Home > JC'S Corner >water-boy wendel's fragment Part II
Author:jc
email:
Wed, Mar 28th, 2018 12:36:25 PM
Topic: water-boy wendel's fragment Part II


This is not water-boy wendel's fragment, read on

Since RK's 'king of the yellow rugs' fragment has become such a topic of conversation, along with the referencing a part of this post we wrote in 2013, it seems pointful for the entirety of what we wrote to be brought into focus.

The fragment wendel swan owns, the one referred to in the title of our post "water-boy wendel's fragment", has incorrectly been confused with a rug in the TIEM Museum in Istanbul, Turkey.

Anatolian cruciform, aka 'yellow', rug; TIEM collection Istanbul, inv.439; dated 17th century in the museum publication

Because it is pictured in the faRcebook thread about our cruciform 'yellow' rug without any attribution it seems most if not all readers have gotten the impression this is water-boy wendel's. Again it is not his, far from it, as this not even close mediocrity below belongs to water-boy swan.

Circa middle 19th century central Anatolian rug fragment with cruciform; wendle swan collection

We believe RK need not document why swan's rug fragment is not only not in the ball park of ours and the TIEM's, but it isn't in the same universe.

It's a cute village-y copy made hundreds of years after them. There is absolutely nothing interesting about it.

Leaving this bit of confusion behind, but surely not about what water-boy wendle's fragment is or is worth, RK thinks it pertient to compare the TIEM and ours to explain our opinion it's a workshop rug and ours is a century or more earlier genuine Anatolian village weaving.

Also, the fact we did not in 2013 another reason to do it now.

The first, most obvious and significant difference the TIEM's cruciform medallion is encased in a parallogram/box whereas ours is free standing, unencumbered by any defining field perimeter.

In another thread RK discussed what we call the infinity of design, its psychology of life and how weavers of very early rugs expressed the idea their iconography was infinite and not finite. This is because their world view at that time was infinite.

It is easy to see the TIEM rug cruciforms do not have the monumental stature ours display. They seem compressed in comparison, and its not because they are smaller in size. The main reason is being shut-in and placed in a confining box.

And while this might be too subtle for many readers to instantly grasp we believe some thought will render it more understandable.

A second major difference is the TIEM's rug adds two smaller medallions above and below the two cruciforms. Also if you look carefully there is a much smaller finial type motif attached to those smaller medallions.

This layout reproduces the classc Persian medallion, cartouche and finial style. Of course this is done in a far cruder and simplistic manner. It would not appear in a far earlier Anatolian rug like ours woven in a small isolated village for the simple reason it was unknown to these weavers.

However, it was not unknown to equally early Anatolian weavers producing rugs in larger towns and cities, as well as weavers working in later workshops where designs were provided for them to copy.

This is one of the major reasons we call the TIEM rug a workshop product.

But regardless these two added smaller medallions and the little finials do nothing to add and in fact are nothing but destraction to the archetype iconography our cruciform rug establishes. This is typical for workshop weavings where this type of ancillary and unrelated iconography was mixed in and adulterated earlier forms.

A third major difference is coloration. Granted these are pictures and are not capable of accurately representing the tone, saturation and beauty of those colors. But there seems to be little argument our curicform rugís green, yellow, red and blue are far superior.

A fourth difference is the way both weavers have depicted the four large triangles that surround each of the cruicform creating a pseudo niche or more descriptively a niche and spandrel.

Because the TIEM rug has those two smaller medallion it throws the entire design off center and destroys this feature. One we cannot imagine anyone would try to claim is an improvement.

Also each of those triangles on our rug, particularly the two red ones at the bottom, are embued with life. They are alive and comparing them with the dead as a door-nail ones on the TIEM rug requires no further comment.

The last, and there are others but our patience and time run thin, is the somewhat common major border on the TIEM rug and the totally original and charming border on ours. The weaver of our rug was able to do it all. She could create the awsome monumentalism of the large cruicform field and counter-blanace it with this delicate and elegant border. This is early Anatolian village weaving at it best and highest level.

The TIEM rug is a winner, itís an outstanding weaving. It is not, however, 17th century, nor is it a masterpiece. Plus it is not a true Anatolian village rug.

On the other hand ours also is not 17th century, it is 16th century! And it is a masterpiece and true Anatolian village weaving.

We could write pages more comparing it to other cruicform yellow rug and extolling its surperiority but why bother. If you have not gotten that by now more words will not make our case.

We will close with this detail picture, which we trust will open the eyes of some readers who are not convinced.

Author: jc
email:
Wed, Mar 28th, 2018 12:36:25 PM

Here is another unpublished and unknown cruciform yellow rug we photographed on our 1981 excursion through western and central Anatolia and out to parts east.

Regrettably, we do not 100 percent remember where this photo was made but believe it was taken in Beyshehir.

It has many obvious similarities to the TIEM rug, but is probably 50 or 100 years earlier. Notice the border, how could you not.

Home   Buy/Sell at the Kazbah   Terms Of Service