Home > Archive >Denny's Dilemma Part II re:LACMA
Author:jc
email: jc@rugkazbah.com
Tue, Apr 24th, 2007 10:18:47 AM
Topic: Denny's Dilemma Part II re:LACMA

The four city lecture tour Denny is now finishing up in Houston was, for all intents and purposes, planned as a hype, homage and "celebration" to LACMA's 2004 purchase of the supposed circa 1600 dodds re-entrant rug and, at the same time, one for Denny's latest book and exhibition of Early Turkish Rugs.

Should any reader doubt this we offer denny's role in vetting the carpet for LACMA and his just finished lecture in LA at the museum as further proof of our statement.

This well engineered, but fatally flawed, publicity junket would have come off quite well had it not been for one stubborn fact - the LACMA/dodds rug is a dud. Of course, it was RK that brought this fact to everyone’s attention despite denny and LACMA wishes we'd just forget about it and go away.

Well, dear readers, trust us on this one - we won't until LACMA admits their error and dodds takes his pedestrian late period reproduction re-entrant dud back to his house on ChestnutHill and puts it in his basement showroom where it belongs.

Rk has heard a number of reports about two of the stops Denny made - San Francisco, which we have already written about and Los Angeles, which is the subject of this Part II.

According to Denny, each of the four lectures was to be different and, apparently, there were some differences. For instance in Los Angeles denny did finally declare the LACMA rug could possible be 18th century . This is a significant statement that should not be glossed over by his repeating over and over, like a hare-Krishna mantra, “Bellini”- “Bellini”, a word that is apparently music to LACMA's tin ears.

Sure Walter, everyone recognizes the dodds rug has a “bellini-type” design but, even by his own admission, denny has confirmed he now knows it's not a "Bellini"-period piece, i.e. 16th century.

For those of you who aren’t familiar with what a genuine “Bellini” re-entrant rug would look like, here is a period painting with a real 16th century or earlier rug:

Sorry Walter and LACMA but no matter how hard you try, or how many times you utter the “B” word, dodds’s dud of a rug ain’t even a distant cousin and is, at best, nothing more than what RK has explained – a late period bastardized reproduction.

So while those easily fooled might believe Denny has successfully faced and dealt with his dilemma, RK and other folks who are not as gullible know he hasn’t and it has only deepened.

Now that he has agreed with us that dodds’s rug is possibly 18th century(we prefer most probably rather than denny's ambiguous 'possibly'), it is probable both mackie and thompson will soon also recant. And as soon as that happens, it will leave LACMA and dodds with no position other than to admit it is not circa 1600 but probably 18th century.

As for it being a masterpiece or suitable for a museum – don’t make RK laugh any harder. By showing a gaggle of real re-entrants in his slide show (all of which were far superior to the LACMA/dodds example) and by publicly admitting LACMA’s could be 18th century, Denny confirmed what a dud of a re-entrant rug dodds sold them.

Will LACMA finally face the music or continue to try and cover up the truth? One thing is sure, as soon as thompson and mackie are put on the spot like Denny was, they, too, will cave in and admit the truth – dodds’s rug is probably 18th century, a runt of a re-entrant by any means, not the masterpiece it was cracked up to be and surely not worth the 250,000 dollars LACMA paid for it.

The $250,000 question is: What will LACMA do then?

Home   Buy/Sell at the Kazbah   Terms Of Service