http://blantonmuseum.org/works_of_art/detail.cfm?work=10&sort=an&view=default&startrow=10&id=269&ga=24
This link goes to a painting that I am researching at the Blanton Museum of Art at the University of Texas Austin.
I would really appreciate it if anyone knows what kind of knot this is, or if you have any idea where I could find out.
This would be a big help to me.
Thanks, Wendy
Hello Wendy,
It is really difficult to make any structure out from the small image posted in the link given.
Do you have access to any higher resolution images of the knot itself?
Derek
Could it perhaps be a random tangle? ???
TH54
Well, I have managed to find a much higher detail image of Quipus 58 B.
http://lanic.utexas.edu/project/blanton/eielson_quipus/large.jpg
Unfortunately it does not help very much, but if you look at some of his other works, especially the piece Quipus 14 G-1 then perhaps we might be able to make some estimations about the structure of the element in 58 B.
Here is a smaller image of 14 G-1
http://images.artnet.com/picture.asp?date=20050524&catalog=74577&gallery=110887&lot=00090&filetype=2
The corner construct is different to that in the image in question, but at least we are able to see the general form of construction and perhaps use this information to make assumptions about the image in question - 58 B.
The cloth starts out perfectly flat and wrinkle free in the bottom right hand corner and progresses across the board to the ‘knot’ at the top left hand corner. We can see from 14 G-1 that the ‘knot’ has at least three functions.
First is to keep the cloth strip under tension.
The second is to change the structure of the cloth from a strip into a bundle.
The third is to hold the bunched end of the cloth up and away from the board into the third dimension. The shadowing shows clearly this stand off effect.
In 14 G-1, we can surmise that Eielson has taken the bunched cloth and twisted it, then he has ‘laid up’ a short length of two strand Z twist cord. You can see two twists of this two strand cord going to the left, then presumably turning down towards the board and I would make a guess that the end of this cord is held against the board by two turns of the twisted single strand cord that has been taken over the top of the board, presumably brought up through a hole, over the end of the double strand cord (trapping it in place against the board), again up and over the top of the board, down the back and up through another hole to make the second and final trap of the double cord before it also is taken over the top of the board to be presumably tucked under the loops at the back of the board.
Using such a construct, Eielson would have been able to elevate the bunched end of the cloth to nearly five diameters of single strand above the board to create the 3D stand off effect.
If this is how Eielson has made 14 G-1 and we presume that he has used a similar technique for the corner construction of 58 B, then we might be looking into the top of the entry point of the two strands into a vertical knot, tied in a short piece of two strand cord. I cannot tell what sort of knot he has tied but I would be very tempted to take a flight of fancy and guess that he has tied one of the ‘Long knots’ used by the Quipucamayocs to record information within their amazing devices.
I have read that the Quipucamayocs would take a single strand cord, middle it, twist it and lay it up into a double strand cord for use in the quipu. What the fibres are made of, their colour and thickness, the twist (left or right hand) and how and where it was fixed to the main cord are all presumed to hold information over and above the information contained within the knots later put into the cord itself.
I wonder what additional information Eielson is presenting to us in these constructions he has given us. Although these pieces do not look much like quipu, perhaps we should remember that those string artefacts were in fact records, and that today the Quechua translation for Windows XP uses the word Kipu for ‘File’ so it is reasonable to call these pieces Quipu, because they also contain information for us.
I have to admit to finding both 58 B and 14 G-1 most fascinating - I wonder what Eielson was thinking when he created them.
Derek
Thanks Derek, that is actually a huge help. I tried to go to the museum to get better pictures, but was thwarted. It is really interesting as to why he depicts quipus like this, and I’m going to spend most of my paper exploring it.
I really appreciate it!
Hi Wendy,
You really have a fascinating Research Project subject there. I wonder, would you be prepared to share your final report with us? Either post it here or post a link to it? I would be most intrigued to read your conclusions and arguments.
