For the third time since its founding, the "Circle of Friends of Oriental Carpets and Textiles in Westfalia" has presented an exhibition of items from the collections of its members. Following the now legendary exhibition in the summer of 1979 in Greven, which was accompanied by a catalogue with black-and-white reproductions, and the well-received presentation of Turkish embroideries in Münster in 1989, this time Anatolian kilims were the theme.
| The owners of the 17th century moated castle in Lembeck, north of the Ruhr area in the idyllic Münsterland, deserve thanks for making space available for this exhibition, entitled "Anatolische Kilims in Lembeck Castle. |
Although Anatolian kilims have a thousand-year-old tradition, only in the last 20 years have they become an field of interest to collectors and museums. This recent interest results from, among other reasons, not just that parallels can be seen between modern western art and the bold designs and use of color by oriental weavers in past centuries, but also that such parallels actually exist. Thus in the last few years there have been important kilim exhibitions in Basel (1990), San Francisco (1990), Graz (1991), Munich (1991), and Berlin/Frankfurt (1993), to mention a few.
Without intending to compete with these predecessors, the organizers still had to ask themselves why they wanted to again present an exhibition of mainly central Anatolian kilims. Against the background of what had been shown and seen in recent years, might it not be too audacious to leave the path set by the art trade and risk breaking new ground?
Let us first take a look at the kilims themselves, their selection and presentation; perhaps that will give us an answer to this question.
In the course of 1994, all the members of the Westfalian group were asked to submit photos of potential entries for the proposed kilim exhibit. From some 120 photos of kilims and other flatweaves, a three-man jury first chose about 60 that were "exhibition-worthy." The "triumvirate," as they called themselves, included the leader of the Westfalian group, Dr. Dietmar Pelz; the collector and dealer, Ulrich Türck; and the well-known author, Udo Hirsch. Unfortunately, once again no woman was included, so only men judged the quality of kilims made by women. Of the 60 "exhibition-worthy" items, 30 were finally chosen for presentation: 21 central Anatolian kilims, six eastern Anatolian, and two western Anatolian kilims, and a western Anatolian flatweave with additional brocade and lancé decoration.
One condition of the jury was that none of the items should have been previously published. Another was to exclude prayer kilims, as these are limited in design and furthermore they are generally only "commercial" products. This latter decision is difficult to understand; too many excellent "exceptions" to this opinion are known to most of us (e.g. Brüggemann, no. 38; Cootner, plate 84-87; Frauenknecht/Frantz, etc.).
The important criterion of the jury was apparently maximum age regardless of condition. This brings up again the question whether "age" by itself is a mark of quality. Were there no artistically insignificant 18th century kilims? And, in the 20th century, is there no oriental weaving art to be found? Does a development have to only show deterioration? Is further improvement impossible? Is a development imaginable -- regardless of the area -- that starts at its zenith? Isn't it arrogant to assume that a kilim, and thus the weaver from the 20th century, whose situation can hardly be compared with that of her 18th century counterpart, is ipso facta of lesser quality? Isn't it the momentary situation, the Zeitgeist, intrinsic to a work of art (and the intention of this exhibition is to present kilims that meet this qualification)?
If one supported this argument, it would naturally mean that for each individual work of art, in this case, for each kilim, new, unique criteria for judgment of its quality need to be defined.
As a result of the selection process, central Anatolian kilims -- as in many earlier exhibitions -- are (over)represented with a two-thirds majority. It would be going too far, I feel, to call this a modish trend, but one may safely assume it resulted from a certain bias in the eye of the jury. I find it commendable that Dr. Türck conceded as much in his speech at the opening and in his essay in the catalogue.
The selections made by the "triumvirate" naturally cannot be criticized in so far as the items that were not accepted were not displayed. A small corner or screen with photos of these pieces would have made the decisions clear, if not democratic, and perhaps understandable. The writer knows of one really outstanding kilim that was not selected which is at least an equal to many of those shown. It is possible that some of the owners of items that were rejected were left with bad feelings.
Thirty Anatolian kilims, or the fragments thereof, were shown, some over 4 meters long. They were exclusively antique pieces woven by nomadic or peasant women. These kilims are "tribal" art that were woven purely for use within the closely defined groups and manifest the weavers' membership in the groups. The fascination these textile works of art have for western viewers, who come from an entirely different socio-cultural] environment, lies in their often archaic appearing motifs and especially in their brilliant natural colors, which even now, after maybe 200 years or more, hardly have lost any of their luminosity and vitality.
