The Carpets of Nepal, Part I - The Ruggist

The Carpets of Nepal | Part I

As an industry we bring modernity with all of its inconsequential demands to a place where subsistence agrarian culture still dominates the economy, where manual labour is a way of life, and were exploitation (in wide ranging and various forms) is still a major concern. We also have the ability to bring hope, compassion, understanding, and as I’ve called for, real empathy for the Nepali people. We do this by honouring them for all that they’ve done for us, and by continuing to work with them as they rebuild their country. They are a “patient, studious, artistic, nuanced and extremely hard working people, and I would not be who I am without them.” says Tom DeMarco of Kooches, speaking words universal to any serious designer of modern carpets. With that, The Ruggist presents a photographic journey that explores the best of Nepali made carpets.

Read more
Exploring Copyright - The Ruggist

Exploring Copyright

A look at copyright through the intentional act of copying the concept of a design.

A valued reader and nouveau friend recently brought to my attention that my last article on copyright had a certain ‘Groundhog’s Day’- esque nature to it. For those of you not in the know, ‘Groundhog’s Day’ is a wonderful (and nostalgic for me: I’ve been to Punxsutawney!!) movie staring Bill Murray that explores the meaning of life through the ad nauseum repeated reliving of one day. In the end Bill Murray’s character comes to some dramatic life altering realizations, but not of course before having some fun; it is a comedy after all. But I digress. When I first read his email I thought ‘Who the hell is he calling repetitive?’ but before I could type a response in so many words, my brain had already begun to contemplate what he was saying. I quickly came to realize the point my astute reader was attempting to make is that ‘Copyright This!’ and ‘Copyright this! Again?’ are strikingly similar, and though this was not intentional it seems only appropriate that a serialized article on knockoffs and copyright would reduce itself to such a state. After all, the nuances of copyright are nearly without bounds and the subtleties are enough to make you want to smash your head between a door and door jam – repeatedly, ad nauseum, like that movie. In the end we just end up talking (at painful length) about the various permutations of what is the very short version of the issue of copyright (in the rug industry): Talented (or otherwise) people create great carpets which in turn are made by others whom we shall call greedy and lazy, which I’ve said already; again, like that movie. It’s as though I am making this intentionally repetitive at this point. No? It’s as though I am making this intentionally repetitive at this point. Oh wait….

Read more
'Copyright This!' - Creative Matters Nova Platinum - The Ruggist

Copyright This!

Is a designed inspired by another or a copy thereof? Is there a difference?

Perhaps it best to begin where the prologue that was my last article left off. As you will recall, I introduced the topic of copyright, and specifically asked: ‘What happens when one manufacturer impersonates the style and aesthetic of another?’ The short answer is found in the article I wrote for the Winter 2013 Issue of COVER magazine (along with Ben Evans and Jessica Franses – Full Disclosure: I was paid for the article.): A knockoff is copying – theft – and it is wrong. My opinion on flagrant and blatant copying is clear, but there are of course an endless myriad of permutations between copying and – to the other extreme – the unattainable ideal of pure original creation, and it is the discussion of this spectrum that is integral to the topic at hand.

Read more