Oriental Rugs:Antique and Modern
Antique and Modern
9781465543677
pages
Library of Alexandria
Overview
T is not altogether surprising that in a most materialistic age many of a race distinguished more for its utilitarian than artistic accomplishments should fail to see in Oriental carpets high artistic expression; yet during the last twenty years choice specimens have been sold for sums which not only are very large, but show a tendency to increase with each succeeding year. In 1893 a woollen rug, known as the Ardebil carpet and regarded, on account of its beautiful designs and exquisite colours, as one of the finest products of Oriental art, was purchased for the South Kensington Museum. Since it had a length of thirty-four and a half feet with a breadth of seventeen and a half, the price of £2500, which was the sum paid, was at the rate of twenty dollars per square foot. At an auction sale in New York in 1910,1 a woollen rug five and a half feet long by three and three quarters wide was sold for the sum of $10,200, or at the rate of four hundred and ninety-one dollars per square foot; and a silk rug seven feet and two inches long by six feet and four inches wide was sold for the sum of $35,500, or at the rate of nine hundred and thirty dollars per square foot. As it was the general opinion of connoisseurs that the prices paid for these two rugs were low, and as it is well known that these rugs are not more valuable than some others of equal size, it is not unreasonable to assume that many of the best judges of Oriental rugs would declare that at the present time the sum of five hundred dollars per square foot is a fair price for some antique woollen rugs, and the sum of one thousand dollars per square foot a fair price for some antique silk rugs. If these judges were asked on what they based their opinion of the value of these old pieces, which are less serviceable for wear than new rugs that can be bought of an American factory at twenty cents per square foot, they might with reason reply that they are works of art, woven in those days when Michelangelo, Titian, Rubens, and Rembrandt were busy in their studios; that they are as scarce as the paintings of these masters; and that they might justly be compared with them in beauty and artistic execution. Though granting that the technique of weaving makes it impossible to represent a design as perfectly as can be done with a brush, they would claim that the drawing of dainty vines, scrolls, and arabesques was often represented by lines that in abstract beauty of form are unsurpassed, and that no artist had ever produced from his palette colours which equalled in brilliant sheen and marvellously changing hue those of the woven masterpieces. Whoever is inclined to disagree with these judges and with those art critics of Europe and America who assert that in an aesthetic sense the people of the Orient are cultured to a standard beyond the comprehension of the Western world, should remember that the taste for any kind of art is based on convention and is largely a matter of cultivation. The Occidental, who for generations has cultivated the taste for paintings and statuary, looks to the painter and sculptor for the highest expression of artistic genius; but the Oriental takes greater delight in his marvellous creations of porcelain or woven fabrics. There is, too, a marked difference in treatment. The Occidental demands that in art “everything should be stated with the utmost fullness of a tedious realism before he can grasp its meaning”2 and fails to recognise the more subtle beauty of various forms of Oriental art. The Oriental, on the other hand, is far less realistic and is better satisfied if his subject suggests abstract qualities that depend for their fullest appreciation on those quickening experiences that at different times have touched the soul of the observer. Moreover, as Buddhism, which prevails in many of the countries of Asia, teaches that a universal spirit is manifested in each form of nature, determining its character, and a similar idea pervades other religions of the East, the highest aim of Asiatic art is to express that inner spirit. It is largely this difference in artistic cultivation that accounts for the difference in taste. Whoever then would fully appreciate these rugs must view them not only with an eye trained to see the beautiful harmonies of colour and design, but with the artistic temperament of the Oriental. By study and cultivation the European as well as the American is growing to value more highly the products of Oriental art. When the old sea captains carried on trade with Japan, they imported into Europe large quantities of Imari ware, which the Japanese purposely decorated with crude and vulgar colours to meet the less refined taste of the Europeans, who regarded many of them as fine specimens of ceramic art and studiously copied them in their factories. But so great has been the change in artistic taste since then that now they are valued principally as objects of curiosity. Likewise, many beautiful Japanese Makimonos, in which a few strong lines gave but a hint of the essential thought, formerly passed before the eyes of Europeans as the paintings of semi-barbarians. But now we begin to see, as did Whistler, that they are often the products of great genius and that they express thought and feeling with marvellous power. There has been a similar growth in the appreciation of Oriental rugs. Even within the last generation this growth has been apparent, so that the few who wisely bought those old worn pieces which thirty years ago hung at doors of little shops where dark-faced foreigners invited acquaintance, are now the envy of the many who, too late, have learned that to-day they can scarcely be bought at any price
