Next keris from Polish Museum
 

Dear Kerislovers!

This is just the next Keris from my Museum for your consideration. Please feel free to comment this nice piece, while I'm still completely unfamiliar with these beautiful weapons.

First of all, in my opinion, this keris is very beautiful in my eyes. I would like to know more about woman impersonation on the hilt. It is quite good piece of wood-work. Unfortunately the hilt is cracked in the lower part, and it's not fitted on the pin completely. Probably someone couldn't fit this, and it has cracked during the operation. Do you think that it's from other weapon and was refitted, or just someone bungle this work during ordinary cleaning?
Please take a look at the hands of this woman. Right hand looks quite normal, but the left one has very short middle fingers. I'm wondering, is its just carver's error?

Measurments:
overall: 45,7 cm (17,9 inch.)
blade: 36,1 cm (14,4 inch.)
width of the ganja (?): 8,3 cm (3,2 inch.)
hilt: 9 cm (3,5 inch.)

Hope you'll enjoy this one

best regards!

Just two more pictures

One word STUNNING!!


Lew

Golly!

It is a lovely piece, but unfortunately I know too little to comment it, none the less I apresiate the pictures very much:).

Jens

That's a very unusal ukiran you've got there. It reminds me of the work of futurist sculptors like Boccioni and Brancusi. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that they were inspired by the more abstract hilt forms of the Indonesian keris. :)
The blade seems well formed, but until you raise the pamor it is difficult to say just how good this keris might be. It looks like late 19thC work to me, probably Javanese. Does it have a sheath?

I suspect this is an early Javanese piece. The handle, according to Martin Kerner's book, is veiled Durga. The proportions is not quite Balinese, especially with the bottom which seemed to fit a mendak than a Balinese 'hilt receptacle' (I don't know the term for that big round thing studded with gems :D ). But a Hindu Goddess would suggest a pre-Islamic era.

The greneng is the 'out-of-blade-profile' type. Later-day Javanese kerises usually have 'within-the-blade-profile' kind of greneng. And the overall execution of the blade is something reminiscent of the 16th century Javanese kerises in Karsten Jensen's book. If I may add, the execution of this keris is somewhat between a Balinese blade and a N Malayan blade. Both were supposed to have descended from early Javanese keris forms, and retained much of those characteristics. Interestingly enough, Javanese keris forms lost most of those old-style aesthetics and seemed to have moved inexorably into the realm of pamor, pamor, pamor. :)

Attached examples of 2 Balinese and 1 N Malayan "out-of-blade-profile" greneng and 2 Javanese "within-the-blade-profile" greneng.

I found a 'brother keris' in Karsten Jensen's book. Note the Shiva hilt. Very similar to the Durga hilt here. Dated to 16th/17th century.

Thank you for kind words

BluErf and nechesh: thank you for your opinions and photos.

Few answers: there is no sheath :(
I wouldn't be surprised if it was older than 19th century, but I'm not assuming it either. This kris is from the very, very good collection, of one of the famous noble Polish family. "Unfortunately" they gathered mainly European firearms and some Polish weapons, but you can find there also few other things, like this keris. Because they didn't left any clues about these pieces, I can't tell you how they purchased them and when.

Regards!

I would say that the blade of this keris is balinese. The ukiran is lovely and I believe together with the mendak javanese. The crack in the ukiran probably ocurred because the peksi was winded with to much cloth to secure the ukiran. When you still push the ukiran on the peksi it will crack.
Nevertheless it is a beautifull ukiran. Maybe you can remove it and remove some cloth. Probably the ukiran will fit better. Or find an balinese ukiran and display the mendak with ukiran as a javanese piece.

im new with this but what i`ve seen is absolutely beautiful and blending of the blade colour is undescribable.....wish i was into keris collection earlier :rolleyes:

If you don't mind a fair amount of reading you may find this thread from the old forum enlightening .

