Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Few points.

Expand Messages
  • Feridun Ozgoren
    Greetings, Thanks to Oğuzhan and Iris for their comments on this issue. Thanks also for Ms. Büyüksezer’s comments on the history of marbling, on which I
    Message 1 of 5 , Sep 9, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Greetings,
      Thanks to Oğuzhan and Iris for their comments on this issue.
      Thanks also for Ms. Büyüksezer’s comments on the history of marbling, on which I would like to make a few comments.
      On page 47 of his book entitled “The Art of Marbled Paper, Marbled Patterns and How to Make Them,” Mr. Miura describes the “Turkish marble” pattern. The names he provides do not exist in the Turkish ebru vocabulary; one never hears or reads of a design called “Taş Ebrusu” (Stone Marble).
      It is my understanding that Mr. Miura uses the term “Turkish Marble” to describe any pattern which resembles what is called “Battal ebru” in Turkish. However, another problem arises. The samples Mr. Miura provides on pages 47-49 are not Turkish Battal ebrus, instead, they are “veined” patterns. To my knowledge Turkish marblers did not use any of the ingredients (wine sprits, soap etc.) neccessary to produce these veined patterns.
      He asserts the pattern originated in the 15th century: however, he does not give any evidence to support his assertion, or any source for this information. In any case, they do not resemble the documented mid 16th century marbled papers made in Turkey. We also have no knowledge of any 15th century marbled paper made in Turkey.
      On page 13, Miura mentions F.R. Martin and H. Taherzade Behzad’s works’ on history of marbling . According to Miura "F.R.Martin describes marbled pictures created around 1500 AD”. We know however that Martin did not provide any evidence for this statement. H. Taherzade Behzad’s statement on the other hand is as follows; “Marbleized paper, called abri in Persia or ‘shadow paper’ has been used from at least the fifteenth century for the borders of pages, for the inside of bookbindings and sometimes for the page itself, the calligrapher choosing this as the background for his fine writing.” Unfortunatly Mr. Taherzade does not give any information or provide any samples to substantiate his assertion either.
      The images presented in Richard J. Wolf's book (Plate XXVI, 44-48) are "The simpler patterns shown on Plate XXVI are indicative of the designs that were produced in Germany from about the 1730's on...." (p.182). Here Wolf simply refers to the use of battal like patterns in Germany starting in the early 18th century, and not the creation of them in the 15th century in Turkey.
      As for the issue of the earliest ebrus; Richard J. Wolf states “There are reports, however, that a form of our modern marbling was being practised in Turkestan in the thirteenth century and in Samarkand, Herat, and other regions east of Persia in the early decades of the fourteenth century". (p.8). Mr. Wolf does not identify what reports he is referring to. In a related footnote (note 33) he again states that "references to marbling in areas east of Persia at a very early time appear in several works on Persian art" but again he does not provide any references.
      Wolf's subsequent discussion in note 33 shows that he has been drawing information from books by Albert Haemmerle, Mehmet Ali Kağıtçı, and Uğur Derman. All of these authors, like Wolf himself, do not substantiate their claims for the dates and/or places regarding the earliest ebrus. For example, Wolfe says (p. 8) "In any event, ebru came to serve several important functions in the Selçuk and Ottoman Empires". Here Mr. Wolf is basing his information about ebru having been made in the Selçuk Empire on Mehmet Ali Kağıtçı’s article entitled “Turkish Marbling.” Mr. Kağıtçı states that “The technique of Akkase-Ebru (clear reserve) was applied upon request of the Sultan of Khorasan, Hüsseyin Baykara (1438-1506 AD) in Samarkand and Herad, and this technique was then improved by the Seljukide and Ottoman Persians."
      Since the Selçuk Empire had ceased to exist in the very begining of the 14th century Kağıtçı's account can not be correct. Hüseyin Baykara's reign post-dates the Selçuk Empire, the earlier Selçuks would not have been improving upon art forms of Sultan Husseyin's later era. Mr. Kağıtçı also fails to provide any evidence, or any historical marbling samples, for his assertions. Mr.Wolf is using Kağıtçı's account as a source, but a simple check on the dates of the Selçuk Empire would have revealed the error made by Kağıtçı.
      As Ms. Büyüksezer writes, “Albert Haemmerle suggests that art forms resembling marbling were seen in China as early as the Ming Dynasty (14th-17th Century)”. By making this assertion without providing any written source or any historical samples as evidence, Mr. Haemmerle adds just another rumor to the ocean of rumors about the history of marbling.
      Ms. Büyüksezer also writes "Chinese professor Tsuen-hsuin Tsien, who has studied the subject extensively, also believes that the earliest style of marbling originates from the Chinese." Prof. Tsuen-hsuin Tsien indeed supports his statement with a Chinese text, a paragraph from Wen Fan Si Pu, a book written by Su Yijian (953-996 AD). Papers decorated with the method this paragraph describes are called liu sha jian which means "drifting sand" or "flowing sand." Prof. Tsuen-hsuin Tsien concludes by saying "that is how marbled paper was done." I find this huge leap from liu sha jian to marbled paper quite imaginative.
      I am aware of the scholarly efforts to establish a linear model for marbling history starting with liu sha jian in China, then Suminagashi in Japan, following with ebru in Turkestan, İran, and Turkey; and finally arriving in Europe and America as marbling. This linear model is not based on any datable sample of works or reliable evidence for linking liu sha jian to suminagashi, and suminagashi to ebru and marbling as we know it.
      It is easy to see that marbling did not start in Europe, as some suggested; and it is easy to say that we do not exactly know when and where marbling emerged. I am seriously disappointed by the efforts of many scholars and authors to fit the history of marbling into a model they hope is true but for which they cannot provide any evidence.
      History written without evidence is merely a story.
      Best wishes to all,
      Feridun Özgören




