Any comparison between a genuine “Bellini” re-entrant rug and LACMA’s late period carbon copy of one will not be flattering.
Here is LACMA’s rug and below it a real first half of the 18th century “Bellini” rug:
We realize these photos are low resolution and do not show the smaller details or any nuance of design. However, since both are equally portrayed - in both size of image and resolution – these factor should not affect this comparison.
First off, RK challenges anyone to provide even one characteristic, besides condition, that can prove LACMA’s rug as superior to the Turkish Museum’s example.
Naturally this challenge would be ludicrous if we chose a genuine 16th century “Bellini” re-entrant instead of the Turkish Museum’s mid-18th century piece.
In every respect LACMA’s rug is inferior and realizing this is something any art sensitive viewer can readily surmise.
The LACMA rug belongs on the floor in a posh house not in a museum. To say it is “…a pretty rug…” as denny has said in public and to RK during our phone conversation last week is nothing more than a hollow and vacuous statement.
“Pretty”? Is that pretty awful, pretty expensive, or pretty boring?
Is the best denny could do to save face, or perhaps to save something else, utter the words “it’s a pretty rug...” or “It was made during the period 1650-1750 but at the end, and not the beginning, of that continuum.” or “It’s something LACMA can be proud of.”?
Can’t he, let alone the min-minds of the rug world without any vested interest to protect, see the contradictions in those statements considering denny originally agreed with dodds that the rug was 16th century?
Over the years RK has seen many questionable rugs passed off to collectors as “important” when, in reality, the only thing important about them was for the sellers to make a profit.
These private transactions, as unseemly and scandalous as they are, are really none of anyone’s business.
However, when a public institution like the Los Angeles County Art Museum (LACMA) gets hoodwinked into buying such a piece it behooves us all to not only talk about it among ourselves but to direct our comments to the museum.
In this regard RK will soon publish a letter we hope everyone, who realizes what a travesty dodds’s sale of that rug to LACMA has caused, will print out, sign and send to Andrea Rich, the director of the museum.
We are sure if numerous collectors, dealers and interested parties take the few minutes required to print out and then place that 37 cent stamp on the envelope Ms Rich and the powers that be at LACMA will have no choice but to confront the issue properly and honestly.
Allowing the museum to feel RK is the only voice in opposition would be an even larger mistake than permitting them to hide the rug away and pretend nothing ever happened.
Rk is sure it will come down to this and, although we always hope for the best, we do realize how few people who call themselves collectors really care about the art itself – rather than the social and financial ends of collecting – or are willing to make any statement in opposition to what the accepted party-line drills into their consciousness.
That party line is trumpeted by hali, stooges like dodds and the rest of those involved with this fiasco and many of the names in the rug world who are involved with icoc and acor.
Allowing dodds’s dud of a rug to remain in LACMA will be the worst and most pathetic example of the how the rug world revolves bereft of any real intelligence or awareness Rk has witnessed.
It’s not a pretty picture, folks, even if denny tells you “It’s a pretty rug”.