No. 1 is a one-piece central Anatolian kilim, probably from the Nigde-Aksarav area. The white ground central field bears two rows of hexagons, dominated by double side hooks, and a central row of smaller hexagons. The colors of the adjacent double hooks change sides in the next row. In contrast to the consistent, almost identical repetition of the motif forms, the outstanding colors create a lively, dynamic interaction with the white field. Interesting comparable pieces can be found in Brüggemann, plate 12, and Cootner, plates 35-41.
No. 6 is a two-panel central Anatolian kilim. Its presence in this exhibit may be thanks to the archaic appearance of the motifs in the two rows at each end of the field. These must offer an unbelievable challenge to analysts of motifs. The faded colors, unfortunately, give the piece a somewhat tired appearance. Brüggemann, plate 62, shows a related kilim with more attractive colors.
No. 7 is a fragment of a central Anatolian kilim, whose reverse side is presented. Unlike the face, where the colors have probably changed considerably, the colors here are extremely fresh and of an almost brutal directness. A section of this fragment graced the poster for the exhibition. A similar piece is published in Petsopoulos, plate 82.
No. 10 is the middle strip of a three-panel central Anatolian kilim, probably from the Karapinar area. This type often appears stiff due to the lattice-like hooks framing the colored squares (see Brüggemann, plate 29; Petsopoulos, plate 52), but not in this example. The absence of the side panels gives the remaining central field an open character. The confusion of the hooked lattice in the pattern is heightened by the numerous holes in the fabric, causing the composition to appear even more agitated; indeed, it is impossible for the viewer of this fragment to discern what design was originally intended.
Never before exhibited, No. 12 is unique and was a high point of the exhibition. It is a two-panel, almost complete kilim with a narrow border that intrudes on the field in zigzag. Since no directly comparable piece has been published, the catalogue's attribution to eastern Anatolia must be accepted, with reservation. On the basis of the colors (especially the red-brown, violet-brown, apricot and white cotton) and the single border, I would opt for a Kurdish source. The overall impression of the piece reminds me -- despite the obvious differences -- of the kilim published in Brüggemann, plate 70. In her composition of the bands of color offset by the strongly contrasted white, the weaver has created a "swinging" rhythm. The intrusion by way of the holes of a poor color choice for the backing material hardly impinges upon the strong statement of this masterpiece.
No. 14 has only one comparable piece in the literature (Rageth, plate 5; Kirchheim, plate 102; Brüggemann, plate 79, fragments of the same kilim). In this piece, the indented X-forms are dramatically drawn, the adjacent pairs in the same color. Very successful is the variation of the rhomboids and hexagons inserted between these forms, as well as the generous borders: a kilim that elicits love at first sight.
As in previous exhibitions, flatweaves with mixed techniques have almost been excluded totally, although Brüggemann's "Yayla" was a exemplary exception.
No. 15 is a western Anatolian flatweave from the Fethiye area. It is symptomatic that the reverse side, where the colors are stronger, of this sole example of brocade and lancé techniques is shown, while in the catalogue the piece is somewhat degradated with the words "...pieces such as these were intended for everyday use." By no criteria of quality assessment are these unusual pieces less important than "mainstream" central Anatolian kilims. The sparse decoration is, however, not suitable for divining symbolic and cryptic meaning, which may be why such examples of weaving art have not found favor with the dealers who dominate the market.
A western Anatolian kilim, probably from the Denizli-Cal area, was displayed as No. 16. Again, a somewhat disrespectful comment in the catalogue reading "Early West Anatolian kilims do not have to take second place to Central Anatolian when it comes to the quality of their colour" reveals the author's belief that mainstream central Anatolian kilims are the measure of all things and western Anatolian kilims are considered to be inferior. Unfortunately, the center of this interesting example is badly damaged, which does detract from its effect. Cootner, plate 34, provides a comparison to this rare type.
 | No. 17 is, in my opinion, the absolute pinnacle of the exhibition. I have never seen such a piece! It is an almost 4 meters long, two-panel eastern Anatolian kilim with a double symmetrical composition. |
No. 26 is a fragment of an eastern Anatolian kilim with the so-called "elibelinde" motif in endless repeat. This single motif is used here in a rare asymmetric pattern. The typical eastern Anatolian palette of dominating red-brown, violet-brown, ocher-yellow and strong green radiates harmony and warmth. It seems to be taken directly from an autumn landscape.