Part I
http://www.vikingsword.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000307.html
PartII
http://www.vikingsword.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000402.html

Kai Wee makes very good points about the greneng profile and i believe he is correct that this is an older piece. Thanks for all those pictures. :)
I would still stick to Javanese origin.
Even without seeing the pamor clearly it is certain that this is a very nice old blade. You should have the museum commission a sheath for it. It is well deserving of one. :)

I want to give my initial impressions before becoming confused by those who know more about k(e)ris than I do; I tend to get lost in the terminology and confused sometimes by other people's thoughts. Lovely, and with all the look of a very deadly weapon. I will assay nothing to do with place or age, as I've little doubt others have already told you that quite precisely, and my input would be both irrelevant and superceded. The blade seems to have a fairly crisp etch; probably one you can feel? It is not stained, which I'll just leave as a lone statement. The edge lamination does not appear to be a vastly different alloy from the body of the blade (the etching has not darkened either significantly more, though the main weld is quite visible in places, and we seem to be looking at the usual [but not universal] sandwich mai construction....). The handle carving is beautiful. I find the hollowed depiction of the feet, almost Mexican-Magic-Jesus-style (and the whole statue is in a style that reminds me of more Eastern Pacific work, and even Pacific coastal American Indian work), fascinating. The first thing I see with the left hand is that the line that divides the two middle fingers continues beyond the hand quite far (unlike the right hand), and appears to be a crack or other long flaw in the wood. Does this area seem to be darker and less clearly grained than the rest of the wood? I can't tell from the photos. Several types of such areas (scars, knots, burls, or even just the heart of the wood) can be oddly grained, often extra hard and brittle, and difficult to carve, so all this argues for an accident, likely during production, as you say. The figure is beautiful, but stylized and simplistic; it does not seem to have any intricate detail, and this also may argue for a lower-teir carver who might make such errors (I think I could almost carve this in good carving wood, and they probably wouldn't let me make wooden things and sell them in your country, Wolviex; just guessing based on Germany, actually though; there's still a guild there, last I heard, which was about AD 2002..... ;) ). On the other hand, there are other differences. The thumb is similarly vague and rounded, but the two full length fingers seem strikingly more lifelike and wellformed on the left hand than any of the right. Is this a known meaningful gesture? The crack/flaw would then make sense as something in the wood that the caver blended into the carving.
As for the other crack and the slight protrusion of the tang, I have become intriqued by Laban Tayo's statement that the wedge shaped tang on a sword of his that seems to exhibit a similar situation was pushed out by hilt shrinkage; perhaps that relates in some way? Damage is of course real, but in truth, more of it occurs to swords (at least in these times) from neglect, travel, and exposure to air than from mechanical trauma.
On a linguistic side note, "Woman impersonation" makes a kind of comically out of place phrase in N American English; it's similar to a common vernacular term for male to femal cross-dressers ("female impersonator").

Hi Tom, it is not just the ability most important is the original concept,glad to hear you are that good .I will email you with some of my work.Tim

I totally agree, and the surfacing is real nice, too. I think I want a poster of this statue.

Tom, i don't believe the lack of intricate detail argues for a lower-tier carver. This may, infact, be a depiction of Durga or some other goddess form, but it is abstracted, IMO, in an attempt to conform to islamic law, so i don't think this is necessarily pre-Islamic. To be a pre-Islamic hilt from Jawa it would have to be at least 16thC or older and that would make this a pretty old chunk of wood. It has a nice patina, but i hardly think it is that old. I actually think the conception and execution of this hilt required an artisan of great skill. IMO it is high art.
I don't think this blade is etched but unstained. I just think it has been a very long time since it's last staining.

This stunning Ukiran perfectly fits the quote of the famous architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe :

" Less is more ."

