To embrace modern design and all which it entails is to place oneself at the uneasy crux betwixt the past and the future; only by first examining thoroughly what has been done before prior to folding in the techniques, materials, and technology of today can the modernist craft something in tune with the requirements of this era. By discarding faux notions of aesthetics defined as traditional, modern, contemporary, or the most lazy minded transitional, et alia the modernist designs and crafts for the needs and wants of today – not falsely defined conformist visages meant to bind us to the past instead of lead us to the future. Modernity is not tied to style, looks, embellishments, ornamentations, nor the like. Rather it is an ephemeral moment which captures the zeitgeist of civilization.
It’s like smoke from incense wafting delicately in the still air. One moment there, the next gone, forgotten except in memory or, if one was so fortunate, captured by photography or other media including, as it must, handknotted rugs or carpets. Philosophically and artistically one should then ponder if another piece can be made the same? If indeed impermanence adds perceived value, then does it not behoove the modern carpetor or carpetrix to strive to forge a newfound work in ones oeuvre as opposed to repetitively revisiting the past? Moreover, where is that line drawn? Are carpets as art – a noble and grand sentiment – Warholian in nature or are they more singular? I would like to think the great modernist carpets of this time – and truthfully any – resoundingly favour the latter.