Home > Turkmen Rugs >Abstracts of the Leipzig 'speeches'
Author:jc
email:
Sun, Sep 2nd, 2012 05:09:00 AM
Topic: Abstracts of the Leipzig 'speeches'

The other day someone sent us scans of the abstracts/summaries for the speeches given at the Leipzig Turkmen symposium. As we have heard these were handed out to all the participants on registering.

They are written in German and English and, while we do not speak enough German, we do speak enough English to realize how poorly composed these documents are.

However, we are not here to comment on the grammar but rather the content, as fractured as it reads.

The first carries peter hoffmeister’s name and is titled “How collecting enriches life, what leads to this book”.

When RK met peter hoffscheister in 1981 he was collecting Turkmen weavings, this is for sure. What is equally for sure is he did not know much about them.

His collection at that time, much of which is illustrated in his section of the Crosby/hoffmeister “Turkmen Carpets from Franconia” publication shows this admirably well.

In fact the best piece, the Tekke torba, was hoffscheister’s first purchase and saying it was beginner’s dumb luck is no wild guess, or put down, as hoffmeister has not done better, or in our opinion equally well, since.

It is still peter hoffscheister’s best piece thirty plus years, and 100,000’s of dollars spent on Turkmen rugs, later. It definitely isn't confirmation of his prowess as a great collector, now is it?

The second and third best examples, in the hoffscheister section of the Crosby/hoffmeister book, are the two Beshir, now called Middle Amy Darya(MAD), chuvals, which are also illustrated in the 1989 Tent Band Tent Bag publication RK authored with little contribution from hoffscheister. In both books they are still far and away better than any other hoffmeister collection examples, save maybe a tent band or two.

By the way, those two chuvals formerly belonged to Simon Crosby, who sold them to hoffscheister when Crosby was virtually bankrupt and was desperate for some cash.

They also were the only examples in the hoffscheister section of the Tent Band Tent Bag book commensurate with those in the first section (Turkmen weavings from RK’s collection).

Comparing hoffscheister’s few words, most of which RK helped him express, in Tent Band Tent Bag with ours readily shows how little he knew then and how his part rode totally on our coattail.

To make matter’s worse, hoffscheister then abrogated our contract, a copy of which has been published on RugKazbah.com for a number of years now, cheated us on the meager proceeds, outrageously dumped without our agreement or approval a large number of books for 10 deutschmark so he could get a tax rebate, and even plagiarized and presented our research work as his own.

Any wonder why we call him scheister, thief, cheat and plagiarist?

But back to the recent 2012 Leipzig symposium abstracts.

“Collectors are born” peter hoffscheister begins “I was interested in real art from my youth. So quite early I started to collect such objects.”

When we met hoffscheister he had virtually no paintings, sculpture, no art at all in his home, just some rugs on the walls and floors. So forget about his palaver he was born a collector – fact is he was born a cheat, liar and miscreant, and RK is not the only person who believes so.

Many of those rugs are still in his collection, illustrated in the Tsavera book, and are no more important artistically or historically then they were in 1981.

“By that in 1971 I saw the first Turkoman carpet, an object of lost culture.”

That Turkman, yeshhh can’t turko-idiot hoffscheister get it right – it’s Turkman not Turk0man, as the country is Turkmenistan not Turk0menistan, was that Tekke torba, and speaking of dumb luck it’s importance is still probably lost on hoffscheister.

“The collection started to grow rapidly” hoffscheister says, but this too is nonsense as he did not really start buying frequently until after his meeting and being heavily influenced by us and, more importantly, his inheriting a goodly sum of money from his family.

Period, end of story, any ideas hoffscheister is the great collector he imagines are nothing but nonsense posturing.

He then claims to have been “invited to Turkmenistan several times”, implying and reinforcing this illusion, making it sound like he IS an important carpet expert and person in Turkmen collecting circles.

Fact is anyone can get invited to Turkmenistan to attend a conference or meeting, as these are the “invitations” hoffscheister, the self-promoting exaggerator, is speaking about.

“The often lax handling of the carpets especially by the dealers but as well by the collectors bothers me” hoffschiester intones.

Fact is in his former days, prior to his inheritance, when he was washing rugs he was taken to court at least once by former clients upset with his “treatment” of their carpets. Wake up hoffscheister you hypothecator.