I agree, but that does not imply that there is anything especially difficult about the cuts or anything. The beauty and inspiration of the conception and the skill required for the execution are two pretty much entirely different things. I desire to explain myself as at least two persons seem to have somewhat misunderstood my statement. There is nothing particularly clumsy, amateurish, etc. about the execution of this piece (except perhaps the fingers, but I'm not convinced that's unintentional), however.......however, the cuts are simple, the surfaces are sweeping; there is little to no intricate detail (especially by Oceanic SE Asian terms); thus, everything about the carving, while not showing failure of skill, other than the debatable/unknown situation with the hands (which is exactly what I was pursuing of course), also does not display any especially great carving skill. I don't know this wood, but truly I'm pretty sure I could carve this, or come real close, given time and the will, and with my knives sharp and plenty to smoke, and I am no master carver; I often see carvings on this forum of which I would not say this. This simplicity in no way denigrates this sculpture! It could even be considered to speak of its essence.

This is most likely the mechanism by which it became etched but not stained, agreed; the stain probably wore off. That would be my guess, but it didn't look like a Java k(e)ris to me, so I was not entirely sure it would've ever been stained. Actually, and I am a bit surprised by this, it seems there may still be some uncertainty concerning the island/tribe/etc. of origin; I figured it would be all nailed down by now; sometimes I like to leave a k(e)ris thread alone until that stuff is all nailed down, then talk about what interests me about these often lovely dagger-swords. In any event, one point I was trying obliquely to make is that only very slight if any etching would be needed or helpful in resurfacing this piece because it is already pretty well done, while staining, if appropriate, is needed; there seems to be constant confusion between these two technical processes, so the division is good to point out.

This handle has been carved by a master.An obviously very high status client commisioned this piece ,we do not know what directions were given to the artists that made this,I am sure it was not just whittled on a whim untill it was thought finnished,it was made on request!The fact that it looks so simple and beautiful is because the carver was a master of the highest order, and indeed less is more.Those who are of the opinion that technical abillity is artistic merit need to go back to school.Tim

We hear that the simplest things are often the most difficult to carve well because there is nothing to hide the flaws with. Its like singing karaoke without the echo, instrumental accompaniment and backup vocals -- the singer has to be damn good in order not to fall flat. :)

Some of the seemingly easy-to-carve bits are actually terribly difficult to carve.

Just a couple of examples:

1. The bugis pistol-grip handle. The form looks easy enough, but it has to feel right when gripped in the hand. Javanese/Madurese knock-offs of Bugis handles looked essentially the same, but is stiffer and doesn't feel right. This is because there should be an almost imperceptible twist in the 'head' of the handle. The other thing is -- notice the lines on the handle, especially the 'u-turn' double-line on the top back of the hilt (2nd pic). This is carved free-hand and on a curving surface, and the carver has only one stroke to do each line of that 'u-turn'. 1 mm off, and the lines don't join with the other lines properly.

2. The 'locust neck' sheath stem bottom. Looks plain and simple, but it is really quite difficult to shape from a square block. The inverted 'v' curves must fit perfectly between the 2 blocks of wood. 0.5mm off for any of the 4 curves on the inverted 'v' on either side and it won't fit.

I think Java's conversion to Islam took place over a period of time, and even then, was not complete. The pasisir areas retained much of their rashaksa, ganesha forms even til this day, albeit covered and hidden in floral motifs. E Java still has its tree of life motif with parrot head on top, and sometimes angels by the side. So this hilt could be 17th century or even 18th century.

However, the condition of the piece may not be an indication of age. Looking at the Karsten Jensen example above, who would believe that they are looking at a 16th century keris and hilt. There are other examples in the Karsten Jensen books in which the ivory hilt is still cream coloured, and the sheaths retained their original pigments. Preservation and use (abuse) are important factors in how the hilt would end up looking after centuries. This keris here could have ended up in the collection and hardly handled; "kept in a cool, dry place", I guess.

Thank you all!

