Home > Flatweaves >Anatolian Kelim Idiocy
Author:jc
email:
Sun, Nov 23rd, 2014 02:34:59 AM
Topic: Anatolian Kelim Idiocy

RK has seen many flagrantly idiotic statements made about Anatolian kelim since 1979, in fact there have been too many to count or for us to remember.

From the "flying penises" ms cathy aka must buy cootner imagined seeing in kelim in the deYoung Museum, and discussed in a lecture she did at The Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, to the ridiculous belief the c14 dating in the book "Anatolian Kilims & Radiocarbon Dating by jorg rageth published in 1999 is accurate and credible.

RK could go on but we have better things to do, like our recent decision to release what we know to critique, rebut, and counter the spurious and stupid rug-lore that now surrounds the Anatolian kelim.

Below is a piece RK wrote five years ago. It was not the first, nor the last of our attempts to bring some reality to the study of Anatolian kelim and the absurd notions rugDUMB has, and continues to allow, to go unchallenged.

Have a good read at it; while brief it nonetheless provides perspective on where the 'study' of Anatolian kelim is presently in comparison to where it will be when RK gets done examining it.

RK has been relatively silent on the subject since 1990 but, for reasons unknown to almost everyone in rugDUMB, we have decided now is the time to release what we have known for more than 20 years and to provide the proof which has become more self-evident to us each passing year.

It is now 30 years since RK acquired our first archetype Anatolian kelim and began our research to establish an art historical framework to better understand their meaning.

In that still ongoing process we developed a chronology based on the retention and changes their iconography underwent.

The methodology used to formulate that chronology, which was briefly mentioned in our 1980 publication Image Idol Symbol: Ancient Anatolian Kelim and hardly spoken of since, will now be publicly released.

RK has no doubt legions of rug morons will attempt attack what we write, not with cogent or intelligent argument or critique but, as is par for the course in rugDUMB, with innuendo and personal accusation.

Or, as is also the modus operandi in rugDUMB, with dead-air silence.

So have a read at what we wrote in late 2004 to critique but one more example of kelim-idiocy:

Just for grins RK took a quick jaunt thru Herr Brandls website. Seems Galerie Kelim has two supposed 17th century kelim illustrated there. Well, 17th century in their estimation .

Here is the first:

Called Hotamis, a designation wed not argue with too much though we would prefer just plain Konya. This corner fragment is nothing too very special and surely doesnt deserve to be dated anywhere earlier than circa 1800 at best.

Why?

This is not the time and place to thoroughly examine early Anatolian slit-tapestry (kelim) iconography - we have breached the issue before and interested readers might want to look elsewhere on the board for some of those threads.

In short, comparing what appears here with any kelim that are 17th century or earlier there are fewer than 12 such examples in our estimation - would immediately prove our assertion.

There is also a second kelim on Brandl s website likewise dated to the 17th century:

By the way both of these can be seen in the previous exhibitions on Galerie Kelim's website, on the present exhibition website none are illustrated.

This kelim is from the 2000 exhibition and it is also tagged Hotamis.

Good guess, however, Brandl missed the boat here entirely as this Kelim was made further east and south, we'd posit somewhere further down towards Aleppo.

The cochineal field and some of the other motifs are definitely not associated with any weavings made near or around Hotamis, a more central Konya area village location.

Surprisingly, it appears this Kelim aged a century or two in Galerie Kelims storage because this same piece was then illustrated in the 2002 exhibition where it is dated 17th/18th century, when it was only circa 1800 in 2000!

Did Brandl learn so much more about Kelims in the two intervening years or did he just realize it might be easier to sell it by making it older?

Either way, or any explanation other than admitting it to be a typo error, doesnt say much for his expertise or opinion.

And besides, no other explanation could hold any water for us or allow anyone to hold any confidence concerning Brandl's other supposed 17th century pieces.

Guess Galerie Kelims clientele has short memories, or at least Brandl believes they do.

Again if this years annual Symbol and Color exhibition - yes this has been a recurring show title since 2000 according to their website - contains many other alleged 17th century Kelims (there are none illustrated on their websites announcement for the show)

Were they, RK.com would take pleasure in debunking them as well.

