Nazmiyal Collection » Search Results » david

Meet Interior Designer Philip La Bossiere

awakened — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 03:59:08 +0000

Interior designer Philip La Bossiere asserts, “I am not a beige guy in any sense of the word” in reference to both his colorful interiors and his exuberant personality. He has spent the past twenty-plus years cultivating his reputation as a sincere, hands-on decorator with timeless and unexpected design schemes. Always excited by Continental furniture, either at auction or abroad, La Bossiere prefers strong contrasts, rich color schemes, and a dash of the exotic. He was educated at Parsons School of Design, and in apprenticeship to renowned designer David Barrett, where he learned to execute designs that are timeless without ever feeling conservative.

La Bossiere’s overriding design philosophy is to keep things in context, explaining “there’s a fine line between the unexpected and what is out of place.” He understands the importance of working within the given conditions, from each client’s individual personality and preferences to the budget and characteristics of the physical space. After all, he says, “you can’t turn a contemporary house into an English pub.”

He loves textured walls, and often uses raffia or upholstered fabric to bring depth and softness to a space. “In order for a room to becomfortable, it has to look comfortable,” La Bossiere believes. He is partial to dark colors and monochromatic compositions. Custom furniture designs often make their way into his spaces. Strong working relationships with tradespeople ensure La Bossiere’s design vision is crafted with the utmost level of attention to details and quality.

Since opening his practice in 1987, La Bossiere enjoys repeat and referral business. He has been rehired by members of a single family for six different projects. The value he places on relationships, coupled with his ability to interpret the emotional lifestyle of each client, means he often engages in other creative pursuits for his patrons. He has been known to help with party planning and event design, and even decorates one family’s Christmas tree each year.

La Bossiere Associates, Inc. is a boutique design practice; its size allows Philip La Bossiere to be personally involved in each project, maintaining the close relationships that have contributed to his success. He is assisted by a close-knit team, outsourcing specialists as necessary. Projects have been featured in The New York Times, New York Spaces,New York Newsday, New Jersey Monthly, The Bergen Record,Hampton Style, and 201 Magazine. La Bossiere has also received praise for his participation in the Hampton Designer Showhouse, the Junior League of Montclair Showhouse, the Designer Showhouse of New Jersey, and Mansions in May, the Designer Showhouse of Morristown.

To contact Philip La Bossiere, please visit or call:

La Bossiere Associates, Inc.
154 West Saddle River Road
Saddle River, NJ 07458
201.825.7123 Fax: 201.825.8250

What is a Tribal or Nomadic Rug?

awakened — Tue, 31 May 2011 05:28:04 +0000

by David Castriota

One of the most familiar labels applied to Oriental rugs and carpets, antique and new alike, is the term “tribal.” The label evokes a range of associations, most of which suggest something romantically antithetical to our modern western civilized or urban existence. Tribal rugs were or are presumably made by people with a tribal social organization, very likely nomads dwelling in tents, moving from place to place with the herds of sheep and goats that provided the wool for therugs. Such rugs are thought to be woven in designs that have been handed down faithfully in tribal tradition with little or no change for generations beyond recall. We assume that such rugs were woven for the use of their makers as an integral facet of their material culture. There is something untamed and timeless, even atavistic about this conception of rug weaving. No doubt, such notions are very much a part of the allure of the rugs we call tribal, perhaps as much as the striking beauty of the pieces themselves.

But however charming and attractive this conception of the tribal rug may be, it is hopelessly simplistic and in some ways downright erroneous. The presumption of a tribal social structure underlying this concept is certainly valid. Many rug-producing groups had and still maintain a tribal identity, even in the face of brutal official attempts to suppress it in various parts of the former Soviet Union and the Middle East. But the equivalence of such a tribal identity with a nomadic life-style or economy is less clear-cut. Many nomadic groups have settled down in the course of time, not only under governmental duress but also by choice. Often, nomadic peoples opted to spend the warmer part of the year in encampments while retiring to permanent sedentary homes for the winter months. Yet none of this had any effect on therugs they wove, at least in terms of design. But it probably did affect the size of the carpets they produced. Here we have the example of the main carpets woven by the nomadic Salor Turkomans of Central Asia. Such carpets have long been regarded as the oldest and most authentic Turkoman carpets.

But in the midst of reconstructing a traditional Turkoman yurt or tent for an exhibition some years back, the curators were rather disturbed to discover that the Salor main carpet they wished to use was so large that it simply would not fit inside the tent. So was it then a commercial piece made for export? Was it a later piece made after the Turkomans were forced to settle down? Or is it simply that such larger carpets were used by the wealthy Salor in larger, part-time or seasonal sedentary houses modeled on those from the towns and cities of Central Asia and nearby Persia?

