It is sometimes difficult to consider textiles as works of art equal to paintings or sculpture. There are several reasons for this. One is that despite the huge output of textiles that has occurred over the centuries, very few survive. Textiles suffer from moths and other insects that eat fibers. Hot and humid climates encourage the growth of mold and mildew. The chemicals used in finishing or dyeing processes sometimes attack the fibers over time. Textiles have been cut and resewn, stretched over frames, or picked apart for their silver and gold threads. Because of their fragility and such treatment, few textiles survive intact for centuries. This may lead to the assumption that textiles were not an important means of artistic expression.

Second, because modern textiles are so quickly and easily produced, we tend to take them for granted. For centuries prior to the Industrial Revolution, fine fabrics and rugs were woven entirely by hand. From the cultivation and preparation of fibers, to the drawing of a design or cartoon for the weavers to follow, to the setting up of a loom, to the interlacing of one thread with another, each step was labor and time-intensive, sometimes taking months or years.

Finally, we are used to thinking of art as being produced by an individual of genius. The production of an art textile was a collaborative effort, dependent upon a number of artists and artisans, many of whom have remained anonymous. Sometimes an artist is named as the designer of the cartoon for a tapestry or rug, but this participation was only a step in the process.

The importance of carpets to the Mughal emperors is illustrated by their desire at an early date to import Persian carpets to India, then to introduce this style of weaving to the native Indian craftsmen. The carpets woven in India were closely related to the art of manuscript painting, and other arts, indicating a close collaboration among workshops.

More on Use