Crossed weaving refers to the method of offsetting the warp strands between each successive weft strand, so that as the carpet is knotted, the foundation is concurrently woven into a stable fabric in its own right (albeit a coarse one). It then follows that uncrossed weaving, does not employ the warp offset, and thus does not weave a stable fabric. Removing the knots from a crossed woven rug would reveal this woven fabric, whereas removing the knots from an uncrossed woven rug would reveal perpendicular warp and weft strands that are not interwoven, existing in two different distinct planes. That is what we are talking about, but is it important? Depends on whom you ask.
Historically speaking, crossed weaving is the time honoured construction method, presumably developed through generations of weavers passing this knowledge down to each successive generation, which is how Tibetan weave carpets were made until the last few years. Uncrossed weaving on the other hand represents a newer weaving method (some would argue it is not even weaving, rather a construction technique) that saves on time and labor, is easier to weave, and produces a product which is aesthetically indiscernible from crossed weaving. So, just as previous generations developed crossed weaving, is this just another innovation in weaving to be passed down to the next generation? Again, it depends on whom you ask.
Whom should we ask? The weaver? The importer? The salesman (or saleswoman)? The customer? Each one has different answers, different concerns, and different reasons for caring (or not). What then do you get when you ask me?
I feel the "uncrossed technique" is an innovative time and cost saving construction method, allowing manufacturers and importers to deliver carpets in a more timely manner, and at a slightly lower price point than those using "crossed woven" construction. I do not however feel that it is weaving (as in truth no weaving is taking place), and given my experience - and maybe a little instinct - I feel that crossed weaving represents a more enduring construction method over the uncrossed technique. Once the pile is worn to the warp and weft, the uncrossed technique carpet will presumably loose integrity across its width and fail. I do not have data to firmly back this up, and pose an open challenge to the industry to subject two carpets, one of each method, to destructive wear testing as a comparison, to definitively answer this question.
All of that being said though, the salesman in me asks: "Who cares?" In truth, I believe that most carpets produced and sold in today's (North American) marketplace are sold decoratively, where style, aesthetic, and price, not longevity are factors. Will the carpet be able to be passed down to the next generation? The answer is: "Will the next generation want it?" Within this environment I feel that we (as salesmen and saleswomen) owe it to our customers (and to ourselves from an ethical standpoint) to know of the difference and to pass that knowledge on. Everyone - salesman, importer, customer, et alia - should be aware of the differences, including that an uncrossed carpet should be priced inherently less than a crossed woven carpet, all other factors being equal. Even with this transparency, I feel that aesthetic and price will still dominate the purchasing decision.
Of course I am not just a salesman, but also a consumer. Would I buy an uncrossed technique carpet for myself? For the answer to that I'd invite you to visit my home and see what carpets are on my floors for yourself.
4 comments:
This is a subject some in the Tibetan rug industry are very passionate about. It would be interesting to poll the major importers and publish a list of which use which weaving method.
The results might just be very enlightening!
Hooray to the Ruggist for having the guts to even begin addressing the issue that should loom large in the industry. One point to clarify- to my knowledge , and I would challenge anyone to prove otherwise, there has never been an 'oriental' rug woven in the history of mankind that did not have a crossed foundation. This makes "jufti" knotting look like Swiss watchmaking compared to "uncrossed".
A couple of other points are glossed over in most discussions of uncrossed weaving: the impact on weavers' livelihoods who become complicit in making rugs that will inevitably be compared unfavorably with historical standards; the decreased wages and lengthened hours of their labor necessary to make the same amount of money weaving 'uncrossed"; the almost 100% total "outsourcing" now of Nepal production- driven by demands for cheaper and faster- outsourcing which removes producers from the responsibility of close control over the conditions in which their rugs are being produced- leading to dirty, crowded, underlit factories, cranking out uncrossed product from before dawn until 10 o'clock at night. Anyone who thinks this doesn't go on has absolutely no experience on the ground over there.
See the last two issues of Hali, the international rug journal-the "bible" of oriental rugs from London, for more in-depth analysis of "uncrossed" weaving.
Do we really want a bastardized oriental rug (more of a tufted rug really) becoming the standard? - after Nepal has risen from the bottom of the rug weaving barrel to right near the top in people's minds? Do you want your house to have a foundation that isn't secure?
This all can be changed in 24 hrs. by a producer-- Just start weaving "crossed" again. It's that simple, go back to the way it was always done. Give the industry, and the customer their money's worth.
Michael,
Thanks for starting this forum. Your take on this subject is spot on.
I think what makes a tibetan rug is not just the knot but the foundation as well. if an Italian weaves a "tibetan style" rug it should be called as such, and they can do what ever they like, but when tibetan weaves a rug it should be respected and done correctly. I am for doing the job right and if it is done other wise, letting client know what they are getting.
Post a Comment