Last week we illustrated a Caucasian-type long rug from the acor/Boston exhibitions.
We attributed it to Kurdish weavers located somewhere in the environs of the southern Caucasus:
Soon after it was posted one of our readers wrote:
“The only fault I can find with the first one is that the medallions appeared squeezed by the borders.”
On the surface, we’d somewhat agree with that comment, as the picture above shows it.
But we don’t see this as disconcerting nor do we see borders “squeezing” the medallions, rather the reverse, the medallions “squeezing” borders -- read on.
There is no truism “closeness” is synonymous with bad proportions, although according to our reader it is here. We don’t agree, what we see is medallions purposely exaggerated compared to what might be considered normal or correct.
Also notice there is no “closeness” in any other aspects of this rug and incidently, we find these exaggerated medallions one of the strongest facets of its charm.
The four great, oversized, medallions or shields remind us of those on some early soumak khorjin bagfaces.
OK, now, let’s see the archetype of the acor/Boston rug we mentioned and do a side-by-side comparison, though it is easily spotted as much earlier. By the way it is unpublished and we used to own it until we sold it to a wise collector:
It should be clear now the medallions were lifted right out of a far more traditional context and then placed in a far more contemporary one. These two rugs have an indelible relationship, the unique medallion infill they share and the fact it is unique and unknown to us the most obvious.
But careful examination of the smaller field motif reveals other comparisons, check them out.
Until intensive study of their materials are completed no positive documentation can be found to prove this relationship or to detail how it might have played out.
Regardless of the absence of any positive proof, RK believes only the most doubting rug-thomas could believe these similarities are accidental or just coincidence.
That said we know there are some thomas B. ruggies who probably would object, after all rugdom has proven itself to be gullibly stupid, as well as stodgily myopic.