I had never seen these works before you posted here and have to admit to finding them amazingly powerful. At one and the same time both captivating and almost stomach churning in the feelings they generate. What do they represent? Why has he called them Quipu?
For the Inca, their whole society was built on cord. From the finest threads woven at densities only repeated by modern textile processes to the strongest of ropes which they used to create huge suspension bridges forming the commercial highways of their mountaintop domain. To these peoples cord was their life so it is perhaps no surprise that cord became the basis for their recording systems. The Quipu were not just account records, they were also calendars and almost certainly they were used to record legend and poetry - not that we know yet (if ever) how this was achieved. To the Inca, cord and fabric was the foundation of their lives and the Quipu were the records of not only individual lives but also, together, the Quipu were the record of the whole Incan life.
Could it be that Eielson was representing life in these pieces?
Perhaps the meter square of board is the representation of of the world and time and the fabric is a representation of our progress through our lives and the world?
We are born from the substance of earth through the tangle of the umbilical cord and held high by our parents, showing us the world and our lives before us. As we progress through our lives, our impact or presence within the world gets greater and we achieve more control over ourselves and our environment - our lives become more ordered and more prominent - until our death when we quickly loose prominences and return to the earth.
Or perhaps the other way around - we are born clean and bright and undamaged and uncomplicated, yet as we progress through life we loose our bright simplistic innocence and take on complexity and strength. Our strength gives us value and we rise up above the inanimate matter of the world on our knowledge and strength casting strong shadows of our presence, yet eventually we are reminded that we belong to the earth and time and are drawn back down to it. Perhaps the knot symbolises our fight using our power and intelligence to stave off this end, even returning repeatedly from ‘behind the board’. Yet eventually we are drawn one final time down into the system from which we came.
Or perhaps he is symbolising the life of the Inca? Rising tall and strong on the power of the fabric of the twisted cord and spreading out in a strong and controlled manner bringing peace, beauty and order to a whole nation. Then in an instant, everything they are is swept into oblivion and is gone !! The life, beauty and death - extinction even - of an entire civilisation depicted against the inanimate background of the mineral world and time.
Another little coincidence is that the basis of the Quipu, is the double strand twisted cord - and exact analogy for the method by which life records itself in the double strand cord of DNA which is the ‘Quipu’ (file, record, book, blueprint) for life itself.
I look forward with anticipation to the opportunity to ready your final conclusions.
Enjoy the journey.
Derek
You might find this link of interest http://www.ancientx.com/nm/anmviewer.asp?a=104&z=1
Hmmm, could be a paper focusing on the irrelevant, the accidental:
he depicts quipus like this because … he’s incompetent at knotting!
;D
Anyway, no quipu I’ve seen has resembled this knot, however it is formed.
(I cannot determine an obvious path to the tangle. I know of no knot that
resembles it. And note that we see only one end!)
I believe that not far from me here in N.Va. USA in the Museum of Modern
Art is a big canvas painted black–period. Someone no doubt can expound
on why this is art (I recall New Yorker cartoon showing a stuffy looking lady
w/her own small canvas dutifully copying such a solid black painting).
Well, at least this fellow has put a strip of knotted cloth over his solid-colored
background; it’s (a st)art.
I have to say I’m with Dan on this. A couple of years ago my wife and I visited the museum in Bolzano in Italy (almost in Austria) where the mummified “Iceman” is on display. At the time there was a temporary exhibition of Peruvian artefacts (including some incredible mummies the like of which I don’t think exists anywhere else) and a la large display of quipus with explanations of how they were thought to have been used. The knots were tied in the standing part of the cord and I don’t remember anything remotely like this. It reminds me of the way knitting wool was sold when I was a child - a loop of wool was twisted to form a short “rope” like hank. This looks like a similar process with the end buried in the “knot”. Sorry to all you art lovers but it’s not art to me although it is an improvement on the plain white painted canvas in the Grosvenor museum in Chester a while ago (and that was done with Dulux house paint so it won’t even last - maybe that’s a good idea).