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • irisnevins
      Thanks for all this.... maybe we will never know fully, it would be nice to have all the information, but we can only go by the examples or written accounts we
      Message 2 of 5 , Sep 9, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks for all this.... maybe we will never know fully, it would be nice to have all the information, but we can only go by the examples or written accounts we do have.
        Iris Nevins
        www.marblingpaper.com<http://www.marblingpaper.com/>
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Feridun Ozgoren<mailto:feridun.ozgoren@...>
        To: Marbling@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Marbling@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 10:12 PM
        Subject: [Marbling] Few points.




        Greetings,
        Thanks to Oğuzhan and Iris for their comments on this issue.
        Thanks also for Ms. Büyüksezer’s comments on the history of marbling, on which I would like to make a few comments.
        On page 47 of his book entitled “The Art of Marbled Paper, Marbled Patterns and How to Make Them,” Mr. Miura describes the “Turkish marble” pattern. The names he provides do not exist in the Turkish ebru vocabulary; one never hears or reads of a design called “Taş Ebrusu” (Stone Marble).
        It is my understanding that Mr. Miura uses the term “Turkish Marble” to describe any pattern which resembles what is called “Battal ebru” in Turkish. However, another problem arises. The samples Mr. Miura provides on pages 47-49 are not Turkish Battal ebrus, instead, they are “veined” patterns. To my knowledge Turkish marblers did not use any of the ingredients (wine sprits, soap etc.) neccessary to produce these veined patterns.
        He asserts the pattern originated in the 15th century: however, he does not give any evidence to support his assertion, or any source for this information. In any case, they do not resemble the documented mid 16th century marbled papers made in Turkey. We also have no knowledge of any 15th century marbled paper made in Turkey.
        On page 13, Miura mentions F.R. Martin and H. Taherzade Behzad’s works’ on history of marbling . According to Miura "F.R.Martin describes marbled pictures created around 1500 AD”. We know however that Martin did not provide any evidence for this statement. H. Taherzade Behzad’s statement on the other hand is as follows; “Marbleized paper, called abri in Persia or ‘shadow paper’ has been used from at least the fifteenth century for the borders of pages, for the inside of bookbindings and sometimes for the page itself, the calligrapher choosing this as the background for his fine writing.” Unfortunatly Mr. Taherzade does not give any information or provide any samples to substantiate his assertion either.
        The images presented in Richard J. Wolf's book (Plate XXVI, 44-48) are "The simpler patterns shown on Plate XXVI are indicative of the designs that were produced in Germany from about the 1730's on...." (p.182). Here Wolf simply refers to the use of battal like patterns in Germany starting in the early 18th century, and not the creation of them in the 15th century in Turkey.
        As for the issue of the earliest ebrus; Richard J. Wolf states “There are reports, however, that a form of our modern marbling was being practised in Turkestan in the thirteenth century and in Samarkand, Herat, and other regions east of Persia in the early decades of the fourteenth century". (p.8). Mr. Wolf does not identify what reports he is referring to. In a related footnote (note 33) he again states that "references to marbling in areas east of Persia at a very early time appear in several works on Persian art" but again he does not provide any references.
        Wolf's subsequent discussion in note 33 shows that he has been drawing information from books by Albert Haemmerle, Mehmet Ali Kağıtçı, and Uğur Derman. All of these authors, like Wolf himself, do not substantiate their claims for the dates and/or places regarding the earliest ebrus. For example, Wolfe says (p. 8) "In any event, ebru came to serve several important functions in the Selçuk and Ottoman Empires". Here Mr. Wolf is basing his information about ebru having been made in the Selçuk Empire on Mehmet Ali Kağıtçı’s article entitled “Turkish Marbling.” Mr. Kağıtçı states that “The technique of Akkase-Ebru (clear reserve) was applied upon request of the Sultan of Khorasan, Hüsseyin Baykara (1438-1506 AD) in Samarkand and Herad, and this technique was then improved by the Seljukide and Ottoman Persians."
        Since the Selçuk Empire had ceased to exist in the very begining of the 14th century Kağıtçı's account can not be correct. Hüseyin Baykara's reign post-dates the Selçuk Empire, the earlier Selçuks would not have been improving upon art forms of Sultan Husseyin's later era. Mr. Kağıtçı also fails to provide any evidence, or any historical marbling samples, for his assertions. Mr.Wolf is using Kağıtçı's account as a source, but a simple check on the dates of the Selçuk Empire would have revealed the error made by Kağıtçı.
        As Ms. Büyüksezer writes, “Albert Haemmerle suggests that art forms resembling marbling were seen in China as early as the Ming Dynasty (14th-17th Century)”. By making this assertion without providing any written source or any historical samples as evidence, Mr. Haemmerle adds just another rumor to the ocean of rumors about the history of marbling.
        Ms. Büyüksezer also writes "Chinese professor Tsuen-hsuin Tsien, who has studied the subject extensively, also believes that the earliest style of marbling originates from the Chinese." Prof. Tsuen-hsuin Tsien indeed supports his statement with a Chinese text, a paragraph from Wen Fan Si Pu, a book written by Su Yijian (953-996 AD). Papers decorated with the method this paragraph describes are called liu sha jian which means "drifting sand" or "flowing sand." Prof. Tsuen-hsuin Tsien concludes by saying "that is how marbled paper was done." I find this huge leap from liu sha jian to marbled paper quite imaginative.
        I am aware of the scholarly efforts to establish a linear model for marbling history starting with liu sha jian in China, then Suminagashi in Japan, following with ebru in Turkestan, İran, and Turkey; and finally arriving in Europe and America as marbling. This linear model is not based on any datable sample of works or reliable evidence for linking liu sha jian to suminagashi, and suminagashi to ebru and marbling as we know it.
        It is easy to see that marbling did not start in Europe, as some suggested; and it is easy to say that we do not exactly know when and where marbling emerged. I am seriously disappointed by the efforts of many scholars and authors to fit the history of marbling into a model they hope is true but for which they cannot provide any evidence.
        History written without evidence is merely a story.
        Best wishes to all,
        Feridun Özgören




