Every time RK wanders into professor steve price’s internet rug romper-room we are amazed at the mediocrity of the rugs posted for discussion and what is then said about them. This recently posted and quite horrendous piece of airport-art aptly demonstrates our assertion:
Granted every cloud can have a silver lining and any rug, no matter how ugly or insignificant, can have something worthy of discussion.
However to what service, other than giving dubious notoriety or self-congratulatory praise to those who participate, does the often long-winded and frequently ignorant assumptions made in clownland about rugs of this ilk really accomplish??
It is more than obvious professor price=clown and his group feel there is something redeeming about their efforts --too bad they are alone in those thoughts, as it is perfectly clear to everyone else they are out to lunch on that subject as well.
Is it possible anyone can read the following post, which we quote verbatim from one of clownland’s recent ‘discussions’, and not come to that conclusion?
We surely believe that would be impossible.
By the way, the lack of any real value this utterance makes is not unusual, as viewing almost any thread that has ever appeared there will yield equally as inane and dopey
statements and replies:
”I didn't mean to single you out as an "expert," especially if an expert is someone who knows all there is to know about rugs.
An old friend and mentor in the early days of my interest in rugs, Harold Zulalian, a nice man and a very experienced dealer in Brookline, Massachusetts, used to say, "An expert is someone who knows more about the subject than anyone else in the room."
This is very true when it comes to rugs. I figured out long ago that there isn't anyone who knows everything there is to know, and one relies on books at one's peril.
At the same time, there are many people with a great deal of solid, accurate information, and reading books can be useful”
He then continues:
”I agree with everything you said in that comment, including that every new level of "expertise" that comes out manages to become a foundation for the next round of confusion.
In a way, the more information that comes out, the more misinformed we seem to become…It is only relatively recently that scholars in the field of rugs have striven to establish a factually accurate base of information about historical rug weaving in the greater Middle East. Before that, most of the generally available "knowledge" in the field was the collective knowledge and opinion of dealers.”
Let us add a few comments:
We also “knew” Harold Zulilian from Boston and, while he was a kind, gentle and quite friendly rug dealer, we would never call him knowledgeable or believe he could teach anyone anything about the finer points of appreciating genuinely old oriental rugs.
The fact the author of those statements believes differently is rather absurd, as the quality of his “contributions” to the clownland’s discussions prove his “mentor” taught him little if anything.
Plus the totally ridiculous statements: “ It is only relatively recently that scholars in the field of rugs have striven to establish a factually accurate base of information about historical rug weaving in the greater Middle East.”
“In a way, the more information that comes out, the more misinformed we seem to become”
are both so dense and dumb they hardly deserve mention or reply.
Just for grins, we’d like to ask richard larkin, the rug challenged ignorant who wrote this claptrap, how he could possibly ignore the tremendously important work scholars like Lamm and Erdmann, for instance, have made?
No, ladies and gentlemen, professor clown and his group of magpie rug idiots, like larkin, don’t get it and apparently never will.
Their inane chattering and dumb as rocks statements and opinions need to be consigned to rugdom’s garbage dump asap and any ideas to the contrary need to be equally and as quickly discarded.