Directly under Hans Konig’s questionably honest “letter/news” concerning the hoffmeister collection review written by Michael Rothberg was an item on the so-called Turkmen symposium III held in June in Leipzig, Germany.
Written by thomas noack, one of the numerous organizers of these events, it, like the Konig piece, proves to be nothing but hype and publicity, surely nothing worthy of being called “news”.
RK has reviewed the two previous symposia, one of which (the second) is nothing but a copy of RK’s Weaving Art Museum presentation on the same topic, which appeared long before noack and company got the idea to do theirs.
But reproduction, as someone wise once said, is the greatest form of flattery, and though RK knows this we do not like to be treated as if we, and our research, does not exist.
We surely do not need neophyte noack, or any of the other hoffscheister tools, to honor us; but, really, stealing our concepts and work is definitely not honorable.
But what else to expect from a bunch that allows a proven plagiarist, liar and cheat like peter hoffmeister to rule the roost?
And who else would publicly hype and pump his attempts to sell his less that stellar Turkmen collection by honoring it, and no less featuring it, in their symposium as if that was not the reason?
Below we reproduce a scan of noack’s piece and offer some poignant comments.
1. We doubt there were 60 participants there, as we heard about 45 counting all the organizers and their wives.
2. And saying this was no small measure because of the presence of Frau Comrade Elena Tsavera is equally as eye-brow raising, as from what we heard a number of former participants purposely did not attend for that very reason.
3. Sorry we did not get to hear what naock calls hoffmeister’s “journey through time and space, beginning with early adventures in the 1970’s.”
FACT: Until the publication of the 1989 Tent Band Tent Bag book, which RK stupidly allowed hoffmeister to join,
peter hoffmeister was basically a nobody in Turkmen rug circles and surely someone who knew little about these weavings.
RK spent enough time with hoffmeister the scheister to know this, and regardless of his name appearing in the book, he did next to nothing other than abrogate the agreements in our contract.
We have written much about this, published voluminous proof of our statements, and anyone who doubts, or does not believe, us is nothing but a prejudiced fool.
4. The duplicity of presenting a symposium where the owner of the subject collection is trying to sell it is damning.
What is worse is noack’s following statement
“ He (hoffmeister) stressed the importance of the conservation aspects of collecting, in which his daughter Eva, a textile conservator, has been a valuable collaborator.”
RugDUMB is so full of self-promotion and self-dealing maybe what noack writes is just par for the course, huh?
5. And who might those “experts” be who Tsavera queried for critique of her text?
Surely she did not ask RK or even recognize our documented criticism of her work.
And what were the opinions these “experts” raised without fear or favour?
Herr noack surely doesn’t mention them but he does say they “…had raised every possible criticism…”
6. To this statement, which reeks of a from God’s lips to your ears import, RK says a resounding BULLSHIT, noack, you stupid troll.
No, no the organizers of the Leipzig group have put nails in their coffins by allowing their group to shamelessly promote hoffmeister’s personal agendas.
And by traipsing along that rag hali does nothing but prove once more its lack of objectivity, honesty and truth in reporting RugDUMB events.
Mind you, reportage that makes the proverbial sow’s ear into far better a silk purse than their biased, yellow-journalism could possibly ever stitch up.