Ok, we realize this statement is quite prejudicial since we havent even seen them but based on Brandl and Galerie Kelims past performance how could we think otherwise?

Author: Dr. Manfred Bieber
email: [email protected]
Sat, Nov 22nd, 2014 04:48:17 AM

RK Replies:

Greetings Dr. Bieber:

Those are pretty strong words "you know nothing" coming from someone like yourself whose gallery's inventory and advertisements have never in our recollection present anything but mediocre to airport art quality weavings.

Had you taken the time to read carefully what we did write and then think about it for more than 2 seconds you would have realized our opinions about those Anatolian kelim were far more based on their iconography than coloration.

Perhaps a purveyor of late 19th and 20th century decorative weavings who perennially tries to pass them off as "collectible" and "art" would be ignorant of the fact Anatolian kelims, like Turkmen weavings, have strong iconographic information that can be used to place them on art historical continuum and therefore draw quite accurate ideas about their age and relative importance.

Anyway, we are glad you are a reader of our website and hope you might learn enough next time to not make such accusations and make yourself look so foolish.

===================

Hi to all,if people judged about things they have never seen, how can they make any statement. your jugdmenent on colors reveals that you know nothing. Regards Manfred Bieber

Author: GM
email: [email protected]
Sat, May 4th, 2013 01:50:02 PM

RK Replies:

Greetings George M and thanks for the kind and complimentary words:

Marla Mallet, like so many other ruggies, believes in fantasy interpretations and because of this she provides unreliable information when it is compared to the evidence the weavings demonstrate.

We presume the two kelim you are talking about are numbers 1 and 2.

And while they have a mechanical look weavings made by weavers who are not artists in any sense of the word, but rather just craft people, invariably produced RK is not sure your stating they were made in a workshop is factual.

Nor, likewise, do we know if your supposition they were made by the same weavers is correct.

But it is sure they were made by weavers who were more than just casually related, and mallet's 18th century dating is absurd.

Anatolian kelim, and just about all types of flatweaves made prior to the second half of the 19th century, were produced in far more cohesive weaving environments than pile weaving.

And those weaving environments were surely not workshops set up for commercial production, ie export outside that environment.

And it is this factor which allows far more conclusive hypotheses, and yes conclusions, to be drawn concerning the relationships they maintain.

So thanks for writing in and keep up the open-eyed, and open-minded, studying.

---------------------

JC,Although I am quite late to the discussion regarding the proper dating of weavings, it does seem clear to me that the first two kilims you posted from Marla Mallette's website were made by the same person(s) or the same workshop using the same pattern.

I would agree this type of activity is indicative of "commercialization" so it is highly unlikely they were made for personal use but instead to a directed format or at least because this style of kilim had sold in the past.

I commend you for these lessons regarding the development of the skill of viewing and analyzing rugs and flatweaves.

It certainly helps me to understand and appreciate a weaving and to put it as best I can on the good, better, best continuum.

It also helps me to understand "why" I "like" a piece and is far more satisfying than hearing "you need to develop the eye".

Regards,

George

Author: jc
email:
Thu, Jan 7th, 2010 01:57:01 PM

RK emailed a link to marla mallet as soon as our critique was published.

As we expected she did not respond publicly, or privately, to defend her asinine positions.

Silence is consent and mallet's silence is damning.

One thing is sure, should anyone defame RK we wouldimmediately defend ourself, and for mallet to remain silentproves what we wrote in spades.

Hope she will take us up on our suggestions and starts baking those muffins rather than continue to ludicrously date guesstimate, or peddle, mediocre airport-art Anatolian kelim as "collector items".

Author: jc
email:
Tue, Jan 5th, 2010 09:35:32 AM

RK just took a hop and skip through the website run by marla aka ms muffins mallet and was quite surprised by what we saw.

Below are screen shots of 7 Anatolian kelim mallet is offering for sale RK had our web-genius prepare for publication.

RK could have picked many others to critique but we chose the most blatantly questionable ones.

The kelim, themselves, are not questionable; they are all late, furnishing pieces. This is obvious, regardless of what mallet says to try and sell them.

What we are questioning is, just that, mallets presenting them as collector items.