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



        ------------------------------------

        Yahoo! Groups Links





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • nihan buyuksezer
        Thank you. I only wanted to mention some sourches which agree on the 15.th century but ofcourse the details for different patterns can be discussed.
        Message 3 of 5 , Sep 10, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Thank you. I only wanted to mention some sourches which agree on the 15.th
          century but ofcourse the details for different patterns can be discussed.
          Respectfully,
          Nihan Büyüksezer






          ________________________________
          From: irisnevins <irisnevins@...>
          To: Marbling@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Fri, September 10, 2010 6:10:54 AM
          Subject: Re: [Marbling] Few points.


          Thanks for all this.... maybe we will never know fully, it would be nice to have
          all the information, but we can only go by the examples or written accounts we
          do have.

          Iris Nevins
          www.marblingpaper.com<http://www.marblingpaper.com/>
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Feridun Ozgoren<mailto:feridun.ozgoren@...>
          To: Marbling@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Marbling@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 10:12 PM
          Subject: [Marbling] Few points.

          Greetings,
          Thanks to Oğuzhan and Iris for their comments on this issue.
          Thanks also for Ms. Büyüksezer’s comments on the history of marbling, on which I
          would like to make a few comments.
          On page 47 of his book entitled “The Art of Marbled Paper, Marbled Patterns and
          How to Make Them,” Mr. Miura describes the “Turkish marble” pattern. The
          names he provides do not exist in the Turkish ebru vocabulary; one never hears
          or reads of a design called “Taş Ebrusu” (Stone Marble).

          It is my understanding that Mr. Miura uses the term “Turkish Marble” to describe
          any pattern which resembles what is called “Battal ebru” in Turkish. However,
          another problem arises. The samples Mr. Miura provides on pages 47-49 are not
          Turkish Battal ebrus, instead, they are “veined” patterns. To my knowledge
          Turkish marblers did not use any of the ingredients (wine sprits, soap etc.)
          neccessary to produce these veined patterns.

          He asserts the pattern originated in the 15th century: however, he does not
          give any evidence to support his assertion, or any source for this information.
          In any case, they do not resemble the documented mid 16th century marbled papers
          made in Turkey. We also have no knowledge of any 15th century marbled paper
          made in Turkey.