If we are discussing the Ukiran at the moment, I think that these two left hand fingers were made purposely. I can't tell at the moment if the wood is harder in that place, but I would rather think about it as designedly. Writing about carver error I wanted to provoke discussion, beliving that someone saw something similiar, and could tell us, if it is known gesture or meaning.

This is beautiful piece of work, no doubt. I believe that someone will be able to call this deity: Nechesh mentioned Durga, I would like to know something more about her. I know that deities are sometimes problematic to identify, but please go on :) - any other ideas?

Thank you in advance

Judging keris from it's picture is always very tricky for me, but that's the only way we could do here :( It looks like javanese keris for me, the "nem-neman" perhaps. Nem-neman term attributed to all kerises which were made after the Giyanti Treaty, which divided the mataram kingdom in 1792, until early 20th century. 36cm long is'n't long enough for Bali kerises, but quite long for Java. Here in Java, we measure the blade by "kilan" or "jengkal" traditional unit, that is, the distance between the thumb's point and little finger while you spreading them (mine is 20cm). Average Java keris (and Bugis, perhaps Malay also) have around one and a half kilan long, while bali keris might well over 2 kilans.

"out-of-blade" greneng profile is called "ron dha nunut". Greneng term is only used specifically for those thorn-like shape on ganja's tail. Once it come to the blade, it is called "ron dha nunut" nunut= to follow, ron=daun=leaf, dha=the "W"torn-like shape, which actually resembles the "dha" character on Javanese alphabet. the greneng on the sekar kacang is called "jenggot" or beard. Mpu put/made the greneng, ron dha nunut or jenggot on the blade according to the dhapur/blade shape he wished to made. There were a rule, not just for it's beauty, especially in Java. There always a name and meaning for every ricikan/blade details and luk. But for now, just admire the beauty :D It's true that the greneng shape might be the indicator for the age, but it's the "W" or dha which is used, not the "out-of-blade" or "within-the-blade" profile, at least here in Java, for what I've learnt. Some even believe that the greneng are actually the "hand-signature" of the empu.

I don't hold my opinions as to be the right ones. I just want to share what I've learnt, and to learnt much much more. Please do not feel offended :)

Anyway, good keris, Wolviex. Just wonder, how it could travel to Poland :D The pamor is beras wutah, and the dhapur might be Carita Kanawa, 9 luk. I don't bring the dhapur book, just relying my memory, so I couldn't assure you, sorry :(

Hi Boedhi, thanks for sharing. I think you may have misunderstood my use of "out-of-blade-profile" and "within-the-blade-profile". In both cases, there are ron dha nunut, its only whether it sticks out of the blade profile like in the Balinese, Malay and the primary Javanese keris in discussion here, or whether it is cut into the blade profile, like in the 2 Javanese keris examples I have posted. I must admit that this out-of-profile and within-profile point is merely my observation of the Javanese kerises I have seen in person and in books. The older pieces (16th-maybe 18th century) had out-of-profile greneng. The recent ones (19th-21st century) had greneng that does not protrude from the blade profile line.