Even worse, RK believes malletts opinions about these pieces demonstrate she is nothing but another snake-oil rug-salewoman, who thinks nothing of providing stupid and completely absurd expertise about what she is peddling to convince the unwary buyer of the good buys they are.

Now RK realizes 99.9% of rug dealers are both liars and rug ignorants who can easily get away with bamboozling the lay public.

Lets remember dennis the thief and cheat dodds who defrauded the Los Angeles County Art Museum by selling their Collectors Committee of donors a late, genre period reproduction/revival bellini rug as a 16th century Turkish masterpiece.

So mallets presentation pales in mendacity compared to a dodds, but it is still highly questionable and borders on fraudulent in RKs opinion.

Here are 7 pieces from malletts website that display her penchant to pull dates out of her backside and, by doing this, not only does mallet make mockery of any credence she believes she has as an Anatolian kelim expert but by dating some piece to a 10 year window -- thats right a TEN YEAR WINDOW she destroys even the most tiny reality she is anything but a stupid female who should be baking muffins and not pontificating about a subject she clearly knows next to nothing about.

Here are the 7 kelim and malletts absurd sales pitches:

Number 1

Konya Kilim
Central Anatolia
18th century
Wool. 32"x 15'2"
Slit tapestry.
This wonderful old classic Konya kilim has beautiful colors and is in superb condition. It was made as a single panel and was never joined to another.
$8,500

Thinking this kelim, wonderful, is an opinion that is hers.

Fine.

Calling it 18th century goes far past opinion, it is a statement of fact.

There is absolutely not one aspect of this kelim RK, or anyone else who is experienced, would agree signify such a date.

Yes, compared to most of the airport-art tourist take homes on malletts website, this one is older and better but so what, that doesnt make it 18th century.

Number 2

Konya Kilim
Central Anatolia
18th century
Wool. 31"x 14'7"
Slit tapestry.
This superb early kilim, with its unusual palette, is in excellent condition.
$8,500

Once again mallet can be easily rebuked for calling this kelim 18th century and what we wrote above can be repeated here as well.

Number 3

Aydin Kilim
Western Anatolia. 1820s or 1830s
Wool. 34"x 9'11."
Slit tapestry.
This lovely old kilim is in fairly good condition for its age and small areas of corroded browns have been expertly rewoven. This early 19th century piece should be hung, however, not used on the floor as in areas the warps are exposed. This is the kind of piece that was used to cover storage sacks in the nomad's tent, or used as a sedir (sofa) cover in the winter village house. It shows no signs of ever having been joined to another part.
$3200

Dating this piece in to a 10 year window is, perhaps like the other pieces RK picked out to comment on and will pick out to comment on, so dumb and stupid we are at a loss for words.

Mz muffins has proven to RK she is a fool but this, quite honestly, takes the cakea ten year window?

Please, muffins, go get a brain scan, you clearly have a blockage in your cranial arteries that needs attention.

Number 4

Adana/Reyhanli Kilim
Southeastern Anatolia
1880-1890
Wool, with white cotton.
5'x 13'3"
Slit tapestry.
This superb kilim is in excellent condition. It was made in two parts on a nomad's narrow loom.
$3500

Another superb kelim, gosh malett is starting to sound like a broken record, cant she find some other adjectives to describe her airport-art kelims?

And another 10 year window.does mallet have a ouijii-board, or can she divine dates with tea-leaves?

Frankly RK believes she is smoking them.

Is that how she KNOWS there never were borders in the piece above?

Again this is mallett blowing smoke out her derriere, amazing.

What a joke this woman, who RK called a rabid-bitch dog looking for a pant leg to bite, is making of herself in the pursuit of some $$$.

Totally embarrassing is all RK can say.

Number 5

Karapinar Kilim
Central Anatolia.
1840-1850
Wool.
5'1x 14'4."
Slit tapestry.
This very large early kilim is in excellent condition. The colors are very soft and subdued.....
$4900

Yet, another kelim mallet dates within a 10 year window.

If she had not, for the past two decades, presented herself as an Anatolian kelim expert RK would not be dragging her over the coals for her stupidity.