LOL
OK guys, I fess-up - the King does not have any cloths on and for the purist knottologist these tangles do not bear the slightest resemblance to the 700 or so actual Khipu extant today.
The guy has just taken a bit of old rag and pinned it to an otherwise perfectly usable chunk of board, called it Quipu and knocked it out as ‘Art’ carrying price tags of several hundred thousand dollars. Some schmuck must have snapped it up, because old Eielson was soon off looking for another bit of board and some more rag. Different coat of emulsion this time (sorry - posh name acrylic) and coloured rag, but he forgot how he made the previous tangle, so this time it came out a bit different to keep it in place - bish bosh - another walk to the bank.
Now us knottologists, we can do a right good job when it comes to knots on a board. We can make something that is real art and real knots at the same time. No emulsion painted panel for us, but a nice piece of varnished Walnut or Mahogany - tasty. Next we will make up dozens of knot examples, maybe even a hundred for a ‘reet posh board’, and all made out of lovely white laid cotton and all the ends lovingly whipped, each carefully pinned to the board with a tidy little printed label for the public to read because they won’t know what its called otherwise. Then maybe finish it off with a really lovely knotty frame or a glass cover and bish bash bosh - (only a few hundred hours work) and we have a REAL knotty piece of art. Now do I hear a starting bid of ?20? ?10? come on someone, there are hundreds of hours of work in this lovely knot board - Do I hear ?5? - No bids? OK, moving on to lot No. 42… a small piece - oil and canvas on board – Quipu 14G-1 by Eielson, reserve price of $110,000 will somebody start me at 150? thank you sir… and not a ‘proper’ knot in sight - just not right is it?
Now then, are there some real idiots in the world (undoubtedly, but they tend not to be too wealthy) or is there something other than a board, a rag and some emulsion paint involved here? When you look at the sky do you just see clouds? When stoneage man rubbed charcoal and burnt stone on the wall, did he just see a dirty wall?
What do you see when you gaze at Quipus 14G-1 ? Perhaps the world is divided into those who see what is there and those who ‘see’ more than is there, and in the case of 14 G-1, less is certainly much much more.
What do you see Wendy?
Derek
Well, now, I suggest you give more scrutiny to some of those boards! --there can
be a good bit less than meets the eye! 
What do you see when you gaze at Quipus 14G-1 ? Perhaps the world is divided into those who see what is there and those who 'see' more than is there, and in the case of 14 G-1, less is certainly much much more.
–“much … more” ThAN what ?! --than in to OP-cited other work, or than simply its materials & tangle?
You’re not sniffing burning hemp, R U ? ;D
I’m trying to discern the art in these works–something maybe about drawing out knowledge
and presenting/holding it (the knot)–, but either work does that (or not) for me: I don’t see any
real difference to be got from the differences in knots or hue. (What if in fact it turns out these
were some marketing dept.'s discarded supposed test-case samples from washing dirty cloth
in Brand-X vs Brand-Ours ?! 
)
I love all the comments I have received! I’m doing this research project for a class that has mandated that I work with a piece of art outside of my comfort zone. I do pre-Columbian art history and archaeology, so I thought that this piece might have a cool connection. The more I research it, the more I have problems with the artist and his conception of art. He made this piece after he had moved to Europe and was trying to make a name for himself as an artist. I see in this piece the desire for fame and the artist cashing in on using pre-Columbian forms. He is using the idea of a quipu as a commodity, almost as a way of making a brand for himself. I think its fascinating the way he has done this, although on a personal level it is somewhat offensive that he is cashing in on this trend. Of course in my paper I can’t say this, but personally I agree with most of the thoughts on this board. I can’t wait to get back to working with actual quipus…
Wendy
Wow Wendy,
You work with real Quipu?
I have never met anyone before who is actually working with the real things, I have never even seen a quipu ‘in the thread’ so to speak. You are a very special person and we are so lucky that you have come to the IGKT Forum - expect to field a lot of questions about your work and studies and please, please do not go away.