Well, other than to point out that some of the lines are actually a little bit wiggly and that this is very likely a traditional design and not invented by the carver, I guess I've said my say on the skill level; believe what you will, but let me ask, can you justify the claim of mastery? What is it that anyone thinks requires a master's hand here? Because I, an experienced cutter of wood, see nothing like that. Why are the fingers so bulbous? If that's master's work then it's intentional and meaningful. Abstract lines, curved or straight, are much easier than fingers. I think the concept of master artisan/first rate work is misunderstood and considerably over-applied by modern people, BTW; to say something is not masterly does not mean it is not good. To hark to the European guild system, journeymen typically must display a level of skill and knowledge that would generally be considered very impressive. The typical professional working craftsman is a journeyman. Most firms in the past (usually family operated of course) did not have a single master craftsman. Most craftsmen never in their lives became masters. Most of us may have never seen master's work outside of musea and books (though there's a confusing and distressing tendency where the boss's name goes on it no matter who made it). Perhaps the term "mpu" is/was given out more lightly, but I somehow doubt it.
Bluerf, I'm not sure what point the hilt you show us is supposed to make about the hilt we're discussing, or at least how it's supposed to make it? The two are quite different.
My point with the whole mastery question was that the general level of carving skill seen here is such that an error of the type proposed, especially in an area of difficult grain, is believeable.
It often seems pointless and almost silly to discuss "quality", since judgements of it tend to be highly cultural and subjective and often do not seem suceptible to logic; Andy Warhol? Terrible painter; no good at all; No skill, no ability, no depth, no soul; recently saw some of his work in person; junk; very poorly made; see? Subjective. There are people that would about throw a brick at me for saying that, and consider it proof positive that I know nothing about art; I might say the same of most of them for saying it's any good.....who paints a million soup cans without learning to depict the curve believably?.....subjective. Therefore, back to the subject: I note something I didn't earlier, and that's that the left leg has many lines, and the right leg none (the lines I'd noticed, of course, but the none I hadn't; in all fairness it was the left hand to which our attention had been directed.). This in mind, and with the thought that these lines represent fabric wrinkles (?), possibly including the one that descends from the hand (is it the same shape of groove?)? The shine on the piece really makes it hard to see the wood or the surface; a fairly common difficulty with photos. She could be reaching two fingers into the fabric to scratch her leg, or to hike up her skirt. I don't know how that would tie in to any myth or standard gesture, but I think I've seen statues of Kali exposing herself, and the fingers do look more like they are disappearing into the skirt than as if they are curled in to the palm. Don't dismiss too quickly; Mjolnir the lightning-hammer has a short handle because an assistant smith got distracted by a biting fly (though it was not actually an ordinary fly, but in art.....). This is a very important part of that myth; one of its main moral points, without which it would almost never be related or depicted. Gods are often scratching their butts in stories....or maybe she's reaching for something. Aren't Durga and Kali the same/aspects of one being/etc?

I use the word master to driscibe an artist, exprienced, skilled and above all creative.The last thing I meant was any kind of highbrow sanctification.Tim

That's more or less what I thought you meant, Tim, and I agree with your opinion about this statue; I love it. I just think it's important to point out the difference between the (arguably incorrect) relatively broad modern N American vernacular use of the term and its traditional, very much rules-bound, European meaning. I'm affraid I'm one of those tiresome persons who is troubled by the changing of language, and almost look at as decay. I can't justify this logically; things change; that's life; it bothers me for whatever reason, though......This is not the first time I've said something isn't master work, or isn't first class work, and gotten responses almost as if I'd said it was not good; this ties in with aspects of modern culture that I'd better not discuss here as I cannot see them in any complimentary light; it's real noticeable when you are a craftsman, and know you're a journeyman at best, and watch others no better (and no few worse) advertise their mastery, and watch the people flock to the balogna.
Eric Clapton didn't just call an album Journeyman; I heard him explain it; after all those years of work, and with all the high opinion people have of his work, that's as high a claim as he was willing to make, and it not very vehemently. (Perhaps in Britain humility is still a virtue, or perhaps the old meanings of the terms are still better known/more used there)

Here here,though I am not that keen on Eric Clapton.Tim

Thank you Boedhi Adhitya for your wide description. I can admit that I'm still a little lost in all those terminology, but this is great help. All these name are still sound strange to me, but I'm learning and familiarizing with them... slowly ;). Anyway I found this fascinating.
I don't know how this keris found its way to Poland. There are some possibilities. First of all there were Polish travelers, and some of them were visiting far away Indonesian islands. There are even some journals about their far away travels. I believe that some of them brought few pieces back with them. Second option is, that many examples of these weapons, as spectacular ones, were brought from other countries like Spain, France, England, Germany and other, which were in trade, political and strong cultural contacts with Poland, during 16th-19th centuries. Polish noblemen were often guests in these countries, there were making additions to theirs collections there, and it's for sure, that some of kerises (and maybe this one included) may found its way to Poland through these contacts.