But since she has, RK believes she deserves to be roasted, cut-up into little pieces and fed to the lions.

That is, even if they would even eat the greasy fat laden flesh of an oily porcine excuse for a woman like mallet.

Number 6

Sivrihisar Kilim
Western Anatolia.
1910-1920
Wool.
5'6"x 10'11."

Slit tapestry.
This very dramatic, bold kilim is in excellent condition.
$2600

The only drama here is malletts desire to act out a part even Franz Kafka, the master of absurdity, would never have thought to write.

Again a ten year window? Come on muffins get real, madame, and wake up to the question: Are you a rug-ignorant, or a lying sack of shit, for making such a ludicrous date guesstimates.
Hint: RK says you are both.

Number 7

Kazak Kilim
Azerbaijan.
1920-1930
Wool.
6' x 7'4."
Slit tapestry.
This is a very sturdy kilim that can handle reasonable traffic. It is in excellent condition.....
$1350

Need we go on concerning malletts dopey belief she, or anyone, can date an Anatolian kelim into a ten year window?

RK trusts we have proven, with her own words, what a fraud, rug ignorant idiot marla mallet is.

And should she wish to defend herself, please note, RK has emailed her a link to what we have written, and our discussion board is open to her or anyone else who wishes to come to her defense.

RK is here and waitingbut we are not holding our breath as we are 99.999% sure mallett will ignore the truth we have published.

Why?

Surely because she knows she has no defense for her idiotic website, nor for her positions other than a huge mea culpa and apology.

And, might RK ask, could she send RK a big Thank You for bringing her to her senses???

Author: jc
email:
Fri, Jan 1st, 2010 08:13:25 AM

In 1965 the textile museum held the first exhibition of kelim, and while RK did not attend the exhibition we have, for decades, had the small mimeographed paper catalog that was written by our old friend Charles Grant Ellis, whose text was then somewhat abridged and republished in the "From the Bosporos to Smarkand".

In fact, Charlie gave this copy of the 1965 catalog to us as a little momento, as it is, and was then, a quite scarce item.

So the "From the Bosporus to Samarkand: Flat-Woven Rugs" exhibition held in 1969, and catalog published in the same year was not the first of its kind.

RK grants, of course, that show and catalog were far more widely known and celebrated. However, had the 1965 show not happened, and been as successful as it was, we doubt the textile museum would have printed the "From the Bosporus to Samarkand: Flat-Woven Rugs" as lavishly (for the time), or in as large numbers as they did.

Regardless, this 1965 exhibiton broke the ice, made many converts and appreciators, and mallet's contining tendency to make blanket statements, that from only her perspective are factual, demonstrate this woman's windbag pseudo-know it all attitude.

Mind you it also demonstrates the gullibility of many in rugDUMB, who might believe mallet is anything but a rabid bitch-dog looking for a leg to bite.

Furthermore, it demonstrates the willingness of another mangy-rug-mutt, dr steven price who was the instigator of questioning RK's 1880's kelim statement, to latch on to anything to use in his bogus failed crusade to denigrate someone who has proven over and over what a pompous uptight moron, rug ignorant, and failure he is even in his chosen field, which is surely not oriental rug studies.

RK is sick and tired of little shits, like mallet and price who believe they not only know something , which in fact they don't, but then go on to shout their ignorance, half-truths, and dumbass statements from the roof tops and plaster the internet with their myopic viewpoints.

Both deserve to be muzzled and put down.

By the way, ms muffins, Ellis says in the catalog the following in referring to the export of kelims from their home countries:

" If the markets of the East were from time to time swept clear of them and bale after bale they(sic) went overseas, the revenue obtainable never was enough to stimulate production specifically for that purpose."

Ellis's statement echoes what RK said, and while we also intimated the 1880's and the grand tour period was a time when "...the ensuing beginning of commercial production [ed. of kelim]...began in the late 1880s to satisfy that demand.", we defy anyone to disprove this idea with fact and not hot-air.

Remember RK said "the ensuing beginning of commercial production" and, who besides big-mouth mallet and price the rug clown, could believe if the East was swept clean of bales and bales of kelim, as Ellis states, that some enterprising rug weaver, group of weavers, or merchant did not recognize that "demand" and start trying to profit from it?