Similar affinities to urban Middle Eastern tradition appear when one looks at the design and weaving technique of Turkoman carpets, especially the ones we consider to be particularly early. The recent studies of Jon Thompson and others have shown that many Turkoman designs or motifs come from the repertory of sophisticated Islamic textiles or carpets. The Turkoman carpets displaying the earliest form of such motifs, those attributed to the eighteenth or seventeenth centuries, turn out to have cotton in their foundations, and/or they have corrosive dyed brown outlines in place of the more standard natural brown wool outlining of Turkoman rugs. They also have a depressed warp structure and tight weave reminiscent of urban rugs rather than nomadic ones.

All this evidence converges to suggest that the great refinement of Turkoman design and weaving technique betrays the strong impact of urban rug production from nearby Persia in this early period. In fact, we can take this all the way back to the famous nomadic carpet from the fourth-century B.C. frozen tombs at Pazyryk in Siberia. The analysis of both the wool, which is that of local sheep, and the red dye, which is Polish lac, suggest a northern, nomadic origin. But many of the motifs in the rug and the fineness of the weave show the clear influence of Persian court textiles, examples of which were discovered in the other tombs at Pazyryk. The more closely we look, the more we see that the notion of an essentially autonomous nomadic or tribal rug production separate from urban rug and textile design or technique is, and probably always was, illusory.

There is no reason to doubt that tribal weavers developed established repertories of patterns and motifs that were handed down from generation to generation as a cultural patrimony. But that does not mean that tribal weavers developed these repertories from scratch or that they did not change over time in response to new ideas from urban cultural centers. Turkoman rug design continually absorbed ideas from the Persian rugs and textiles they acquired in trade or as booty from raids. Similarly, the highly prized main carpets of the Timuri Baluch tribe are typified by a design of palmettes clearly derived from classical Persian prototypes of no earlier than the seventeenth century.Â As modern people we may be charmed by the idea that tribal rugs have designs that go back unaltered to the dawn of time. But the reality is that many of their designs are three or four hundred years old at best, and that they came to acquire their familiar tribal appearance slowly with subtle changes from mother to daughter over the centuries.

As for the idea that tribal pieces were also made primarily for local domestic consumption rather than commercial export like urban rugs, there too the case is oversimplified or overstated. Clearly tentbands, wall bags, and wedding trappings etc. were made for local internal consumption. But that never precluded the possibility of selling pieces when and if it proved beneficial to do so. One could always take a piece to the market in town to raise some cash. It is also clear thatrugs were woven in village tribal or nomadic settings just to be sold, and that the weaver strove to produce or adapt what she knew would for one reason or another be salable. Nor is it likely that this only happened in a “commercial” period after the nomadic or tribal way of life began to decline. Modern research has shown that from ancient times nomads have always maintained complex commercial relations with the neighboring settled urban communities. The notion of a pre-commercial period is a fantasy of the romantic collector.Rugs were always translatable into wealth, and every nomadic or village weaver knew this as she labored at her loom.

So tribal rugs could be made for commercial purposes. They could be made for non-nomadic settings. They have designs and weaving techniques that were adapted relatively recently from urban commercial workshoprugs rather than drawing exclusively or primarily on some timeless repertory going back to the Stone Age. Well, if so then what is it that distinguishes the sort of rug we call tribal from the ones made in cities? Above all it would seem to reside in the style of such rugs, in their concept of form and design. All the rugs we dub tribal display a high level of abstraction. They tend to manifest an abstract geometric style of drawing or graphic articulation and a strongly geometric sense of overall design structure. That is not to say that the motifs they utilize are purely abstract, but rather that they render the various floral and animal forms they depict though a vision of abstract stylization. Because of this it is sometimes difficult to recognize the borrowed Persian or Islamic motifs that inspired the tribal designs. But therein lies the distinctive power of the tribal weaver her capacity not only to absorb sophisticated ideas from exotic sources, but also to transform and internalize them, to make them into something strikingly new and exciting, and to pass this transformative power on to succeeding generations of weavers. That is the essence of the tribal rug tradition.

Vintage Mid Century Moroccan Rug #45005

danny@nazmiyal.com — Sat, 05 Mar 2011 20:01:04 +0000

Mid-century Moroccan Rug, Morocco, 20th Century – Woven in the 20th century, this colorful rug features saturated accents in turquoise, coral pink and cocoa brown set over a bright ivory field. Chunky, Moroccan-style pile, sparse motifs and contrasting colors give this abstract mid-century rug a modern levity and versatile appeal as a subtle background piece or brightly-colored focal point. What makes this Moroccan rug truly unique is the Jewish star of David prominent in the center of the field.

