Skip to main content

Cognitive bearing of techno-advances in Kashmiri carpet designing

An Erratum to this article was published on 08 February 2017

This article has been updated

Abstract

The design process in Kashmiri carpet weaving is a distributed process encompassing a number of actors and artifacts. These include a designer called naqash who creates the design on graphs, and a coder called talim-guru who encodes that design in a specific notation called talim which is deciphered and interpreted by the weavers to weave the design. The technological interventions over the years have influenced these artifacts considerably and triggered major changes in the practice, from heralding profound cognitive accomplishments in manually driven design process causing major alterations in the overall structure of the practice. The recent intervention is by the digital technology: on the one hand, it has brought precision and speedy processing in the design process, and on the other, it has eliminated some of the crucial actors from the practice. This paper, which forms part of a larger study on the situated and distributed cognitive process in Kashmiri carpet-weaving practice, describes the technological makeover of the design artifacts involved in this practice over the years and their resultant cognitive impact on the design process as well as on the practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Change history

  • 08 February 2017

    An erratum to this article has been published.

Notes

  1. 1.

    See also Gans-Reudin (1984: 14, 31) and Goswami (2009: 146). For a concise history of carpet manufacturing, see Goswami (2009) and Roy (2004).

  2. 2.

    Harris (1991, 1997, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2007) is a good source for discussion of talim-usage in Kashmiri shawl-weaving from weaver’s perspective. Though, both shawl and carpet-weaving use identical talims, their usage styles differ. I restrict to carpet-weaving practice in my work.

  3. 3.

    There is no consensus on the term for ‘talim-copyist’ in local jargon as community knows them as copyist or copier only. A few elderly respondents recall these actors being referred as nakkaal or nakal-karanvol in olden times.

  4. 4.

    Warp threads are vertically fixed on the loom and weft-threads are those with which knots are tied on these threads. As such, weft-threads run horizontally, left to right and vice versa, on the loom. One knot is a cross-tie of vertical and horizontal threads, and consequently, can be represented in a grid-like structure.

  5. 5.

    In shawl-weaving, the loom is positioned horizontally as if going from the lap of the weaver to beyond, because of which the graph can be placed beneath the warp threads, while in carpet-weaving, the loom is vertically positioned and warp threads are fixed like drapes.

  6. 6.

    A clear difference between Leitner’s description of design process vis-à-vis traditional version can be discerned: while tarah-guru is skipped, the role and arrangement of other actors is altered. The coding is done by the ‘head of the manufactory’ instead of a talim-writer, who recites the instructions by ‘estimating’ them from the plan directly laid beneath the warp threads, which talim-nawis listens and writes down.

  7. 7.

    The IICT Report (2009: 30) shows a talim numeral-table up to 100 which uses a novel style of representing numbers beyond 20. Instead of using number of dots to represent multiples of 10, the number-code of that numeral is used inside the tilted-circle instead of dots. For instance, Leitner would use, three dots and the unit-numeral to represent 32 (or as per “outside notation” (p.15) form), this report uses code of three for three dots and unit-numeral outside the tilted-circle like this for 32. Evidently, this is cognitively more efficient system, yet, this is not used in actual talim-writing which requires distribution of knots in 20–24 knots per columnar-row only. One exception: the same report shows for 9 which resembles Leitner’s version. In digital setting, nowadays, is used; hence I used this symbol in my numeral-table. In manual setting, a talim-writer may also use for 9 depending on her choice.

  8. 8.

    For Naqash, see http://www.kashmirlife.net/programming-taleem-480/. For Qaleen Weaver, see: http://graphicweave.com/wp-content/uploads/QaleenWeaverBrochure.pdf.

References

  1. Artman H, Garbis C (1998) Situation awareness as distributed cognition. In: Proceedings of the European conference on cognitive ergonomics—9, Limerick

  2. Ball LJ, Ormerod TC (2000) Putting ethnography to work: the case for a cognitive ethnography of design. Int J Hum Comput Stud 53:147–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Badke-Schaub P, Frankenberger E (2004) Design representations in critical situations of product development. In: Goldschmidt G and Porter WL (eds) Design representation. Springer-Verlag, London, 105–126

  4. Bertelsen OW (2000) Design artefacts: towards a design oriented epistemology. Scand J Inf Syst 12:15–27

    Google Scholar 

  5. Brown P (2009) CAD: do computers aid the design process after all? Intersect 2(1):1–15

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bucciarelli LL (1988) An ethnographic perspective to engineering design. Des Stud 9(3):159–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cross N (1998) Natural intelligence in design. Des Stud 20:25–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dennett D (1987) Cognitive wheels: the frame problem of AI. In: Pylyshyn Z (ed) The robot’s dilemma: the frame problem in artificial intelligence. Ablex Publishing, New York, pp 41–64