 | No. 27 is a kilim panel from Cappadocia. |
 | No. 29, a two-panel kilim from the Konya area of central Anatolia, is surely the most restless and agitated piece in the exhibition. |
 | No. 30, finally, is a one-piece eastern Anatolian kilim. Due to various technical characteristics (thickness, flexible warp threads, end finishing, single border, colors), I would attribute it to a Kurdish rather than Anatolian source. |
No doubt, the time-consuming selection of the pieces and the work on the catalogue consumed much of the organizers' energy; unfortunately, there seems to have been less care taken with the actual presentation of the kilims. They were all carefully sewn to linen backing but, due to the insufficient height of the rooms in which they were displayed, the lower ends of several of the largest pieces were folded back so that they could not be seen completely. Technical difficulties notwithstanding, this practice can hardly be excused. If kilims are to be treated as works of art, it is not acceptable to display only part of them. Who would dare to present only four-fifths of a painting or, to follow Dr Türck's comparison with classical music, break off a symphony in the middle of the fourth movement? If no suitable rooms with higher ceilings could be found, those responsible for hanging the exhibition should have considered other ways to present the pieces in their entirety. At least, the trailing ends could have been spread out on the floor. A horizontal presentation would not have detracted from most of the items and, in the context, might even seem desirable. (Were kilims hung vertically in Anatolian home use?) Display on raised platforms could have been an alternative.
A further, serious shortcoming was the lack of good lighting. The unfiltered natural light from the large windows was only adequate in good weather, and that only lighted certain of the kilims. Someone was so clever as to hang pieces on the outside walls, directly next to the windows or even between them, so that even when the white curtains were drawn, the light shown in the viewer's eyes. A just appreciation of some of the items was thus impossible (e.g., no. 27). Use of the fluorescent ceiling fixtures was less than an improvement. Would it really have been so much trouble to install at least one spotlight to shine on each kilim? I fear that these shortcomings undermined the goal described in the introduction to the catalogue "...to contribute to the establishment of the kilim as a work of art of lasting merit."
My opening question -- why present once again mainly central Anatolian kilims -- I believe is answered by the exhibition as follows: Since the kilims shown in the exhibition and the catalogue were all previously unpublished, their presentation can be seen as an important extension and amplification of the material available. If all the pieces could not be measured against the international standard of top quality, nonetheless some outstanding items were presented, which will be valued by knowledgeable persons as surprises or discoveries.
Whether it was mere chance that the few eastern Anatolian kilims dominated the exhibition and upstaged the majority of central Anatolian ones is something everyone has to decide for himself or herself. For my part, I see in this the (probably unintended) beginning of the swan-song for the consideration of central Anatolian kilims as the non-plus-ultra.
In summary, one must judge the exhibition by the "Freundeskreis orientalischer Teppiche und Textilien in Westfalen," a relatively small, regional group of collectors, as a success. Although the shortcomings in the presentation lessen the viewer's ability to fully appreciate of the art displayed, the exhibition should not have been missed, and the catalogue is a "must" for collectors of Anatolian kilims and is also to be recommended for all those who are interested in oriental textiles, indeed in art at all.
The exhibition opening was attended by a large, international crowd, including important collectors, dealers, and scholars of kilims. The reasonably priced catalogue is readily available.
Ulrich Ahlheim is an artist as well as collector and dealer of oriental carpets and textiles in Dortmund, Germany.
Mighty, baroque walls rise from the water of the broad moat that both protects and embellishes the castle, which seems twice as tall high thanks to its reflection in the water. Long before the industrial age, this fertile area of Westfalia was marked by agricultural prosperity and the landed nobility could afford castle-like homes. There are many moated castles in Westfalia but the upkeep of these centuries-old buildings devours immense sums. Some owners, such as those of Lembeck Castle, have opened their homes to the public and make the large, high rooms available for cultural events.
When I visited Lembeck in June, water was not just all around it but also coming from above. It rained for days! The sun was not to be seen, nor even located, behind the low-hanging clouds. It was depressing! But once inside, up the creaking stairs, in the high exhibition rooms, all my north German melancholy disappeared. Even in the subdued daylight, the cheerful colors of the central Anatolian kilims glowed. For those who know, love, and treasure the colors of Anatolian kilims, this exhibition was a special treat for the eyes. Even for entirely inexperienced visitors -- such as the cyclers who were just escaping from the rain and found themselves looking at the kilims simply to pass time -- it was a real pleasure. Industriously they filled out the questionnaire, "Which kilim do you like best?" and so on.