Spinning – Techniques & Construction of Rugs & Carpets by NAZMIYAL

contact@nazmiyal.com — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 19:51:31 +0000

How Rugs & Carpets are Made
Spinning


Carded and washed wool, silk, and cotton fibers need to be spun into yarns before they can be woven. At the simplest level this can be done by pulling some fibers out of a cluster of carded wool or cotton and rubbing them back and forth between the palms. A weight or spindle whorl can be attached to one end of the fibers to allow gravity to facilitate the process, making the spinning tighter. Hand spinning can also be aided by use of a spinning wheel. Since the fibers of cotton and especially silk are much finer than wool, a spinning wheel is more of a requirement in turning these materials into yarns. Individual spun yarns can then be plied together to make a stronger, cable- or rope-like yarn that is necessary in the warp threads of the rug foundation. Machine spinning became common over the last century, but since it is so mechanically regular, machine-spun wool eliminates many of the textural, reflective variations that animate the surface of rugs made from hand-spun wool. Consequently, a revival of hand-spinning has accompanied the revival of natural dyes in the past twenty years.

Antique Bezalel Rug 41553

danny@nazmiyal.com — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:25:43 +0000

Bezalel Rug, Israel, Early 20th Century – The Bezalel workshop, active in the Holy Land in the earlier 20th century, was famous for its reinterpretations of classic rug designs. This beautiful little example adapts colorful field and border designs from Caucasian and Eastern Turkish rugs in a subtle homage to Jewish tradition. Upon closer inspection, small stars of David appear all across the border, in the outer edge of the field, and on a larger scale as the main medallions at the center. Menorahs appear as well in the corners of the star medallions, between them on the red ground, and one last time in the cornerpieces.

Exhibition: Early Anatolian Kilims from the Marilyn and Marshall Wolf Collecton

contact@nazmiyal.com — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:09:45 +0000

Marilyn Wolf and Jason Nazmiyal

During the weekend of April 11 through 13, New York witnessed a major antique rug event. A symposium sponsored by the Hajji Baba Club was held on Saturday at the New York Historical Society, along with an exhibition, From Timbuktu to Tibet , which open Friday evening, comprised of outstanding pieces from New York private collections. In conjunction with these events Nazmiyal was pleased to host an exhibition on Sunday, Early Anatolian Kilims from the Collecton of Marilyn and Marshall Wolf . Early Anatolian kilims have come to be widely recognized as some of the greatest artistic achievements of the Oriental rug weaving tradition, and the pieces from the Wolf Collection certainly attest to the validity of such opinion. These kilims, some twenty-five in number, represent a variety of designs and regional types from Anatolia or Turkey produced between the seventeenth and the nineteenth centuries.

They are works of great artstic individuality and power, demonstrating that kilims are not simply the humble country cousins of urban workshop rugs in pile technique, as they were once thought to be. Rather, they exemplify a cultural authenticity, and a sophistication of design and color that can match and even outstrip the finest classical pile Oriental carpets. In fact Anatolian kilims represent an extremely archaic artistic tradition which disappeared early on in the process of expanded production throughout the rug-weaving regions of the Orient in the later nineteenth century. Works of this kind have rarely been exhibited even in the museums dedicated to textile arts and design. But here in this exhibition, it was possible to appreciate all the magic that these wonderful kilims have to disclose, both individually, and collectively, where each piece challenged its neighbors for the viewer”s attention. One example from the exhibition especially demonstrates the passion and dedication of the collectors. Marshall Wolf acquired a fragment of this piece in the market in Istanbul. Some time later the rest of the kilim came up at auction, where he went the distance needed fend off all other buyers, so that both halves could be happily re-united as they now appear.The symposium and the exhibitions attracted a wide audience of rug enthusiasts and experts from all over North America and Europe as well. The gallery of photos from the exhibition at Nazmiyal provides a nice sample of the distinguished particpants.