One thing is sure here, kelim were produced for market way before even 1965, and mallet's statements to the contrary are absurd on any level, even the low rung on the rug-totem pole one she inhabits.

A final note concerning the contents of this mimeographed catalog: Ellis, and not a rug dealer from Boston by the name of Lawrence Kearny, coined the term Turkomania.

It's about time rugDUMB, that became infatuated with it, give credit where credit is due -- and that's to Charles Grant Ellis, who wrote it in this catalog in 1965 and not mr Kearney who uttered it in 1990, 35 years later.

Author: jc
email:
Fri, Jan 1st, 2010 12:54:02 AM

The lack of intelligent discourse on many internet websites is a given, however, on turk0tek dot com the frequency of idiocy witnessed there boggles the mind.

RK is banned from participating, with good reason, as our ability to disprove the moronic opinions expressed by participants has embarrassed and ridiculed them to no end.

RK has beaten these fools like a stubborn mule and shown their ideas to be nothing but senseless pigslop and worse.

Here is a post written by one of their more knowledgeable cretin concerning a comment RK made in our RK examines Anatolian kelim discussion.

Here is our comment:

"By 'seriously old' RK means kelim appearing to have been made well before the orientalist craze created foreign demand and the ensuing beginning of commercial production that began in the late 1880s to satisfy that demand."

Why anyone would pick this simple statement and attempt to criticize it amazes us.

But no figuring how the mini-mind of a moron works, so let's just take this attempt on face value.

Here is what one of the pick of the pigsloppers, marla aka mz muffins mallet, said with our rejoinders interspersed in bold type:

"The commercialization and export of knotted-pile carpets was certainly given a major boost by the Orientalist Craze in the 1880s--both in the US and in Europe. But kilims were not a part of that commercialization, and remained largely unknown in the West until quite recently."

One could write reams about the convergence of economic, social, political, and technological determinants inherent in the how and why oriental carpets became popular in the 1880-1910 period.

While it is very true the kelim, or palas as they were called, were not nearly as well-represented in the thousands of bales of weavings imported into England, Germany and America at that time, they still were imported in numbers that were significant enough to mention, particularly compared to previous periods.

This is the essence of our point, and to try and discount it, or even deny it, raises questions of reason, agenda and motive, not to mention ignoring the facts.

Plus, using the word recent leads one to believe within the past 10 years, or maybe even 20, and to believe kelim have only been popular since 1989 is not only stupid, it is patently idiotic.

"Senneh kilims, 16th and 17th century silk Kashan kilims, and large Caucasian soumaks were among the few types well known in the West."

Again here is someone shooting the mouth off without connecting their brain to their tongue.

How many "16th and 17th century silk Kashan kilim" were well known? And among what group(s) of "knowers" were these incredibly rare weavings "well known?"

Again here is more blithering BS and nonsensical spin passed off as fact -- too bad it ain't fact to anyone who knows anything about these weavings, a position the participants on turk0tek dot com surely can not claim.

True, there clearly were some Persian"Senneh kilim and Caucasian soumak" but there were just as many, if not more, two-panel Karaman, Rehanli and Alleppo Turkish kelim sold in the west as furniture accessory.

Again mallet's statements twist fact to present an agenda far from factual.

"When Anthony Landreau and Ralph Pickering mounted a Textile Museum (Washington) exhibition in 1969 and published a catalog FROM THE BOSPORUS TO SAMARKAND: FLAT-WOVEN RUGS, nomadic flatweave pieces were new to most people."

Like who is mallet lumping in the blanket "most people" reference?

The lay public?

Surely not collectors, as RK was collecting kelim in the late 1960's and we knew a number of people who were interested in, and had, them as well.

Another foolish statement by mallet, one that also calls into question what she is trying to do, and where she is trying to go with all this bluster.

"Of the 112 pieces in that catalog, only 10 kilims and bags were Turkish. "

We could debate that number but we agree Turkish kelim were not as plentiful among the show's examples or in the hands of other 'collectors' but RK's original comment, which mz muffins is after all attempting to discredit, had nothing to do with collectors -- RK was talking about people who were using kelim as furniture accessory.

