Home > Archive >Too Stupid to Know and too Dumb to Care
Sat, Jul 1st, 2006 03:13:30 PM
Topic: Too Stupid to Know and too Dumb to Care

About a week or so ago while Rk was tripping thru professor clown's piss-poor excuse of a website we spied the following url,:


which was posted in one of the threads there, and it led us to this chuval photo.

That website has many other photos but all the other pics are of late 19th and 20th century pieces -- airport-art rugs as RK likes to call them.

However, this one example, we culled from that pile of unimportant and mostly commercial era ones (there are a couple of later "S" group pieces and a few Yomud group ones mixed in, as well, but nothing else comes close in significance as the piece we illustrated), is far from a piece of airport-art.

Actually, we do not ever remember seeing a similar chuval and, although there was no technical description or structural analysis to accompany the photo, we surmise it is quite possible a Chodor weaving or something we sometimes jokingly refer to as a "yomudor", ie a halfbreed Yomud/Chodor mix.

Regardless of its provenance, it is a pretty wonderful piece, particularly the large main and secondary gols.

While the link where it is displayed was posted in clownland, and the various categories of clowns, poseurs and rug challenged idiots who frequent there must have seen it, not one of them mentioned it or drew anyone's attention to it.

RK and just about everyone else in rugdom realizes professor price=clown's group wouldn't know an important Turkmen weaving from a printed dish towel and their flipping by this piece without calling attention to it was par for that course.

By the way it is labelled 20th century but, if anyone in clownland knew anything other than the most rudimentary facts of Turkmen rug collecting, they should have been able to discern the error in such a dating.

We'd put it at least to the mid-19th century and are, quite frankly, sure it might be early 19th or even older.

Author: anonymoose
Sat, Jul 1st, 2006 03:13:30 PM

RK Replies: You anonymice are like flies at a Saturday afternoon picnic. What's up, did y'all hatch out of the same mosquito net in today's heat?

Plus you posted here earlier today, moosey, guess you like the place, huh.

Regardless of what any Russian curator says about a rug, or what it "looks" like to you on an internet photo, or those reproduced in offset printed literature, your assignation of trust there and corresponding disbelief of what we say is meaningless. It also proves you to be nothing more than a clown and rug world sycophant --another cut and paster who doesn't know enough to realize when he is cutting and psating someone else's mistake.

FYI, moose, there are certain immutable characteristics that don't, and can't, lie.

Because we can recognize these features, we are positive this chuval is older than late IXXth century.

As to whether or not it is, in fact, Chodor, "Yomudor", Chu-Bash or whatever we can't possibly say with the same assurance.

So mr, or is it ms, anonymoose, keep staring at the pics in your books and maybe you'll see nirvana.

RK has better things to do and, besides, we already have taken our position on this piece and the only further contest will be when it is in front of us.

Tell ya what: we'll promise to invite you and professor clown to its unveiling as soon as the curator in Russsia sends it to us by DHL. ================================

FYI Jack, the technical characteristics of the mystery chuval are as follows:

size-1.06m by .80m. Warp-wool Z2s,

Weft-camel hair Z2s and cotton, two shoots, knot-asymmetrical open right at a density of 1,624 per sq dm -- none of which would rule out a chodor attribution.

But the color in this piece appears very dull, with a washed out muddy brown field, a very dull red in the gul quarters and even the pastel green unable to call attention to itself in a positive way. By the way, the curator of the State Museum of Fine Arts in Ashkhabad dates this piece to the late 19th century and she is not bashful about dating other pieces in the museum collection to the early 19th or even the 18th century.

Author: alice
email: wonderland.com
Sat, Jul 1st, 2006 10:16:27 AM

RK Replies:

Hi Alice:

Or is it Dorothy?

You have posted here anonymousely B4 and again the message is worthless.

RK is totally at fault for the misunderstanding, not our correspondent.

The buck stops at RK's desk -- when we are wrong, we admit it.

How many of you anonymice are similarly prone to admit your errors?

RK realizes the difference -- big people make mistakes but little people are always right.

Seems most, no let's rephrase that, all of you clowns and anonymice fall into the latter category.

And by the way, Alice/Dorothy, the issue is the chuval, not where it was or wasn't illustrated.

Plus the larger issue of WAMRI is, also, one that makes your nitpicking spitball critique equally irrelevant.

Too bad you anonymice have no way to fix stupid, even if you were to admit that, it wouldn't help y'all.


Dear Anonymouse, I guess the person who confirmed for Jack that the chuval was in Tsareva is one of his “Bored” Of Directors. You know, the Board which supervises the Museum that isn’t a museum. You know, the Research Institute that doesn’t do research and isn’t an Institute. The faster we go, the rounder we get!!!

Author: anonymouse
Fri, Jun 30th, 2006 06:57:50 PM

RK replies:

OK, Moshkova, then.