Jason Nazmiyal and Walter Denny

Barbara Davis and Christopher Andrews

Marshall Wolf and Bruce Baganz

Sally Sherill, and Jason Nazmiyal

at center, David Castriota, Emily Kiefer, Michael Kiefer, right, Roger Pratt

Danny Shaffer and Jason Nazmiyal

Kristin McCarthy and Roger Pratt

Paul Ramsay

in foreground Marilyn Wolf and Jason Nazmiyal

Marshall Wolf, Jeanette and Tripp Miller

Beate Maeder-Metcalf

Marilyn Wolf

Maris Gailitis

Giammaria Zanderighi, Paula Krugmeier

Mary Jo Otsea and Judith Glass

Joe Doherty, Michael Chagnon

Catherine Bennion and Mary Jo Otsea

Mark Shilen

Jason Nazmiyal, Alberto Boralevi , Betsy Murphy, Karin and Moshe Tabibnia, and Baby Tabibnia

background Vinay Pande, Marilyn Wolf, Elizabeth Williams, Joe Forte, David Castriota, Jim Allen

Karin and Baby Tabibnia

Dr. Jon Thompson

Shiv Sikri and Allen Freedman

Daniel Nadler and Ladan Akbarnia from the Brooklyn Museum

Thomas Murray

at center Anette Rautenstengel

at center Dr. Jon Thompsom

Vinay Pande and Susan Lukats

Klara Nagy and Jason Nazmiyal

William Robinson of Christie”s London

Antique Flemish Heraldic Tapestry of a Spanish Noble Admiral 2399

awakened — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 19:30:15 +0000

Flemish Tapestry, Brussells, seventeenth century Here we see a grand, fine, magnificent, and important heraldic wall tapestry of obvious Baroque style, woven certainly at Brussels by a renown tapestry maker, originally conceived perhaps as a compliment of a series of narrative subjects, or included in a series which comprised similar or equal heraldic figurations, other components of which however have not survived. Unpublished and for a long time lost from the sight of scholars, it was however cited in three important texts of bibliography specialised in antique tapestry, following its passage to the market at Paris in 1875 coming from the collection of Paul Galitzin.In fact it certainly coincides with “une pi ce dont le milieu est occupe par un cusson et dont la bordure en offre dix autres” mentioned by Wauters in 1878 (loc.cit.), without indicating its place of conservation: the Belgian scholar puts even the signature ‘I.V. BORCHT A CASTRO,’ according to him it relates to the tapestry maker Jacques (or Jacob I) van der Borcht. We are still talking about our piece when they say “Grande tapisserie de Flandre, signe J.V. Borght, A Castro, rehausse d’or et d’argent,” the sale of which is indicated at Paris in 1875 by Giuffrey (loc.cit.), for 3705 Francs, alongwith the collection of prince Paul Galitzin in which it was previously conserved. A more complete critical description giving the salient features comes from Gobel (1923, loc.cit.), recalling the tapestry already in Galitzin Collection and without knowing its subsequent placing describes the heraldic emblem at the center of the composition as belonging to a Grand Admiral of Spain, decorated with medal chains of Golden Toson and of the Holy Ghost and completed with the motto “Spes-Fides-Caritas,” the signature corresponds, according to Gobel, to that of the Brussels tapestry maker Gaspard (Jasper) van der Borcht. We give here in detail what the German scholar has to say: “Moreover, an emblem carpet attributable to Jasper van der Borght was placedfor auction along with the collection of Prince Paul Galitzin of Paris. It had a Brussels tag and was signed KV Borght Acastro. The work, 4.30 m high and 3.63 m wide, uses gold and silver threads generously. Winged geniuses carry the emblem of the Admiral of the Fleet of Spain, surrounded by medal chains of the Golden Fleece and the Holy Ghost, outdone by the motto ‘SPES-FIDES-CARITAS.’ The layout is based on the pattern created by David Teniers III.Before describing the iconography of the tapestry it is important and necessary to point out that the manufactured article, in its current condition, is the result of a manipulation carried out on a composition that was originally different: the great central escutcheon with the medal chains that surround it and the crown laid upon has been woven separately and fixed there substituting a previous emblem, of which only the (hanging) pendent of the chain of the Golden Toson has been saved on the lower side; similarly the ten escutcheons in the bordure constitute similar tapestries integrated in the manufactured article substituting previous heraldic symbols that havebeen removed. Direct examination of the cloth however shows that the portions re-woven have been done with great ability and have been integrated skillfully with the pre-existing tapestry, so much so that it can go unnoticed on visual examination and may be revealed as extraneous only on touching the joining along the edge of the inserts, and broadly speaking these have been woven with the technique, quality and the tones of colour that are same as those portions that have survived in the original tapestry together with which they have been ‘aged.’ Therefore these do not constitute modern inserts but antique ones going back to an era quite close to the original version of the article, at that point adapted and camouflaged with the rest of the composition that could even have been done by the same tapestry maker who had done the first version of the tapestry. Hence it can be said with reasonable hypothesis that the hanging, shortly after having been made with the heraldic figurations as required by the first owner, was passed on to another owner and was modified, to the glory of the new owner; and we could perhaps say that each of them were Spanish owners. They would have entrusted the work – for making the work piece as well as for its other version, to a tapestry maker of the capital of the Flanders, Brussels, and logically speaking as the Flanders were under Spanish monarchy, governed by the Spanish governors till 1713, before that date, confluence of the most magnificent tapestry ordinations of