Clearly mallet can't read or is just totally bent on trying to critique what we said. Either way her position is as full of holes as a 100 pound box of dunkin' donuts, probably her preferred brand.

"A great many pieces in the catalog were erroneously identified, because so little was known about them, and question marks appeared routinely in the labeling. Caucasian and NW Persian pieces dominated the exhibition, especially small soumak bags from the Caucasus and NW Persia. Pieces at that time had been gathered up by a few collectors only; they were strictly ethnographic items, just as were the wooden farm tools, spinning wheels, etc. that they also collected."

What this has to do with the subject at hand is as unfathomable as the rest of mz muffins diatribe.

Perhaps is she just trying to show how much she knows, or is it doesn't know?

"Ethnographic museums in Europe were also beginning to put together collections. Josephine Powel, for example, gathered materials for Amsterdam's Instituut fur den Tropen and Rotterdam's Ethnographic Museum."

Ahh, the great collector Josephine Powell. RK had some nice talks with Josephine, who deserves credit for her ambition and stamina to travel the back roads of Turkey where few westerners, let alone women, went.

But as far as as being a knowledgeable and savvy collector ms Powell is surely not going to be remembered for that part of her legacy -- well at least not among those who are expert enough to differentiate a mid-period kelim from an early one.

Additionally, what does Powell and European ethnographic museums have to do with ms muffin's desire to prove RK wrong?

Maybe we're biased but really now, mallet, get a grip, woman, and quit grabbing at every straw in your flea ridden mattress.

"In May of 1977 David Black and Clive Loveless opened an exhibition of kilims in London and published a catalog, THE UNDISCOVERED KILIM. It included 55 kilims--Persian, Caucasian and Anatolian. It was an eye-opener for most of us."

While it might have been an "eye-opener" for mallet, a nobody then as well as now in the world of kelim collectors, it surely wasn't for RK and many other on the scene collectors we knew.

Once more, what does this have to do with RK's statement?

"They stated in their introduction that they had often paid ten to twenty pounds for each, because in the trade, kilims were considered inferior. Bales of pile carpets were shipped to the West in the nineteen hundreds wrapped in old kilims, and these pieces were often unraveled to use for re-piling old knotted carpets."

For the umpteenth time here is mz muffins motoring on to nowhere with her wheels spinning uselessly.

After WWII, few people were decorating with oriental carpets, or kelim, and of course that fact is responsible for the possibilities to purchase oriental rugs and kelim for peanuts.

But kelim were, in numbers, extant here in America and Europe, and that's the point mallet is trying so desperately to discount, and failing so miserably to accomplish.

"Old kilims turned up during these years only in odd places in the US. I occasionally encountered a piece in the back of an Armenian rug dealer's office--a curiosity that he had picked up on his travels. I remember seeing a Caucasian kilim in the background of an old photo of sculptor Louise Nevelson. I, myself, bought a large crock for $15 in a Minnesota auction in 1964 that had an ancient Caucasian kilim stuffed inside. In about 1975, I found a very ragged northeastern Anatolian prayer kilim in an Atlanta flea market. But these were rare events. Rug dealers, for the most part, knew nothing of kilims. Shortly after that, I found a Turkish rug dealer and a Persian dealer in New York who had private collections of old kilims, and who were starting to sell a few late 19th century kilims. But there was, at that time, NO commercial kilim production on the market."

In light of our statments of fact above, and reading mallet's words, it should become clear to anyone with enough sense to strike a match without setting themselves on fire mallet's verbosity is as misplaced as her trying to prove RK's comment as incorrect.

Here's the Merrian-Webster dictionary definition of commercialize:
"1. to develop commerce in
2. to exploit for profit
"

Nowhere does the word commercialize mean to produce, and RK's comment is perfectly in keeping with that definition and, no matter how hard mz muffins tries, she is just digging the hole she's fallen into deeper and deeper.

And remember, we wrote "beginning of commercial production" and there is no doubt, in places like Karaman, Rehanly and Allepo there were made-for-market kelim being produced in the period 1880-1910.