Regardless of our poor memory in recognizing this chuval, or even the apparent error our respondant made and we mentioned in our previous post, the piece is noteworthy and that, rather than RK's recollection of it, is the issue.


Moshkova, Jack, Moshkova. This chuval is pictured in Moshkova, not Tsareva. There is nothing even remotely like this piece in Tsareva. Oops....

Author: jc
email: jc@rugkazbah.com
Fri, Jun 30th, 2006 12:45:06 PM

For the past month or so RK has been on the move and consequently we have not had the chance to use our library or our database.

We have not even been using our laptop, as the places we have been precluded that possibility.

Consequently, and although, we thought we had seen this piece in Tsareva's book we did not want to make that association without the facts.

We did, at the time of posting this thread, email someone asking them to look it up and received a reply yesterday informing us it was, indeed, in her survey.

And as we only just came online and saw that email, as well as what is scribbled in clownland, this is why our mentioning it is somehat after the fact.

However, whether or not it was previously illustrated or not, the fact remains it is a very interesting chuval and is not a 20th century work.

Far from it.

Also, the reasons for our publishing it in this thread, and for our beliefs about it, are surely not limited to the fact we did not remember whether or not it was in Tsareva, nor were they do to the fact the gols are large.

What is clear is the reality there are no other known similar examples, nor are there any other pre-commercial period Turkmen chuvals with the secondary gol it displays.

These facts alone are significant enough to garner anyone's attention...well anyone who knows anything about historic Turkmen weaving.

It is also a distinct possibility it is not even Turkmen but rather the product of some other weaving group -- maybe Chu-Bash?

Until we can examine it in the flesh any provenance ideas are, just that, only ideas.

Obviously, the punkass comments professor clown has issued forth about our posting this thread are typical and pathetic.

What is also typical is the fact he has no ideas about this chuval.

Nor has he ever demonstrated an original idea about anything related to genuinely old rugs in his long career posing as someone who claims to possess rug knowledge.

His "collection" is airport-art ridden at best and his rug expertise couldn't fill a midget's thimball.

That's all we care to say about him but let it also be known:

The Weaving Art Museum and RugKazbah.com were not founded to "educate" anyone about Oriental Rugs, as the rug challenged professor price recently and quite erroneously claimed.

Both sites were founded to "raise appreciation for masterpiece examples of Near Eastern weavings".

While RK realizes this distinction requires intellect clearly unavailable to professor price=clown and others of his ilk to differentiate, it is an important difference worth noting.

RK is not against "educating" others, and we surely know we have done that, but neither site is, or should be considered, rug 101 or rug PhD.

We are interested in stimulating others to learn on their own, rather than to spoon-fed rug knowledge.

We feel presenting masterpiece examples, and clearly referencing them as such, is the best technique to accomplish that goal and our mission.

Airport-art rugs are not bad per se, they are just inferior but to miss, or ignore, that fact is, in our estimation, bad.

It is patently obvious rugdom has trouble in this regard and the myriad of reasons for this -- from lack of enough knowledge and expertise to out and out commerical bias and desires -- do not need to be discussed here. But they do need to be recognized.

A boorish pedantic clown like price, who suffers a monstrous inability to really learn anything about historic rugs, is definitely lost in the sauce and he is not alone, as he has much company.

RugKazbah and WAMRI have presented a voluminous amount of proof to demonstrate what is wrong with rugdom and also to show why steve price is the poster boy for much of this.

There is an old saying " A picture is worth a thousand words" and we offer the following one to show the absurdity of price=clown's posting this photo to support his agreement with the idea large pre-commercial period "S" group torba were ever made to be displayed on camels carrying bridal litters. This claim is far from a proven fact, nor is it even close to being so.

RK has frequently commented on the foolish idea of believing what certain Turkmen groups were doing in the late 19th century is analagous with what they, or other groups, were doing decades or centuries earlier.

This highly specious practise is rampant in certain corners of rugdom and, as far as RK is concerned, it's time it was recognized as such and stopped.

There is little doubt the indigenous cultural and economic bases of the Turkmen societies, as well as their weavings, were changed and then destroyed by foreign contacts, which by the way were well under way in the 18th century.

Also, there is, and should be, little doubt 18th, 17th and probably 16th century and even earlier Turkmen rugs have been and are preserved in the body of remaining examples now held in public and private collections.

We realize this statement can not be proven positively but we are equally sure it will one day be far more widely recognized and appreciated.

This is one of many goals RK is working towards and, as soon as we have further funding besides opening our wallet, we are sure we will be able to take some giant steps in that direction.

Rug idiots like price, who pride themselves on their pseudo-studious and bogus academic approach, will eventually either have to agree with what avatars like RK believe or disappear off the scene.

This is something you can bet the farm on, just don't be in any hurry to receive your profits.

Home   Buy/Sell at the Kazbah   Terms Of Service