Iberian nobility could be seen at that place. In its current state, at the center of the tapestry can be seen a heraldic escutcheon enclosed in a small frame of shells. Quartered, the escutcheon demonstates: in the first quarter, two crowned heads separated by a sword gripped by a hand, on a pink background; in the second quarter, a tower flanked by three stars, on a sky blue background; in the third quarter a winged dragon on red background; in the last quarter a tree with a dog and a wolf passing by the base of the trunk, on silver background. The escutcheon is chained to an anchor, the emblem of an Admiral and to a star with eight points (tips), symbolizing that the owner of the tapestry belonged to the Order of Knights of Malta. The two chains are twined, from the inner one hangs a cross with eight tips, rather than an insignia of the Order of the Holy Spirit (as written by Gobel), it seems more like a “Our Father (paternoster) of the Order of Knights of Malta and hints at a certain dignity within the congregation of ‘bali’; the outer chain instead is the well known insignia of the Order of Golden Toson, the most important European Chivalry Order (Knighthood Order), with the characteristic Golden Fleece hanging. A crown caps the emblem, it is raised at three points that look like nests containing birds with open wings from which diverge three cartouches with the inscription of the names of the three theological virtues SPES, FIDES, CARITAS. The escutcheon and the decorations that surround it, as has been mentioned earlier, with the exception of the Golden Toson hanging, have been reapplied in a figurative field with symbolic objects, winged geniuses and landscape background belonging to the first version of the tapestry. The escutcheon seems to be suspended by two ribbons that are knotted by two lively pairs of small winged geniuses at the branches of the tree in the upper corners of the scene; on the right, at half the height, two other flying child figures chase a snake like end of the ribbon. On the lower side, on a natural stage, there are three other child figures that refer to the military glory and marine ventures of the first buyer of the tapestry, which the second owner must have considered convenient and important for his personality too: one small child figure covered with a red cloak, on foot on a drum, grasps a bugle and a flag; in front of a cannon, another small genius brings out a lance from a blue cloak and on the ground next to him are lying a shield, a helmet and an armour; on the right, the last child figure, endowed with a compass, is taking measurements on a big world map, the visible part of which illustrates, not casually, Atlantic Ocean between the Americas and Europe, with Spain in a prominent position. Behind the geniuses bursts open a landscape with a section of the sea enclosed by three mountainous coasts, with two ships under sail, likely to be in departure from Spain towards the American colonies. The tapestry has been completed, on four sides, by a rich bordure, surrounded internally and externally with fake cornets in chiseled, gilded wood. As different from the substituted shields, the bordure was woven along with the tapestry for its first owner. The raised sides are constituted of coloumns, enriched by ribbons and climbers on the bands of which are etched the terms PLUS (on the left) and ULTRA (on the right), to be read in sequence as a personal motto: PLUS ULTRA (further on); thus perhaps offering the opportunity to recognize, if not the person at least the lineage (family) of the first buyer of the tapestry, because such famous motto, adopted as the personal emblem by Emperor Charles V at the beginning of the XVI century together with the Pillars of Hercules, which then remained the motto of the Spanish Army, was taken, together with the pillars, in the emblem of the Pizarro Spanish Marquesis de las Charcas family. The horizontal decorations instead are covered by climbers intermingled by ribbons. The ten shields have been substituted simultaneously along with the central emblem, to which these are clearly joined. The corner ones proposes one by one, the heraldic figurations of the quarters of the central shield. The one at the center of the upper decoration, with two keys, hints probably at an important task covered by the second owner of the tapestry, perhaps that of Superintendent of Finance, while that at the center of the lower decoration suggests insignia of the anchor that was already seen chained to the emblem and that serves as emblem of the Admiral (or more appropriately, Second Admiral as it deals with one single anchor and not double anchor). On the two shields of the left raised part, the chain of the Order of Golden Toson is illustrated in the first one and in the second one a lilied cross is illustrated whose shape corresponds to the insignia of the Order of Knights of Calatrava, dependent of the Spanish Crown. The corresponding shields on the opposite raised part suggest ‘Our Father ‘(paternoster) of Bali of the Order of Knights of Malta and the cross with eight tips suggests that it is an insignia of the same Order. In spite of the gaudy unfolding of the heraldic and decorative symbols, it has not been possible to identify neither the first nor the second owner of the tapestry. From what has survived of the original figurations, it can be understood that the first buyer, around 1680-1685 (which is the probable date when the piece was made, as we shall see), was a Spanish noble involved in the Army and the Navy, affiliated to the Order of the Golden Toson and that he adorned himself with the motto PLUS ULTRA: as has been mentioned, probably he was an exponent of the lineage of the Pizarro de las Charcas. The second one, a noble owner, was affiliated with the Order of the Golden Toson of Malta, Calatrava, Admiral and Superintendent, his family cannot be