Not a single kilim has poor colors; none is tiresome or unsatisfying. Here no plain blue and red Yünçu hangs; no dull, indigo-sulfon-based greens are to be seen; not a single early aniline dye has snuck in. The rich palette of the warm colors of central Anatolian kilims rules. But there is one kilim from southeastern Anatolia with a cool cochineal red. For this courageous choice, I especially wish to congratulate the selection committee: Udo Hirsch, Ulrich Türck, and Dietmar Pelz.
All the kilims come from the collections of the members of the Freundeskreis orientaler Teppiche und Textilien in Westfalen, a rug society of which Dr. Pelz is president. More than 100 pieces were submitted for the first sorting; 60 survived to the second round; and 30 were finally selected for the exhibition and illustration in the catalogue. The anonymous selection process resulted, in most cases, in unanimous decisions, no doubt as result of the jurors' long experience with hundreds of Anatolian kilims; they were in agreement that color should have precedence over design.
In this exhibition, one approached the Anatolian kilim entirely and solely on the basis of aesthetics, especially the aesthetics of color. Here, in contrast with the Yayla exhibit in Berlin and Frankfurt in 1993, there was no effort to present "missing links" for esoteric theories about designs; therefore, no concessions in the aesthetic quality of the choices were made. The beauty of the individual colors and their harmonious combination with each other was the primary consideration. The combination of yellow, violet, and madder red is simply irresistible for the connoisseur of central Anatolian kilims and rugs, even if there are only plain stripes of these seductive colors! The reverse side of a few of the kilims were even shown, to present the unfaded colors. Good natural dyes do not fade entirely over even hundreds of years, but they do become subdued. The colors on the reverse side of a kilim are closer to the original intensity. This decision, to show the back side of the kilims, testifies to the exhibitors' bold emphasis on color.
None of the kilims in this exhibition has been restored. All are in more or less thin and fragmentary state, washed and sewn on linen backing. This treatment is completely satisfactory. The reviewer had to ask himself whether a complete kilim, much less one without patina or traces of use, i.e., one that had lain for decades or centuries in the often mentioned Anatolian trousseau chest, would have even a chance of getting into this exhibit. Perhaps, in this group in Westfalia; otherwise, they would not have had to show the reverse of some of the kilims. But esteem and high aesthetic classification of the fragment, of mere wear, of apparently visible age, is a trend of the times that has a strong following. Bertram Frauenknecht made the fragment acceptable in the 1980s. In David Black's trailblazing book in 1977, The Undiscovered Kelim, all the kilims are complete!
Since fragments are now marketable, and because of their handier size, it is understandable that the trade is providing them; from one make two, or better three! The practice results in a puzzle that bridges continents, when, for example, collectors in Europe and America compare photos and discover that they apparently have pieces of the same kilim!
The kilim illustrated in plate 24 of the exhibition catalogue (Illustration . ) shows a profusion of harmonious color combinations in 12 rhomboids on 12 fields. In the illustration, this large kilim (3.77 m long) may appear pale, but a closeup of one of the rhomboids, shown full page in the catalogue, demonstrates the unsurpassed glory of the colors, the intensity and harmony of just one of these 12 fields. Ulrich Türck, author of the catalogue, gives Cappadocia as the source of this kilim, not Karapinar, as is usual. Six other kilims are also attributed to Cappadocia. From their colors, they all are very similar to the knotted, yellow ground, so-called "Konya rugs"1. These rugs do not come from Konya, as we now know, but rather from mosques in Kappadocia, the famous volcanic limestone area in central Turkey with painted underground churches and cloisters, that until 1923 had a mixed Moslem and Christian population. Thus, because of their colors, these kilims have been attributed to Cappadocia. Apparently there were no other reasons for this classification.
PIate 29 (Illustration ...) shows a kilim with a yellow-to-gold colored field, very like the color on Cappadocian rugs (but strangely attributed to Konya instead of Cappadocia). The intensity of the color is apparent even on the small reproduction of this more than 4 meter long kilim. The rhomboid on the left half with the green border of hooks on the orange-yellow field especially strikes the eye. This kilim is paler on its reverse side. Apparently it lay with that side up for quite some time. It is unusual to find older kilims with color-fast natural dyes whose fronts have been protected in this way. Often newer kilims with synthetic dyes are handled in this way2 because the producers -- Yürüks -- have learned that the chemical dyes fade quite quickly. The "right" side should keep its colors longer, and is only turned up for special occasions, like weddings or circumcision celebrations, when the splendor of the colors is shown off.