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dewan P (2013) Amazing Kashmir: almost everything about travel, trekking, religion, culture, wildlife. Manas Publications, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dorst K, Dijkhuis J (1995) Comparing paradigms for describing design activity. Des Stud 16(2):261–274

  11. Dubbels B (2011) Cognitive ethnography: a methodology for measure and analysis of learning for game studies. Int J Gaming Comput Mediat Simul 3(1):68–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Eastman CM (1969) Cognitive processes and ill-defined problems: a case study from design. In: Proceedings of the 1st international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI’69), pp 669–690

  13. Eckert CM, Blackwell AF, Stacey MK, Earl CF (2004) Sketching across design domains. In: Gero JS, Tversky B, Knight T (eds) Visual and spatial reasoning in design-iii. University of Sydney, Camperdown, pp 79–101

    Google Scholar 

  14. Eistentraut R (1997) Styles of problem solving and their influence on the design process. Des Stud 20(5):431–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Eriksen MA (2009) Engaging design materials, formats and framings in specific, situated co-designing: a micro-material perspective. In: Proceedings of the Nordic design research conference, Oslo, Norway

  16. Ford PRJ (1981) Oriental carpet design: a guide to traditional motifs, patterns and symbols. Thames and Hudson, UK

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gans-Reudin E (1984) Indian carpets: with 280 illustrations, 120 in colour. Thames and Hudson, Britain

    Google Scholar 

  18. Goldschmidt G, Porter WL (eds) (2004) Design representation. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  19. Goodwin C (1997) The blackness of black: color categories as situated practice. In: Resnick LB, Saljo R, Pontecorvo C, Burge B (eds) Discourse, tools, and reasoning: essays in situated cognition. Springer, Berlin, pp 111–140

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Goswami KK (2009) Developments in handmade carpets: an introduction. In: Goswami KK (ed) Advances in carpet manufacture. Woodhead Publishing, Oxford, pp 138–181

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Gravis P (1954) This is Kashmir: Kashmir revisited (history and culture). Jay kay Books, Srinagar (Reprinted in 2007)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Harris P (1991) The Kashmir shawl: lessons in history and studies in technology. Ars Textrina 16:105–127

    Google Scholar 

  23. Harris P (1997) Reading between the lines-catalogue of shawl talim. http://tapadesi.com/published-articles/

  24. Harris P (2000) Decoding the talim. Hali 110:82–83

    Google Scholar 

  25. Harris P (2001) Kashmiri shawl survival. Textile Forum, 13. https://tapadesi.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/kashmir-shawl-survival.doc

  26. Harris P (2003) Digital images in Kashmir shawl weaving. Complex Weav J 71:45. https://tapadesi.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/digital-images-in-kashmir-shawl-weaving.doc

  27. Harris P (2007) An eighteenth century digital technology. Cahiers Métiers D’art Craft J 1(1). https://tapadesi.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/an-18th-century-digital-technology.doc

  28. Heath C, Luff P (2000) Technology in action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  29. Heersmink R (2013) A taxonomy of cognitive artefacts: function, information and categories. Rev Philos Psychol 4(3):465–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Heidegger M (1962) Being and time. Macquarrie J, Robinson E (trans). Blackwell Publishers, Oxford

  31. Hughes J, King V, Rodden T, Andersen H (1994) Moving out of the control room: ethnography in systems design. In: Proceedings of the ACM on CSCW, ACM, New York, pp 429–439

  32. Hutchins E, Palen L (1995) Cognition in the wild. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  33. Hutchins and Palen (1997) Constructing meaning from space, gesture, and speech. In: Resnick LB, Saljo R, Pontecorvo C, Burge B (eds) Discourse, tools, and reasoning: essays in situated cognition. Springer, Berlin, pp 23–42

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  34. Keller C, Keller JD (1993) Thinking and acting with iron. In: Chaiklin S, Lave J (eds) Understanding practice: perspectives on activity and context. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  35. Khan F (1993) Cognitive analysis of work organization: a study of carpet-weavers in Kashmir. Q Newsl Lab Comp Hum Cogn 15(2):48–52

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kirsh D (1995) The intelligent use of space. Artif Intell 73(1–2):31–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kirsh D (2005) Metacognition, distributed cognition and visual design. In: Gardenfors P, Johansson P (eds) Cognition, education and communication technology. Lawrence Erlbaum, Oxford, pp 147–149