identified as his emblem does not figure in the vast catalogue of the Armorial general of Rietstap (London 1884), nor in any other heraldic catalogues consulted by the undersigned, comparing them even with the lists of Knights of Golden Toson given in La Toison d’Or. Cinq si cles d’Art et d’ Histoire, catalogue shows, Bruges, 1962, pgs. 35-81. It can only be said that, he came to possess the tapestry around 1700, took care to personalize it, he too was an exponent of a Spanish noble family and therefore may be identified, in the absence of better alternatives, through the high-sounding title conferred to him by Gobel: the Great Admiral of Spain. More satisfying results come from the analysis of the tapestry – a masterpiece of working technique and a historical-artistic manufactured article. Examination of the work piece shows in fact the precious material quality that was given great prominence by the conservative restoration (carried out above all in the areas of silk weft) and the washing carried out during the course of 2003 by Works of the Textile Arts in Milan, under the direction of Marianna Prevarin. The tapestry is distinguished because of its fine weaving; its weft is precious as it is rich not only in silk but has also silver and gold. The variety and the freshness of the colours, at times vividly contrasting, at others softly shaded as well as the precision and the minuteness while rendering the natural details too, give the tapestry its distinctive characteristic. The tapestry maker knew how to give delicate fullness to the incarnates of the lively child figures, he has brilliantly reproduced the glow of the arms on the proscenium and the diffused, dim luminosity of the distant landscapes that are made clear by the effect of the aerial perspective. This high working standard, involving the intervention of a renowned workmanship, is well explained through the marking and the signature on the lower selvedge: the tapestry has been made in the traditional European capital for tapestry, Brussels & bears the illustrious signature of the Brussels tapestries in the years between the end of the XVII century and the beginning of the XVIII century. Even though it is still uncertain whether the signature is of Jacob I or the son Gaspard (Jasper) van der Borcht (or Borght), the signature “I. V. BORCHT A CASTRO,” besides characterizing this piece of work, is found on highly valuable work pieces, a series of which is Art of War – pattern created by Lambert de Hondt nel Palazzo di Blenheim (Monk) and more series of the so called Teniers tapestry (A. Wace, The Marlborough Tapestries at Blenheim Palace, London and New York, 1968; H.C. Marillier, Handbook to the Teniers Tapestries, London, 1932, pg.3). It is documented about Jacob I van der Borcht that already in 1675 he was an active tapestry maker at Brussels who obtained the privilege (licence) in 1676 and he was still active in 1707. Gaspard obtained privilege (license) in 1684 and died in 1742, till then he worked in association with other Brussels colleagues like Jeroen Le Clerc & Daniel Leyniers and among his clients were Massimiliano-Emanuel elector of Baviera and Guglielmo III, king of England (Wauters, cit., pgs. 343; Gobel, cit., 1923, I, pgs. 396; D. Heinz, Europaische Tapisseriekunst des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts, Wien-Koln-Weimar, 1995, pgs. 38, 206; G.Delmarcel, Flemish Tapestry, New York and London 1999, pgs. 363-364). We however prefer to think that Jasper added the pseudonym “A CASTRO,” to his initials and surname that were the same as those of his father (it is the literal Latin translation of the surname Van der Borcht), to distinguish his signature from that of his father. In such a case, as already underlined by Gobel, we can say that the heraldic tapestry under study could be the most antique surviving tapestry of the tapestry maker considering that it must have been woven by 1685, as can be deduced from the chronology as well as through the existential dates referring to the probable pattern creator David III Taniers who died precisely in that year. The pattern creator, as revealed from the tapestry itself, must have been a Flemish painter specialised in tapestries and up-to-date with the Brussels production of his time. Production of heraldic tapestries relates the entire history of the antique tapestry way back from the time of their introduction; such an iconographic ambit was characterized by a phase of especially sumptuous and original proposals (suggestions) in the second half of XVII century, that were probably stimulated by important heraldic compositions woven at Maincy and at Paris in honour of Lewis XIV on the basis of the drawings of Charles Le Burn. These French works provoked a spirit of emulation, especially noticeable in tapestry making that hinged on the exaltation of the heraldic emblems made at Brussels between the end of the XVII century and the beginning of the XVIII century, period that includes the work piece under study. At iconographic level, our tapestry could in fact be understood in its historical background (and could be dated approximately), on one hand by referring to a heraldic tapestry of the Chivalry Order of S. Giacomo of Compostella woven in more than one version at Brussels towards 1675-1725 (an example is at Boston Museum of Fine Arts: A.S. Cavallo, Tapestries of Europe and of Colonial Peru in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Boston, 1967, I, pgs. 153-154, n. 48, II, tab. 48), with which it shares juxtaposition of the great central emblem with small heraldic shields on the margin, containing individual divisions of the complete blazon, as also the arrangement of the arms, armature, flags and even a cannon on the lower part of the composition, that hints at the military glory of the buyer; on the other hand by referring it to two heraldic tapestries of the