets/ Below is another 17th Century Gordes rug http://www.rugreview.com/orr/bat72.htm I would like to say that I am agree with you that Dodds rug is a Gordes rug but I think it is possible that it is older than what you think.

Author: jc
email:
Wed, Apr 12th, 2006 01:42:49 PM

Re: dodds-

Let us all not forget dodds's past and present usurpation of the unspoken, but well recognized, curatorial practice of avoiding, wherever possible, conflicts of interest, especially ones concerned with self-dealing and similar improprieties.

RK is sure we are not alone in our disgust over dodds improperly placing of a number of his own rugs -- and ones that are, and have been, for sale for years mind you -- in a Museum Gallery exhibition.

We have positive documentation and proof of dodds’s offering some of these rugs and wonder why there has been no discussion of, or censure for, this important transgression.

Regardless of his supposed eminence gris position a shyster like dodds, who apparently thinks nothing of stretching the accepted limits of propriety concerning his curatorial responsibilities to the max, must not be allowed to continue thumbing his nose at us all by using his positions in icoc, etc, for self-enrichment in such a blatant manner.

Being the largest "lender" to the exhibitions he curates is, as far as we are concerned, totally outrageous and needs to be publicly addressed – the sooner the better.

----> Organizing a Museum exhibition carries with it serious responsibilities and allowing a greedy pseudo-academe, carpet-bagging charlatan like, dodds, who’s ideas concerning curatorial responsibilities were/are clearly improper, to get away with such chicanery sets nothing but another example of rugdom's lax and inefficient efforts at self-regulation -- and this, dear readers, must be stopped sooner than later.

Author: Candy
email:
Tue, Apr 11th, 2006 10:55:33 AM

RK replies:

1. Calling either of these two rugs by the incorrect attributions dodds tries to forward is pointless and erroneous.

2. The supposed Konya/Karapinar was made, according to RK, further west than central Anatolia and is, at best, circa 1800.

3. The prayer rug that mr myopic aka dennis dodds, calls "Ushak" is, in our opinion, a Ghiordes city rug and his efforts to transform this circa 1800 Ghiordes prayer rug into a "transylvanian Ushak" are unfounded and, frankly, absurd.

4. After proving his inability to correctly attribute early Turkish rugs, especially the LACMA "Bellini" rug which he foolishly over-dated by miles and mis-attributed as well, dodds’s performance with these rugs is par for the course.

5. To call dodds anything other than a duffer would be giving him far to much credit -- and the puffed-up write-ups dodds receives everywhere other than RugKazbah.com should be viewed as being as fallacious as Saddam's WMD's.

6. Finally RK never stated or intimated either of these rugs, or the LACMA “Bellini” are fakes. However, we are on record as stating they are both not what dodds claims.

=======================

Hi Jack,

I thought you are talking about Oushak rug that’s why I post that picture to you to consider it but I see know you are talking about Karapinar rug, as you see it is 16th. century design , could you tell us that what makes you to think that it is a fake or a late production?

Author: Sue Zimmerman Tue, Apr 11th, 2006 08:26:47 AM

Hi Ashok/Candy, If you and your computer happen to be employed by some archetect/salesman in rugdom please tell him, for me, that NONE of his country cousin fakes are convincing to me. Sue

Author: Ashok Patel
email:
Tue, Apr 11th, 2006 06:37:55 AM

Lot 50 is unusual for the addition of a supplementary reserve between the mihrab and the upper border. This feature appears on two other "Transylvanian" prayer rugs, one sold by Rippon Boswell, November 18, 2000, lot 113, and another published by Eberhart Herrmann, Von Konya Bis Kokand, III, Munich, 1980, No. 1. All three rugs share a sophisticated rosette, palmette and curled leaf border, more directly derived from those of their Ottoman antecedents than other "Transylvanian" prayer rugs.

Author: Candy
email:
Mon, Apr 10th, 2006 03:06:27 PM

RK Replies:

Here’s the pic of the tranny you referenced.

Actually we are a bit in the dark as to where you are going with this.

How about clueing us in?

===================================================

Hi Jack,

Here is a 17th Century Transylvania rug sold in Sotheby’s, I thought you should compare with it.

http://search.sothebys.com/images/products/3/4/34P5Q-smaller-N07749-50.jpg

Home   Buy/Sell at the Kazbah   Terms Of Service