The layout of the gallery lent itself to carrying out the theme of comparisons. The long, rectangular room contained six free-standing, double- sided panels with enough room to display a pair of rugs on each side. Thus, 24 prayer rugs, out of approximately 60 pieces all together, were paired for study of design execution, color, and knot count. For example, of two Shirvan prayer rugs, one had very delicate designs in the field and inner border, the other was a freer execution with a large overall pattern. The little flower on the outer border of one became a simple cross on the inner border of the other. Two Melas prayer rugs were a study in contrast of floral motifs versus geometric representations. Two Mujar prayer rugs appeared to be similar in design but contrasted sharply in coloration and, upon closer examination, revealed different designs surrounding the niche. It was these differences and similarities that our curator wanted not only the experienced viewer and collector to appreciate but also the students of the art department of the University to discover as well. For them it was a new experience as it was the first display of rugs at the University.
Opposite the panels on a long wall was a display of approximately 10 rugs, mostly Caucasian runners. Most showed variations of the Memling gul which was another theme of this exhibition. Among these was a long Karadagh rug with a dark blue field containing large medallions in red, white, and green. It was easily the most spectacular piece in the exhibition.
In one corner of the exhibition was an attractively displayed collection of five Baluch personal bags, all with a variation of the Memling gul. There was a collection of flatweaves mounted on the walls as one entered the exhibition. These were mostly Shahsavan bags, but there was one Kurd bag in the soumak technique without ground wefts. The Turkomans were represented by six weavings including a Beshir juval face in the mina khani design, contrasted with one in ikat design.
Although the emphasis was on comparisons, a few rugs stood out on their own. Among these were a Baluch Aimaq rug with Memling gul design with orange, shades of blue, and a white ground major border, a Yoruk prayer rug with a bold geometric design, and an early Transylvanian prayer rug with large cartouches in the border.
Not all the rugs displayed were in the best condition, but how many collectors (including this reviewer) have all perfect condition rugs? However, while their condition did not seriously detract from their artistic merit, a few, for example, could have had edges overcast as a conservation measure.
The information given for each rug included attribution, estimated date of weaving, and its owner. The curator used this information without comment or technical analysis. In some cases, the early dates seemed overly generous, but the curator deferred to information supplied by owners. Numbering the rugs would have helped for reference.
There was no catalog, but a list of the rugs exhibited may be issued in the near future. The show was apparently well received by the students, and there was talk of a second one. We hope that it will succeed as well as this.