The two piece kilim in plate 4 (Illustration ), of which only the central portion remains, is impressive not just for the various combinations of patinated colors but also for the four powerful hexagonal motifs with hooks. These make an archaic impression; they could be the origin for this rare type. But they probably belong to an offshoot in the history of this pattern. In the eyes of the weaver, the work is also not perfect, since the two halves do not aline accurately.
The exhibition demonstrates that, despite the volume of works published on Anatolian kilims, still unknown forms and types are being discovered. An example of this is the kilim with a black ground in plate 30 (Illustration ). The simple comb-like elements in yellow, violet red, red-brown, medium and dark blue, turquoise and white leap from the dark background towards the viewer. Although no system for the distribution of the colors can be recognized, the piece does not appear confused. The yellow border reins in the wildness in the middle and holds it all together. Due to the great interest in the exhibition it was extended, but only a relative few of the world-wide conununity of kilim enthusiasts will have been able to make their way to Lembeck castle in Westfatia. There is a consolation for those who could not get there. A catalogue in German and English with color reproductions of all the items and two full-page close-ups is available for DM 98 from Uta Hülsey (Postfach 100034, D-45461 Wesel) or from the publisher, Dr. Dietmar Pelz (Finger & Pelz, Postfach 101041, 45010 Essen). The catalogue is not just a picture book with excellent photos by Udo Hirsch but also has a 30-page essay by Ulrich Türck which is well worth reading and will, no doubt, again enliven the discussion of Anatolian kilims. The chapters are titled "Arrival of the Kilim in the West," "On the Aesthetics of the Kilim," "The Anatolian Kilim in its Historical and Ethnological Context," "The Question of the Origins of the Kilim." The last chapter has sub-headings: "The Neolithic Theory," "The Turkmen Theory," "Discussion of the Theories." The texts are based on in-depth study of the available literature, as over 100 footnotes attest. They are comprehensive, but not boring, and are clearly written. The presentation of the various theories about design sources is limited to the essentials, is balanced and not polemic. Ulrich Türck's contribution is another milestone in the still young attempts at an understanding of Anatolian kilims and really deserves a separate critique. The following, due to its brevity, is inadequate. I hope, however, that it will entice readers to inspect Türck's original text so that they can form their own opinions.
According to Ulrich Türck, the quality of a kilim can best been determined from aesthetic values. Aspects such as age, rarity, design, and source are secondary. He admits that an aesthetic judgment of kilims is, to a large degree, emotional and subjective. Agreement in the aesthetic judgment by different persons comes only with long common experience and intense visual training. The three-man jury for the selection of this exhibition experienced this. There was no effort made to detail concrete criteria for the aesthetic judgment of Anatolian kilims. It was only emphasized that the quality of the colors had precedence, color rather than form.
In the following chapters, "The Anatolian Kilim in its Historical and Ethnological Context" and "The Question of the Origins of the Kilim," the author offers an abundance of information from the literature and presents arguments for his thesis that the present Anatolians are still predominantly descendents of the original Anatolian population, which was absorbed by the Turkoman immigrants, even though the latters' language predominated. His conclusion culminates in the statement: "The Anatolian weaving groups are not simply Central Asian Turkomans but Anatolians carrying on the traditions passed down to them before and after their Turkification." In the discussion of the various theories about the source and derivation of kilim patterns and motifs, Türck's own position shimmers through. He considers the Turkoman theory to be weakly founded, leans rather to the neolithic theory, and would prefer that this be called the Anatolian theory which he feels is more appropriate. Since a neolithic basis for kilim designs has not yet been scientifically documented, Türck would not go back so far but still as far back as the Phrygian period in Anatolia i.e., into the 7th century B.C.
With this exhibition catalogue, Ulrich Türck has entered the "kilim arena" as a new "matador." The reader will await new contributions from him, in order to be able to enjoy glorious discussions and arguments -- free of polemic, of course.
I would like to congratulate the "Freundeskreis orientalische Teppiche und Textilien in Westfalen" in general, its president, Dietmar Pelz, and especially and specifically Ulrich Türck, the author of the catalogue for the exhibition Anatolian Kilims in Lembeck Castle. As one who has seen all the amjor kilim exhibitions in recent years, I feel Lembeck Castle was well worth the trip.