          On page 13, Miura mentions F.R. Martin and H. Taherzade Behzad’s works’ on
          history of marbling . According to Miura "F.R.Martin describes marbled pictures
          created around 1500 AD”. We know however that Martin did not provide any
          evidence for this statement. H. Taherzade Behzad’s statement on the other hand
          is as follows; “Marbleized paper, called abri in Persia or ‘shadow paper’ has
          been used from at least the fifteenth century for the borders of pages, for the
          inside of bookbindings and sometimes for the page itself, the calligrapher
          choosing this as the background for his fine writing.” Unfortunatly Mr.
          Taherzade does not give any information or provide any samples to substantiate
          his assertion either.
          The images presented in Richard J. Wolf's book (Plate XXVI, 44-48) are "The
          simpler patterns shown on Plate XXVI are indicative of the designs that were
          produced in Germany from about the 1730's on...." (p.182). Here Wolf simply
          refers to the use of battal like patterns in Germany starting in the early 18th
          century, and not the creation of them in the 15th century in Turkey.
          As for the issue of the earliest ebrus; Richard J. Wolf states “There are
          reports, however, that a form of our modern marbling was being practised in
          Turkestan in the thirteenth century and in Samarkand, Herat, and other regions
          east of Persia in the early decades of the fourteenth century". (p.8). Mr. Wolf
          does not identify what reports he is referring to. In a related footnote (note
          33) he again states that "references to marbling in areas east of Persia at a
          very early time appear in several works on Persian art" but again he does not
          provide any references.
          Wolf's subsequent discussion in note 33 shows that he has been drawing
          information from books by Albert Haemmerle, Mehmet Ali Kağıtçı, and Uğur Derman.
          All of these authors, like Wolf himself, do not substantiate their claims for
          the dates and/or places regarding the earliest ebrus. For example, Wolfe says
          (p. 8) "In any event, ebru came to serve several important functions in the
          Selçuk and Ottoman Empires". Here Mr. Wolf is basing his information about ebru
          having been made in the Selçuk Empire on Mehmet Ali Kağıtçı’s article entitled
          “Turkish Marbling.” Mr. Kağıtçı states that “The technique of Akkase-Ebru
          (clear reserve) was applied upon request of the Sultan of Khorasan, Hüsseyin
          Baykara (1438-1506 AD) in Samarkand and Herad, and this technique was then
          improved by the Seljukide and Ottoman Persians."
          Since the Selçuk Empire had ceased to exist in the very begining of the 14th
          century Kağıtçı's account can not be correct. Hüseyin Baykara's reign
          post-dates the Selçuk Empire, the earlier Selçuks would not have been improving
          upon art forms of Sultan Husseyin's later era. Mr. Kağıtçı also fails to
          provide any evidence, or any historical marbling samples, for his assertions.
          Mr.Wolf is using Kağıtçı's account as a source, but a simple check on the dates
          of the Selçuk Empire would have revealed the error made by Kağıtçı.

          As Ms. Büyüksezer writes, “Albert Haemmerle suggests that art forms resembling
          marbling were seen in China as early as the Ming Dynasty (14th-17th Century)”.
          By making this assertion without providing any written source or any historical
          samples as evidence, Mr. Haemmerle adds just another rumor to the ocean of
          rumors about the history of marbling.
          Ms. Büyüksezer also writes "Chinese professor Tsuen-hsuin Tsien, who has studied
          the subject extensively, also believes that the earliest style of marbling
          originates from the Chinese." Prof. Tsuen-hsuin Tsien indeed supports his
          statement with a Chinese text, a paragraph from Wen Fan Si Pu, a book written
          by Su Yijian (953-996 AD). Papers decorated with the method this paragraph
          describes are called liu sha jian which means "drifting sand" or "flowing sand."
          Prof. Tsuen-hsuin Tsien concludes by saying "that is how marbled paper was
          done." I find this huge leap from liu sha jian to marbled paper quite
          imaginative.

          I am aware of the scholarly efforts to establish a linear model for marbling
          history starting with liu sha jian in China, then Suminagashi in Japan,
          following with ebru in Turkestan, İran, and Turkey; and finally arriving in
          Europe and America as marbling. This linear model is not based on any datable
          sample of works or reliable evidence for linking liu sha jian to suminagashi,
          and suminagashi to ebru and marbling as we know it.
          It is easy to see that marbling did not start in Europe, as some suggested; and
          it is easy to say that we do not exactly know when and where marbling emerged.
          I am seriously disappointed by the efforts of many scholars and authors to fit
          the history of marbling into a model they hope is true but for which they cannot
          provide any evidence.
          History written without evidence is merely a story.
          Best wishes to all,
          Feridun Özgören


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

          ------------------------------------

          Yahoo! Groups Links

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.