I think that Tom touched serious problem, and he is right writing about Mastery. I don't want to make a discussion about it, but this is obviuos we often understand this word different. In this case, while this keris is from much different culture than I am, I can't tell is it good or not. I can tell only this is nice through my cultural experience. People who are more familiar with these weapons are able to judge about it more properly, so I believe that our kerislovers are somehow right, knowing more pieces than I do. Of course, we have to look and judge from a different points of view i.e. 16th century European drawer (like Albrecht Durer), and from the other peasant artist from the same period. Both might be the "masters", but judging their works quality depends on that what we are looking for, and what are our expactations and knowledge about them. I hope I'm clear. English for me is illegible but different cultural too :D

Boedhi Adhitya and BluErf: please explain to me one thing! I know that dating kerises is sometimes very problematic, but you are judging two different things.
BluErf, judging from the greneng is dating this keris earlier (16th-18th c.)
Boedhi Adhitya moved this date "after the Giyanti Treaty" (late 18th-20th c.)

Sorry for bothering, but I think this discrepancy is in need of explanation :)

Regards!

Well Tom, i'm with you you on Warhol, i think he was a fake and a user who had a few good concepts that he execured ad nauseum. So they can let the rocks fly at both of us. :) But i also think Clapton's greatness is a bit exaggerated too. Good Rock/Blues guitarist with very little originality. No humility there, just being the honest journeyman that he is.
Of Warhol, i have yet to encounter fans of his work referring to him as a "master". It is also well known that much of his work was actually executed by apprentices in his infamous "Factory", with his oversight of course. Now Picasso might be a better comparison because i HAVE heard him referred to as a "master". Much of his best known work is in cubist form, an abstraction of reality just as this particular hilt is. It sometimes looks childish and even simple, but i wouldn't assume i could do it with the same power and meaning. Being a master isn't always in the details. This hilt is meant to look this way and wasn't necessarily carved as an abstraction because the artist was incapable of depicting a realistic figure. This was the artist's intent. Now i certainly wouldn't say he is a "master" based on this one piece of work. But likewise i couldn't say he is not. :)
Personally i find this type of abstraction to be far ahead of it's time and we know that the cubists amongst other "modern" artists were all looking at so-called "primative" art when they were developing their ideas.
Tom, this is not a challenge, but since you have stated more than once that you could carve this as well, i for one would love to see it. You might actually get some business out of it. ;)
Wolviex, dating of keris is almost ALWAYS problematic :) especially when trying to do it just from photographs. A big part of the problem is that some of these keris forms can linger for centuries with very little change in appearance. Still, i thing that BluErf has perhaps applied a bit too much age to this piece and i personally would feel more comfortable with late 18th - early 19thC as Boedhi Adhitya suggests. Without any real provenence it is hard to say for sure. I am surprised that the museum has none at all. I would expect that at least getting info like where and when a piece was collected would be standard for any museum.
Of course, whether this keris is 17thC or 18thC matters little in the end, especially since we will probably never know for sure. What matters is that this is a fine example of an "older" (pre-late19th or 20thC) form with a fairly rare hilt form and that it should be prized by you and your museum. :)

I think it would be an over simplification to say this. They are very different aspects of the same supreme mother, yes, but in this respect then ALL goddess forms would be the same goddess ultimately. They do share a certain ferocity. In other words, dont mess with them! :eek:
I agree with Tom that the Shiva hilt on the Kerner example bears absolutely no resemblence to the "Durga" hilt we have here. The Shiva hilt is mean as a "realistic" depiction of the deity, not the abstraction of the Durga hilt. Different gods, different genders, different treatments.

You're absolutely right, but... this piece wasn't purchased by the museum directly, but it is after big, famous, noble family, which gave all their collection to the museum. Because objects from these collection were gathered by the family from 17th century up to 20th, many of them is without provenience, many of them were just "after grandpa", and to be honest, treated as family mementos, no one was care where and what was purchased :( .

