Before we spit out what our title suggests we should make clear our comments about peter the cheat and plagiarist hoffmeister are in no way motivated by jealousy or envy, as some in rugDUMB continue to believe and claim.
One would have to be a moron, and there are plenty of them in the oriental rug collecting game, to think hoffscheister has or does anything we wish was ours.
In fact, peter hoffmeister's reputation among those who really are in the know is lower than an ant in a wheel rut. And for good reason, as we are not the first or the last person he has cheated.
So to all those who think RK's distain for hoffscheister is anything but deserved we suggest you open yer peepers and see the facts.
But we disgress, as the title "unanswered questions" was prompted by our checking out the website for the coming symposium in Leipzig this morning.
Seems there are some changes since our last viewing about a month ago, the most apparent being the addition of the exact "topics" frau Elena Tsareva will discuss.
"Saturday June 2, 2012
“Turkmen Carpets" as a Review of Peter Hoffmeister's Collection
Answered and unanswered questions
Elena Tsareva, St. Petersburg (Russia)
Lunch break ab 12:30 am
The "Babylon of Central Asia" and the problem of commercial carpet weaving
Elena Tsareva, St. Petersburg (Russia)
Tsareva must be delusional, what questions did she answer in the hoffmeister publication other than the one questioning her ability as a Turkmen rug scholar?
RK carefully and methodically critiqued her text and we dare anyone to demonstrate one new iota of an answer she provided.
As for unanswered questions? There are certainly many but, again, her text provokes little to no discussion of them.
RK thinks anyone who actually read what she wrote, and we know few who bought or were given the book have done so beyond a casual thumb through the pages looking at the pictures and a few captions, would have to agree.
Concerning Tsareva's second topic, the problem of commercial carpet weaving, we would like to hear her take on this.
The fact a goodly number of Turkmen weavings, post 1850 and probably before, were woven in commercial workshops for export is something that is well known and obvious to anyone with expertise.
However it is equally apparent some, perhaps many, of certain "well known" types of Turkmen weavings were made in workshops, for more local consumption, and not by genuine cultural groups expressing their proprietary identities.
This is the real topic of interest and RK will be glad to bet Tsareva will not be able to even breach this subject, let alone provide any illumination.
The easiest clue to understanding which weavings were made in workshops is their surviving in numbers.
RK has been collecting Turkmen weaving for forty years, and our collection contains examples that are in most respects unique.
Their archetypal expression of icon, amulet and emblem is only one factor, their coloration and wool quality two others.
Differentiating earlier from later pre-1850 Turkmen weaving is an unproven science, but it is possible.
Careful and scientific study is required, and unfortunately Tsareva's text for the hoffmeister book, and others she has authored, make clear she is unable to accomplish such a task.
She is not alone and those who posture around as Turkmen connoisseurs, and we could name a number but why brother, are equally as bereft of ability to tackle such a subject.
We are sure Tsareva will offer more glib say nothing-isms, her talk having little substance.
Too bad RK is not permitted to attend as we would be sure to ask some pointed questions of Tsareva, questions we are sure no one else will dare to voice.
This is the major trouble in rugDUMB, a complacent and highly ignorant audience who on top is gullible and easily led by hype.
We know several hundred viewers have read, or at least looked at, our hoffmeister publication review and we sincerely hope a few will attend and have the gumption to pitch some good questions to Tsareva while she is on the podium.