Having said that, why on earth have you come here for info on Quipu knotting when you can see these things for yourself and I should think everyone here is only working from internet information on them?
Can you tell us just what your studies and work involves with respect to the Quipu and where you expect it to take you?
I do hope you stay and are willing to post voluminously on a topic which I for one would love to read much much more about.
Going back to Eilson, OK, you say he took on a style for the European market, but was this simply a marketing ploy (which you can despise) or was he transcending the simplistic reproduction of Incan art styles by symbolising the role and importance of the quipu and fabric for the entire Incan life?
For many people the transition from smooth cloth to ‘rope’ (or the reverse, from ‘rope’ to smooth cloth) is no more than that - a transition. But in reality, the transition of a smooth flat two dimensional orderly fabric, progressively into a three dimensional rope structure is a hugely complex transition.
If you take a single thread from across the width of the flat cloth, it is a simple straight line, a one dimensional line with virtually no complexity or information (other than thread material, twist, thickness and colour(ring any bells here?)). By the time the cord has become a rope, a sister thread will now be taking a hugely contorted path within the bundle which is the rope - that contortion is information. I doubt for one moment that Eielson has formalised the information carried by the contortions of that thread, but he has utilised this complexity to conceptualise the function of taking the simple uncomplicated cord of the Quipu and by complicating it by tying it in knots, the Inca were able to weave into it the language which formalised and managed a whole and vast civilisation.
By not declaring the ‘code’ for the information held in the rope, he has kept its message secret - exactly as the enigmatic quipu do from us today (appart from simple accountancy).
But Eielson has gone beyond this demonstration of the generation and storage of information. By taking the cloth in a continuous process from one form to another he might be representing the whole process of the development of knowledge and complexity, even as I said before, expressing the whole life of the Incan civilisation from birth to destruction.
Even the elevation of the cord into the space above the board and causing it to cast its shadows onto the undefined plain back space gives me goose bumps. Why did he create these shadows? What is he symbolising?
OK, he isn’t utilising any of the ‘classical’ Incan imagery, but perhaps he is taking the symbolism to a place that the Incans themselves would have abstracted their art to had they not had their world plundered and destroyed by Spanish barbarians.
Maybe Eielson is having the last laugh at those who claim his ‘Art’ is simply a crude attempt to cash in on mainstream styles, because they have simply failed (just as the Spaniards did), to see the richness and wealth of information that may be contained in coloured twisted threads.
Derek
Dan - you, you, SPANIARD
But at least you are starting your progress into the depth and value of art through your increasing use of symbolising icons (AKA Smileys) :
Derek
Derek,
You misunderstood me. I don’t physically work with quipus, I was merely trying to convey that I would rather be researching the pre-Columbian objects and not modern art. The information I was trying to get from this forum was the classification of the knot itself, although I’m not sure that even matters to my arguments anymore. I think the reason I suspect that Eielson might be using quipus as a commodity form, or perhaps even a brand to differentiate himself in the art market is due to the fact that he didn’t make any artistic references to Peru until he was living in Europe and trying to make it as an artist. He makes many more references to classical culture (such as writing poems about Ajax and Antigone). I don’t think this ‘quipus as commodity form’ reading is the only one, but it is something that we must consider. Another interesting point you brought up, referring to the fact that he has kept the information secret…Eielson was gay and other poetry and performance pieces make references to his sexuality and his bondage fantasies. A completely different reading of his quipus work is as secret codes for his sexual desires. With this reading the strong tension that comes across takes on a completely different meaning.
I’m really glad this has sparked a discussion. Eielson has definitely been relegated to the footnotes of art history and I’m glad that more people are thinking about his work.
I suppose because of all the research I have to do on this piece I’m in a love/hate relationship with it, so I apologize if my earlier comments seemed a little disparaging against it. I really do think its an interesting concept that he is developing here.
Wendy