Click Here for Larger Photos
I was asked a while back, on the Turkotek rug discussion board, to compare these four Konya kilims, and discuss their design evolution. First of all, I should say that every different kilim genre requires a slightly different kind of analysis, so that comments regarding these pieces may not apply to any other group.  I must also note that design differences which seem glaring when one is confronted by huge, 12-foot kilims are minimized greatly when the pieces are reduced to small photos. These four kilims range from the earliest piece on the left, to the latest on the right. With this group, the first factor to consider is the relationship between the primary and secondary motifs in each piece, and the ways they occupied the space. The most carefully considered placements are present in #1 and #2. Most of these small hooked medallions were carefully placed in pairs to fit alongside the indentations of the large medallions. They were important auxiliary design elements. By the time the #3 kilim weaver came along, that relationship had been lost and small secondary hooked medallions were just squeezed in--as many as would fit, making a busy background. By the time this major theme was adopted by the #4 weaver, any meaningful relationship between primary and secondary motifs was completely lost. When we consider spatial relationships and proportions, most often in the earliest pieces there was a tendency for the artisan to give each separate motif plenty of room, because when weaving without a cartoon or model, it's hard to calculate their placement. When building a kilim design from bottom to top, it is oftentimes quite difficult to locate the exact proper starting point for each downward projecting design part. The weaver of kilim #1 here was  cautious and methodical; she was extraordinarily concerned with clarity and with the dominance of her primary motifs. In order to retain a sense of stability and continuity in her rather wide-open layout, she injected very small hexagonal tertiary motifs. By the time of kilim #2,  the major motifs were broadened and everything had become more compact. Closely packed parts are much easier to handle if the weaver has either experience with the design or a model on hand to copy. Very small tertiary motifs are present again in this kilim, but they were no longer so necessary for continuity or evenness of tone in the patterning. The weaver of this bold piece seems to have been far more concerned with connectivity, and the presentation of ONE large coherent statement, instead of a mere series of repetitive parts. There was a quite different attitude toward the design. Small scattered bits and pieces seem to have been inserted because such "fillers" were an "expected" part of this traditional layout, but here they seem like extraneous clutter. By the time the weaver of #3 came along, the carefully planned relationship between primary and secondary motifs was lost, size relationships changed, and the placement of small hooked medallions became arbitrary. Even half medallions were injected, simply to fill background spaces. The proportions of the parts changed and the hierarchy of these various parts was substantially altered. Instead of the spare refinement of the first piece, we find, in the third kilim, squat hooked hexagons with a busy background of fussy and relatively insignificant secondary features. Both #1 and #2 kilims have consistent and well articulated motifs throughout. Number 1, which I would guess to be a 17th century piece, conveys a sense of restraint and elegance--with careful, rather pinched and isolated motifs that are combined with logic and clarity. I would expect there to have been a significant time gap between this first piece and #2, with its more generous forms and large, bold statement. It seems quite characteristic of the synthesis that occurred in many 18th and very early 19th century Konya area pieces. #3, most likely a mid- to late 19th century piece, displays a less logical, much more intuitive rendering of the basic idea. The same parts are present, but they were used in a more careless manner. In kilim #4, which I would suggest is a 20th century piece, all consistency and any clear logical relationships between the elements are gone. It's just a collection of separate parts and pieces plopped on a large white panel, with little thought given to any integration of the parts. It's a "traditional" piece in name only. The transition has thus run its course from a strong concept through gradually more mannered, hackneyed renditions. Though the same motifs are present in these four kilims, they are four radically different artistic expressions. The first is regal, the second  is bold and dynamic, the third is dowdy, and the most recent is disjointed and bland. The critical differences are in style and attitude--not primarily in the way individual motifs are formed. The relationships between positive and negative space are always important in slit-tapestry design...That's more complicated to discuss with these pieces than with some other types. This goes beyond the simple consideration of reciprocal motifs. Relationships between border systems and field are normally important in making stylistic comparisons. Here, since kilim #3 is missing its borders, unfortunately, we have to ignore this aspect. Beyond these observations, when speculating on dates and even proper sequencing, it is immensely helpful to compare these pieces to the general aesthetic displayed by groups of other kilims from the same general geographic area. Well, one could go on and on, and speak in esoteric terms of the "spirit" of each piece or the conceptual notion behind each composition; I've tried to refrain from that this time around. It's impossible to talk intelligently about color with just these photos, as both book plates and on-line JPEGS can be misleading. Likewise, without either handling the kilims or at least seeing excellent close-up photos, it is impossible to consider the critical relationships between weave balance and patterning that is such an important part of the aesthetic development in kilims. After all, these are WOVEN STRUCTURES, not just flat patterning. The scale of each weave element is critical in fashioning the pattern. The way the whole series of scale relationships are handled within a piece should be an integral part of one's judgment. Within each generation of weavers there were artists, there were competent craftsmen, and there were women who simply produced kilims because that was expected of them. Considerations of artistry and excellence of design must be separate from judgments concerning age and design evolution. We cannot assume that designs always deteriorated...that quality was always spiraling downward. When copywork is involved, artistic degeneration can be expected. But whenever a creative individual produced her own fresh take on an old idea, or took off on her own, there was a good chance of superior results. This is only a quick evaluation. With the pieces at hand, and more time, one could surely produce a better summary.