Knights of the Order of Malta (recently in the collection RABEL at Montecarlo) probably made at Brussels towards 1670-1675, copied by pattern creator in the style of Justus van Egmont in which the emblems placed at the center of the scene were exalted (and the images made more lively) by the presence of the flying, winged geniuses in the baroque style who are arranging a festoon of fruits in the upper part of the composition while the lower part has natural panoramic view. However in the tapestry studied here the winged geniuses are even more conspicuous. The Italian pattern creators at the height of Renaissance introduced the winged child figures in the tapestry art. Rubens relaunched the winged child figures as paper patterns (patterns for Triumph of Eucharist around 1625) and they were again taken many times in the Flemish series of baroque era based on models of pupils and followers of the painter. These were particularly visible in a series of Months, Seasons & Elements designed by Jan van den Hoecke around 647-1650 (ref. G. Bertini, N. Forti Grazzini, edited by the tapestries of Farnese and Bourbon. The collection of XVI-XVIII centuries, cat. shows, Milan 1998, pgs. 136-146, nos. 17-24). Inspired by the cycle, another Flemish painter and pattern creator of the second half of XVII century – David III Teniers made a starting point for introducing showy, animated winged child figures in his compositions destined for transcription by tapestry makers. Our tapestry shows a very strong affinity with such tapestries designed by this artist and it adheres to his intellectual fondness for allegoric language. Son of a celebrated Flemish painter, David III Teniers, was born at Anversa in 1638 & died at Brussels in 1685. He specialised above all as a painter of patterns for tapestry (ref. H. Vlieghe, “David Teniers II en David Teniers III als patroonschilders voor de tapijtweverijen,” in Arts Textiles, V, 1959-1960, pgs. 78-102). Among these patterns, only those created for woven heraldic composition were fortunate to have a variety of types: sometimes without figures such as the two heraldic tapestries of the Duke of Medinaceli, woven at Brussels by Albert Auwerckx, conserved at Hotel de Ville at Brusells (M. Crick-Kuntziger, Les tapisseries de l’Hotel de Ville de Bruxelles, Anvers, 1944, pgs. 26-28, tab. XIII); at other times with the emblem laid upon a trophy of coat of arms on which were laid two Turkish prisoners, under a flying Victoria, as per a model dated 1681 (ref. A tapestry published by H. Gobel, cit., 1923, II, tab. 186, replicated with even different heraldic symbols); at yet other times with the emblem illustrated along with Saturn in chains on a fake tapestry held stretched out by flying child figures, as appears in a heraldic tapestry of the Dukes of Arenberg & Alcaretto, from a model of 1684 (ref. G. Delmarcel, Flemish Tapestry, New York and London, 1999, p. 249 & fig. on p. 236). In the last example the child figures appear to be very similar in face (features) and gestures to those on the heraldic image about which we are talking. Its dependence on the figurative models of David III Teniers is demonstrated even more clearly if we compare it with the two series of allegorical tapestries designed by the artist, these too enriched with plump, curly, winged geniuses, differently posed and broadly speaking finished with landscape background: months of which a complete series woven at Brussels by Geraert Peemans (J. Blazkov, “Deux tentures des mois,” Prague, in Arts Textiles, X, 1981, pgs. 203-220) exists in the Castle of Prague and Continents, of which an edition woven by the same Peemans was published partially in the Perinat collection at Madrid (J.H. Hyde, “L’iconographie des quatre parties du monde dans les tapisseries,” in Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 1924, pgs. 13-14, fig. pg. 15), but a better & complete edition exists in the palazzo of Order of Knights of Malta at Rome. Heraldic tapestry of a noble Spanish Admiral, as proposed by Gobel, too can be attributed to a model of David III Teniers, a fact that is consistent even from historical point of view since the artist, besides visiting Spain personally in 1661, carried out an activity, as is documented, as a painter and pattern creator for the Spanish buyers. The pattern must therefore have been made by 1685, date of the painter’s demise and it is likely that it was not made very long ago if we consider that its transcription to tapestry was carried out probably by Jasper van der Borcht, whose activities are documented only from 1685 and that he could not have started his work as tapestry maker much before that date. The most probable date of the pattern as well as of the tapestry, at least in its first edition before the emblem was substituted, falls therefore between 1680 and 1685.Structural details: Cm. 422 x 361. Weft of wool, silk and metallic yarns; warp: 7/8 yarns (thread) per cm. Make and signature: on the lower selvedge, on the right: brand name “BB” (Brabant-Brussels) and signature of tapestry maker: “I. V. BORCHT A CASTRO”. Paper pattern (cardboard): attributed to David III Teniers (Anversa, 1638 “Brussels, 1685). Brussels, manufactured by Gaspard (Jasper) van der Borcht (Brussels, 1684 – 1742) or of Jacob I. van der Borcht (Brussels, 1675-1707), around 1680-1685. New York, private collection.Origin: belonged to the collection of prince Paul Galitzin at Paris, with which it was put on sale in 1875; came to the current ownership from an ecclesiastic institute of Pennsylvania.Bibliography: A. Wauters, Les tapisseries bruxelloises, Brussels, 1878 (ried. anastatic: Brussels 1973), p. 345; J. Guiffrey, Histoire de la tapisserie depuis le Moyen Age jusqu’ a nos jours, Tours, 1886, p. 491; H. Gobel, Wandteppiche. Die Niederlande, Leipzig, 1923, I, pp. 397-398; idem, Tapestries of the Lowlands, New York, 1924, p. 69.