    Google Scholar 

  38. Kirsh D (2009) Problem solving and situated cognition. In: Robbins P, Aydede M (eds) The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 264–306

    Google Scholar 

  39. Kirshner D, Whitson JA (eds) (1997) Situated cognition: social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives. Lawrence Erlbaum, London

    Google Scholar 

  40. Lave J (1988) Cognition in practice: mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  41. Lawrence W (1895) The valley of Kashmir. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  42. Leitner GW (1882) Linguistic fragments discovered in 1870, 1872 and 1879 relating to the dialect of the magadds, and other wandering tribes, the argots of thieves, the secret of trade-dialects and systems of native cryptography in kabul, kashmir and the punjab followed by an account of shawl-weaving…. Punjab Govt. Civil Secretariat Press, Lahore

  43. Mathur AR (2004) Indian carpets: a hand-knotted heritage. Rupa & Co, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  44. Merleau-Ponty M (1962) The phenomenology of perception. Smith C (trans). Routledge, London

  45. Moorcroft W, Trebeck G (1841) Travels in the Himalayan provinces of Hindustan and the Punjab, Ladakh and Kashmir; in Peshawar, Kabul, Kunduz and Bokhara: from 1819 to 1825, vol 2. John Murray, London

    Google Scholar 

  46. Murphy KM (2004) Imagination as joint activity: the case of architectural interaction. Mind Cult Act 11(4):267–278

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Norman D (1991) Cognitive artifacts. In: Carroll JM (ed) Designing interaction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  48. Oshike EE (2015) Harmonising sketching, drafting and CAD in architectural education in Nigerian polytechnics: case study of Yaba college of technology. Int J Sci Environ Technol 4(1):573–582

    Google Scholar 

  49. Report IICT (2009) Training in innovative designs for the persons involved in talim-writing under human resource development scheme. Indian Institute of Carpet Technology, Srinagar

    Google Scholar 

  50. Roth WM (1996) Art and artifact of children’s designing: a situated cognition perspective. J Learn Sci 5(2):129–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Roy T (2004) Traditional industry in the economy of colonial India. Cambridge University Press, UK

    Google Scholar 

  52. Sajnani M (2001) Encyclopedia of tourism resources in India, vol 1. Gyan Publishing House, India

    Google Scholar 

  53. Saraf DN (1987) Arts and crafts, Jammu and Kashmir: land, people, culture. Abhinav Publications, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  54. Saraf DN (1990) Carpets. In: Jaitley J (ed) Crafts of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh. Mapin Publishing, India

    Google Scholar 

  55. Schon DA (1983) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  56. Schon DA (1992) Designing as a reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Knowl Based Syst 5(1):3–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Simon HA (1969) The sciences of the artificial. MIT Press, USA

  58. Thompson J (2003) Looms, carpets and talims. In: Tapper R, Maclachlan K (eds) Technology tradition and survival: aspects of material culture in the middle east and central Asia. Frank Cass Publishers, London, pp 136–143

    Google Scholar 

  59. Varela FJ, Rosch E, Thompson E (1991) The embodied mind: cognitive science and human experience. MIT Press, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  60. Williams RF (2006) Using cognitive ethnography to study instruction. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference of the learning sciences, Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am thankful to National Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS), Bengaluru and its Consciousness Studies Programme for supporting and funding the fieldwork in 2015. I am extremely obliged to Ms. Aamina Assad, Chief Designer, School of Designs (SoD), Mr. Gazanfar Ali, the then Director, Directorate of Handicrafts—Massive Carpets Scheme (MCS) and Mr. Zubair Ahmad, Director, Indian Institute of Carpet Technology (IICT), all in Srinagar, for facilitating my work at their respective institutions. I am thankful to Prof. Mushtak Haider, University of Kashmir, for translating the Consent Form used during 2015. I am grateful to Mohd. Ashraf Khan and Sajad Nazir for providing me samples of Alchay and Inch-square graphs, respectively, and M/s BMW Designers, Srinagar for permitting me to reproduce a talim-roll in my paper whose copyright they hold. I am thankful to Prof. Siby George, IIT Bombay and Ms. Sanam Roohi, NIAS for their feedback. Last but not the least, I am obliged to all my respondents for their invaluable time.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gagan Deep Kaur.

Additional information

An erratum to this article is available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-017-0691-x.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kaur, G.D. Cognitive bearing of techno-advances in Kashmiri carpet designing. AI & Soc 32, 509–524 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-016-0683-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Talim
  • Kashmiri carpet weaving
  • Carpet designing
  • Graphs
  • Notational system