He then mentions the Crosby book but ‘forgets’, ie ignores, mentioning the Tent Band Book. Any wonder why?

He also mentions how unprofessional the text was for the Crosby book, when he wrote half of it mind you, and the need for a more professional one, ie Tsavera’s, in his latest publication.

More nonsense, as while his contributions to both books, and Tsavera’s to his latest, can easily be seen as unprofessional, he is right there, Simon Crosby’s text in the Carpets from Franconia book is surely not unprofessional. It is actually yards better than the poppycock fairy tales Tsavera tries to spin.

Here’s the scan of hoffmeister’s abstract.

Enjoy his useless efforts to continue to rewrite his 'history', and stay tuned as RK will soon publish the Tsavera abstracts along with our comments:


Author: jc
email:
Sun, Sep 2nd, 2012 05:09:00 AM

There is little doubt tsavera’s text for the hoffmeister collection book is eminently questionable and highly flawed.

It is not ‘scholarly’, nor is it informative.

It is flattery by someone paid to rationalize peter hoffmeister’s illusion he is a great collector of Turkmen rugs and his collection is a great collection.

Clearly tsavera does not know a whole hell of a lot more than hoffmeister and she, like he, probably believes the collection is “important”.

But unfortunately that does not make it so.

Her text is weak, questionable on almost every page and in general one could easily say not worth the effort to read.

Turkmen rugs made prior to the middle 19th century are mysterious, no one really knows much about them but it is obvious hoffmeister and tsavera have added little or nothing to shed light on that mystery.

Besides expressing opinions of “beauty” in the eye of the beholder the best any author, scholar, or collector can do is to compare examples to see which appear to be the models and which appear to be the copies.

This is called art historical comparison and is the system RK uses and believes in 100 percent.

Yes, it takes great experience and knowledge of the idiom to successfully and correctly accomplish this task.

Perhaps this is why tsavera’s text is completely bereft of such work.

RK has already carefully and methodically critiqued tsavera chapter by chapter and we do not need to revisit this work published on RugKazbah.com again.

We urge readers who have not read it to do so asap, as it puts into context our comments on tsavera, hoffmeister and the weavings published in the book.

We have already written a lot about the hoffmeister publication and we are getting weary.

But when we received the abstract of his and tsavera’s ‘speeches’ we could not resist memorializing a viewpoint that is different, and far more accurate, than that forwarded by anyone else publicly.

The concept tsavera, hoffmeister or someone else came up with to deflect the already published ‘criticism’ of the publication -- tsavera publicly answering “unanswered questions” she solicited from her friends -- is nothing but a ruse.

And to do it at a supposed “symposium” with lofty aspersions is even more bogus.

Why?

First of all she could have just “answered” the points Michael Rothberg brought up in his “review” that rag hali published.

And second she could have acknowledged our critique, which was far more accurate and less politically correct than Rothberg’s.

But heaven knows tsavera would never acknowledge difficult to deflect criticism like RK, who is outside the back-patting circle of academic and collector poseurs who worship her like they do Dr jon thompson or the now deceased robert pinner, posed.

They – pinner, thompson and tsavera – are but another three stooges who rugDUMB erroneously believes to be gurus, god and more.

The reality, far from it, is all RK and any other honest person could possibly say.

So ostensibly tsavera used hours of symposium time to “defend” her text, while in reality all she did was pose softball questions to herself and then answer them with more of the same nonsense she wrote in the hoffmeister book.

UGH what a sham.

We were going to waste more of our time demonstrating this but we have decided a preamble and publishing the scans of her abstract would be a far better way to achieve our goal.

And what is that goal?

Simply put to call a spade a spade – to prove our position tsavera is at best a pseudo-Turkmen “scholar”; peter hoffmeister is a boring little man who believes his families money and his mediocre understanding of Turkmen weaving has bought him a place in history as a great collector; and the organizers of the Leipzig symposia are either as poorly versed, or worse, in Turkmen weaving understanding as hoffmeister or nothing but sycophantic twits.

Need we say more?

Here are the scans of tsavera’s speech abstracts:






Home   Buy/Sell at the Kazbah   Terms Of Service