Meet Interior Designer Philip La Bossiere

contact@nazmiyal.com — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:13:12 +0000

Antique Bezalel Rug 41270

awakened — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 19:30:12 +0000

Bezalel Rug, Israel, Early 20th Century – Antique Bezalel, Israel,circa 1930 Produced in Jerusalem between the two world wars, Bezalelpieces generally present established rug designs from various cultures, but with a distinctive Jewish or Israeli twist, and this is no exception. But the border is full of surprises. The stars within the octagon are Stars of David, and the extra panels or elems at the top and the bottom contain more of these stars alternating horizontally with menorahs. The border also contains an inscription: “Bezalel, Jerusalem.”

Using Rugs in Home vs. Business Space

contact@nazmiyal.com — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 16:45:14 +0000

Written by David Castriota
Wednesday, 03 January 2007

Rugs meant for a business environment will meet different requirements than those for use at home. A rug in a business setting is to some extent an expression of the image that the business seeks to project, so it may require something formal, reserved, or bold and playful; it all depends. But a rug for a place of business will need to stand up to considerable traffic,so it must above all be durable.

Such commercial needs will generally be met by new rugs, but certain types of business, those that seek to project tradition and refinement may require an antique Oriental carpet. Rugs for use at home must reflect the taste of the owner, and in a very profound and personal way, since they provide a constant feature or part of one”s private environment.

But here too, there are practical considerations.I the rug is needed for insulation or to absorb sound, a thicker, perhaps more coarsely woven rug may be required. If it is primarily intended as a home furnishing, a new rug may be the right way to go. If one is a rug enthusiast, it may may be worth the added expense to look for an antique.

Nazmiyal Collection » Search Results » david

Meet Interior Designer Philip La Bossiere

What is a Tribal or Nomadic Rug?

Vintage Mid Century Moroccan Rug #45005

Spinning – Techniques & Construction of Rugs & Carpets by NAZMIYAL

How Rugs & Carpets are Made

Spinning

Antique Bezalel Rug 41553

Exhibition: Early Anatolian Kilims from the Marilyn and Marshall Wolf Collecton

Antique Flemish Heraldic Tapestry of a Spanish Noble Admiral 2399

Meet Interior Designer Philip La Bossiere

Antique Bezalel Rug 41270

Using Rugs in Home vs. Business Space