Home > Rug, Kelim, Soumak, Textile Post Archive >More on the "Karapinar" Myth
Part II
Author:jc
email:
Sun, Feb 6th, 2011 12:58:51 PM
Topic: More on the "Karapinar" Myth
Part II


Group II; Archetype fragment; RK Collection

Well we finally found the issue of that rag hali and here are the rest of our comments concerning Ms Oakley’s ideas about “Karapinar” rugs.

As we wrote Oakley was astute enough to figure out the Karapinar label has been and we are sure still will be way overused in rugDUMB.

This should have been an easily understood fact but until RK lowered the boom on many of rugDUMB’s preciously appreciated experts, like michael franses, that crook and cheat franz sailer and his cohort in duplicity dennis dodds just to mention a few who pumped and grinded the “Karapinar” moniker to no end, no one dared breathe a word to the contrary.

So before we get into demonstrating the many errors of dating and some other issues Oakley’s article exhibits let’s congratulate her once again for going against the grain and agreeing with us, even though she failed to acknowledge our having blazed and razed the trail for her.

Like most authors Oakley exhibits a nasty penchant to over-date a goodly number of the rugs she illustrates in her article. She also is guilty of under-dating a few; more about this soon, read on.

Although it is possible the turko-challenged editors at that rag hali have had their sticky fingers on the keyboard and “edited”, ie changed, what Oakley produced. No matter who did it, the dirty deed was done and we will expose the blatant foolishness of dating early 19th and 18th century rugs 100 year or more earlier.

All one has to do, like RK has done, is put these carpets side by side and the glaring errors of calling so many 17/18th century becomes quite apparent.

That is, of course, if one has the experience and expertise to differentiate 19th century weaving from 18th; 18th century from 17th; and 17th century from 16th -- a feat few, including Oakley and those two-toed Turkey-trotting editors at that rag hali are able to manage.

Surely the oldest “Karpinar” in her article is this one:

The Casper-Foy-Brunk long three medallion rug RK believes was, of course, not made in Karapinar but somewhere in western Anatolia, possibly Bursa.

When we wrote our “Karapinar Rugs: Myth and Facts” we postulated the Casper-Foy Brunk medallion rug was made in the Kutahya/Eskisehr region but since then we have decided such an important, large, artist designed, fine and expertly woven rug would have had to have been made where other similar masterpieces were created and Bursa would therefore be our updated guess.

One might counter the coloration of the Casper-Foy Brunk rug does not fit the pattern of other western Anatolian carpets.

To that statement we would reply the fact the Casper-Foy Brunk rug is such a one-off major masterpiece it would then follow its materials were likewise one-off products.

Also how many 16th century western Anatolian carpets are there that are not familiar types, like medallion and star Ushaks?

But where the Casper-Foy Brunk rug was made is not the issue here – calling it a “Karapinar” is, and we hope our comments in our “Karapinar Rugs: Myth and Facts” presentation have put the final coffin nails in that idea.

We totally agree with Oakley the Casper-Foy Brunk rug is 16th century but when it comes to the next rug, the Rijksmuseum’s Cantoni, which Oakley dates “17th century”, we have to disagree.

While the Cantoni has a somewhat cruder and coarser look to the Casper-Foy Brunk rug’s outwardly salubriousness and polish this has nothing to do with the fact it is a century earlier.

Far from it and the following explanation, which was clearly lost on a Penny Oakley or that rag hali’s amateur-status editors, should put any such idea to rest.

The Casper-Foy Brunk rug is, almost certainly, a royal (Ottoman) atelier production while the Cantoni was made in a provincial setting far from any contact with any Sultan and his court.

Let’s all remember RK suggested the famous architect of the 16th century Karapinar Mosque and kulliye, Sinan, designed the Casper-Foy Brunk rug.

He surely did not design the Cantoni but whoever wove it was also able to capture its luminosity and beauty, not to mention the graceful curvilinear articulation and brutish power of the medallion and borders.

RK has stood in front of the Cantoni and marveled at it a number of times and the picture here does little justice to capture what a great, masterpiece weaving Amsterdam's Rijksmuseum owns.

All said and done, we would date it 16th century and debate Oakley or anyone else into the ground should they care to try and present a case it is 17th century.

Another glaring bit of under-dating is calling this major masterpiece Anatolian Village rug 17th/18th century.

central Anatolian Village rug, 16th century, Ala Din Mosque, Konya

This rug is, in our opinion, the model for the now well known and often published fragment in the Christopher Alexander collection.

so-called "Karapinar" rug published in Alexander’s book “A Foreshadowing of Art in the 21st Century”

Again, we are sure Oakley and others would argue the point with us but we can again dust them in a debate on the virtues the Ala Din example versus Alexander’s.

Were we interested in really teaching you all enough to make you competition we would delve deeply into the reasons but since that is far from our intent, and time restrictions not to mention the lack of support any of you have given us, we will leave it here and go on to point out other dating errors in Oakley’s article in the next part of this analysis.

So stay tuned….more to come, soon.

Home   Buy/Sell at the Kazbah   Terms Of Service