"David Black, himself, says , "I first came upon them (kilims) in Greece in the sixties when I had just left school. I stumbled upon them almost by accident, walking through the flea markets of Athens at a time when I was experiencing an increasing and I suppose, somewhat romantic attraction for the Orient." He goes on to say, "I did not find a great quantity of kilims there. They were few and far between. Moreover one often had to seek them out in some very unlikely places such as the haunts of Gypsy traders who crisscrossed the countryside exchanging new for old, in an age when the cult of the acrylic blanket reigned supreme! However, the kilims one did find there were usually very good. A quirk of history, namely the influx of immigrants from Turkey in the twenties, meant that a number of wonderful kilims found their way to Greece. "

Who cares about kelim in Greece? Obviously only a greasy jerk like mallet whose straw-grabbing has now reached a level lower than an ant in a wheel rut.

To call mallet's discourse, aimed at critiquing RK's simple statement, a wind bag of flatulence, is giving her more credit than she deserves.

"David Black continued (in the 1977 catalog), "Very few collections of kilims exist, and most of these have been built up in the last ten years. In Tehran they were not considered luxurious enough to be put on the floor of town houses."

As a point of fact, RK was very friendly with David Black and Clive Loveless during this period, both before the White Chapel show and publication of their book and after.

We can also, without any doubt, say their work did not, for us or anyone RK knew, blaze the kelim trail.

That trail had already been well-trodden, though clearly not by an upstart like marla mallet.

And, we will agree, for a nobody on the kelim scene, like mallet, they might have been guru but for us and others they were exploiters of kelim, salesmen doing a show and book to sell kelim from their shoppe, surely not guru.

To use the vernacular malet is full of shit and her attempt to sully us has done nothing but smear that excrement all over her porcine body and ugly kisser.

Period, end of discussion.

"When I first went to Turkey in 1980, there were plenty of crude, ugly synthetic-dye kilims available, but NO commercial production. I visited semi-nomads in the countryside who were still producing a few kilims for their own use--mainly for sedir covers and wall hangings. Commercial production only began a few years later when a couple of Turkish entrepreneurs started very small productions of natural-dye kilims, usually with small prayer-rug formats, in an attempt to cash in on the new interest in kilims in the West. Harald Bohmer tried to interest women in the Ayvacik area to weave brocaded cicims for his DOBAG project in the 1990s, but he was only able to find one elderly woman willing to do so. She is pictured on my website; one of her cicims is on the floor of that photo. Others complained that brocading was too difficult and too time-consuming.

To sum up, there are indeed lots of crude, synthetic-dyed kilims now on the market--pieces made in the 1900s. But these were ethnographic pieces made by nomads and villagers for their own use, not for commerce--because there was virtually no market for such things until recently. We do better to speak of Pre-Synthetic Dye Kilims, rather than Pre-Commercial Kilims."

Here are our last words: Where does asinine mallet think all those " synthetic dyed kilims now on the market -- pieces made in the 1900's" fit in any "ethnographic" showcase?

And who does mallet think made them?

And for what purpose were they made?

RK says they are showcased nowhere other than her pathetic and totally miserable commercial website where she peddles mediocre and less kelim as ethnographic item.

This type of kelim was made in Turkey, by women weavers from many different villages.

And many, if not most, of this type of kelim was made for, and ultimately destined for, market.

And that's our point, one mallet seems to have forgotten about, or is it just tries so desperately to avoid agreeing with?

Let's all remember marla mallet plagerized Irene Emory's seminal work The Primary Structures of Fabrics to make her classic comic-book quality work for idiot collectors too stupid and lazy to consult the original.

Mz muffins, is nothing but a marla-come-lately on the kelim scene; and while her critique of Mellaart's errors was justified, her impertinence in branding Mellaart a liar and cheat, and her self promotion in that effort, stinks and smells to high heaven.

Ass-wipe crap like marla mallet isn't, and never will be, worthy to clean up James Mellaart's diarrhea.

Only in rugDUMB, and on a sandbox for amateur rug ding-dong poseurs like turk0tek dot com, could a person of her calibre be anything but the butt of laughter and ridicule.

Home   Buy/Sell at the Kazbah   Terms Of Service

© 2002/2019 rugkazbah.com ©