As for the feeling - it's hard to get for me this keris just for feeling, while it's from different culture. So if I could say I can feel, I would guess 18th-19th century too.

I knew someone would say it and guessed it would be you; $15 an hour for that kind of work, buddy, and it will take a while; I ain't do nothing to prove nothing to nobody. ;) And I actually don't take carving work for hire; professionalism is the death of art. I do things I don't love so much for hire (though I guess it is a complex issue; I'd still be at the custom door job if my back could take the work.....).
Since two people don't get the Clapton reference though it seems off topic (and being a metaphor, isn't), I must elucidate further upon it. I actually never liked Eric Clapton much. I wouldn't call him lowest common denominator, but I just was never very impressed by his work, and most of all was indeed annoyed by the "rock god" vicarious arrogance of his fans. Furthermore, I think his best work was early on and he never should have abandoned his earlier style for the more derivitive work everyone seems so impressed by. But what turned me around on the man as an artist is the interview; the arrogance isn't his; it's his fans' and the derivitiveness is what is called learning by imitation, and though I'd've rather seen him pursue art by inspiration and individuality, his is a path I can respect; a bit prosaic, and nothing to expect artists to have the patience for, but respectable; learn the tradition THEN break/supercede it. Still learning a lot, he said; not ready to supercede. Just a journeyman; a competent working bluesman. IMHO a fairly accurate assessment, and a concept he has evidently pursued quite sincerely and at the expense of doing his own thing musically (and if you listen to his early work it is clear he had his own thing). You don't have to be a fan to respect such clarity and humility.
BTW, Two things I didn't say are that I could definitely carve this quite as well (I hedged my bets, you may notice, especially as it may for all I know be a difficult wood.), or that it couldn't have been carved by a master (only no particular sign it was; far from the same. On further examination I have spotted what seem to be minor flaws, but that doesn't lock things down or anything, and at least some of them may be deliberate and not flaws at all, such as the bulbous fingers.).
Picasso was a better painter than Warhol, but I don't care for his personality either. His followers/devotees do not call him a master. They call him "The Master", kind of like Jesus or something.
Interesting to say that this kind of work is out of placely modern, or ahead of its time; a total misperception, begging your pardon; in fact the "modern" Western art that resembles it is itself consciously imitative of "primitive" art; consciously behind its time, if you will. A lot of "Modern Art" is actually a reinjection of the primitive, and the concepts of beauty and form it expresses, if they are advanced, are not the advancement of the modern society/overculture/industrial age, but it trying to get back to the advancement or whatever term you prefer of earlier, more "natural" human cultures. The assumption that history and society are improving or are moving forward in anything but time has no basis in reality, though it is very common.....
If you ever get to Houston, you'd better not gamble and you'd better not fight, just like the song says, but then take yourself to a museum called the Menil Collection. A modern art museum. For one thing they have a bad ass beautiful deadly giant wooden Polynesian sword/spear in one of the corners, kind of behind a case, and for another they have a back room stocked with traditional art from the collections of famous modern artists, to show some of what they were studying.

Lingering Eric Clapton's plot, you'll guys will be able soon to write the epochal work titled "Eric Clapton's music and its influence on the kerises ukirans in 19th and 20th century" :rolleyes: :D
or "Reminescences of keris pamor in Andy Warhol's works" (LOL)

Regards ;)

Ha ha. Really though, music is one of the most widely/publicly appreciated/discussed arts in N America, and the one that most people know the most about and the most about the business of, so it almost always serves as a very rich source of metaphor when discussing art with N Americans, and so is quite appropriate. Painting is different; still trying to use widely known arts/artists as examples though. How many N Americans can name one wood carver? But musicians, actors, and painters........so good metaphors/examples of how things go down in the arts.

When in a hole stop digging.Tim