spectacular carving for comment

[mariusgmioc]

Javanese?!

[A. G. Maisey]

Clever carving, but not a keris.

Art or maybe craft? Yes.

Skillful work? Yes.

A keris? No.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Clever carving, but not a keris.

Art or maybe craft? Yes.

Skillful work? Yes.

A keris? No.

Thank you Alan! I knew it.

[Battara]

Alan, not to be horribly ignorant, but is it the fact that it was not made in a traditional laminated fashion that makes this not a keris?

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by Battara

Alan, not to be horribly ignorant, but is it the fact that it was not made in a traditional laminated fashion that makes this not a keris?

I would also be interested to hear Alan's explanation, but to me a Keris is a weapon, a kind of dagger more exactly, suitable for stabbing.

The one in the photo is not a weapon or a dagger as it won't be able to stab anything without bending or even breaking.

However, it may be called "decorative keris"... I believe.

[A. G. Maisey]

Battara, this question of yours is a horribly tricky one to answer, and it is something that keris people have debated for a very long time:-

what is a keris?

For me, it comes down to something that is keris-like needing to satisfy a few cultural requirements, before I am able to accept that I'm looking at a keris.

Other people who are very knowledgeable in the field of keris have various other requirements that sometimes relate to the purely physical appearance:- some will say that it must be asymmetric, others that it must have a recognisable gandhik, others that it must be able to be interpreted as a Gunungan, others (the real sticklers) that it must be in compliance with a known pakem.

With this object under discussion, the things that make it impossible for me to accept this as a keris are principally rooted in the design ethic which has no place in Javanese ornamental design, yet, if we were to get rid of all the out-of-place ornamentation, and fill in the holes, we would have a Javanese keris.

All the piercing in the sorsoran is strongly reminiscent of one of the things that used to be done with poor quality keris to make them more saleable.

I don't know where the craftsman drew his inspiration from, but the designs used look like something between a child's version of "Jack the Dragon Slayer", and a Chinese nightmare. The design by any Javanese standard is appalling. Absolutely hideous. But it is very clever work, well executed.

Then we have the consideration of the usefulness of this keris. These days a keris in Jawa is mostly viewed as an item of dress. I most sincerely doubt that any Javanese gentlemen with whom I am acquainted would be prepared to wear this keris under any circumstances. If the blade were to be seen he'd be too embarrassed to show his face in polite society ever again.

Then again, it would be useless as a weapon --- except maybe to wave at the kids stealing my fruit and cause them nightmares.

Nope this object is purely and simply a piece of canvas, its purpose is to permit the craftsman to display his skill, which is considerable. But he needs to go back to school and take a "Keris 101" course.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Then again, it would be useless as a weapon --- except maybe to wave at the kids stealing my fruit and cause them nightmares.

Thank you Alan again! You gave me a good laugh!

I can even imagine the kids running in horror and being haunted by the horrible elephant-headed dragono-hydra sireno-garuda (please correct me if I didn't name the beast/beasts correctly).


But who are we to criticize?! Maybe the author had a harsh childhood and took the opportunity to express in iron the sum of his childhood fears.

PS: Yet, I like this carving!

[A. G. Maisey]

Marius, I believe I am correct when I say that this object was intended as a work of art, or craft.

Throughout history, even the very greatest artists and craftsmen have had their work criticised. It is very probably a disservice to the world at large for a person who has the background, knowledge and experience to feel confident in criticism of the work of others, not to level criticism, praise or comment where this is warranted.

So, when you ask the question:- "who are we to criticise?", I believe that there are those amongst us who do have the requisite background, knowledge and experience to make comment, praise or criticism in respect of items posted to this Forum.

In fact, very often items are posted with the express request for comment.

Of course, sometimes some objects for which an opinion is requested are beyond --- often far beyond --- the remote possibility of comment, and these objects do not receive any comment, criticism or praise.

In respect of this dragon object there is an even balance of praise and criticism:- on the one hand the craftsmanship is quite acceptable, not yet brilliant, but pretty good just the same, however the craftsman who produced it made absolutely no attempt to work within the lexicon of Javanese art, and if he did indeed have any understanding of the cultural position of the keris, he certainly did not let this interfere with what he produced.

[David]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

But who are we to criticize?! Maybe the author had a harsh childhood and took the opportunity to express in iron the sum of his childhood fears.

If i might attempt to explain Alan's criticism in somewhat different words, it is not the place or purpose of a true keris to express the "sum of the childhood fears" of the maker. The keris is a cultural icon which fulfills very particular purposes within the context of the society from which it originates. It should reflect an accurate representation of (in this case) Javanese culture and religio-mythological symbolism. This work does not. I agree that this is a reasonably crafted work of art, but i would also maintain that it is not a true keris.
The ivory planar hilt, on the other hand, seems quite nice.

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by David

The ivory planar hilt, on the other hand, seems quite nice.

Don't forget the mendak!

[mariusgmioc]

I am very new at collecting kerises and definitely quite ignorant with respect to Indonesian culture. So, I posted photos of this keris as I am trying to learn more and as I have become aware that this is not really the weapon a keris should be.

Thank you for your comments!

PS: I also like the ivory hilt a lot. To me it appears to be in strong contrast to the blade.

PPS: Like the carvings too! I find the loop of the tail of the snake particularly interesting. But I am still fighting with the right name of the beast/beasts.

[David]

Originally Posted by Sajen

Don't forget the mendak!

Nope, i won't forget that. The hilt and the mendak seem to both be lovely examples of well made and traditionally acceptable keris furniture.
As for the correct name of the beastie(s) on this keris Marius, you may find yourself "fighting" for a long time to come up with a correct name. This is all the makers fantasy for the most part, taking pieces of cultural mythologies and stitching them together for his own personal effect. It is the kind of thing that may have been done to attract Western buyers who may not no better, but as Alan has already pointed out, no self-respecting Javanese would be caught dead wearing such a blade, no matter how well done the carvings might be.
It is simply not possible to obtain any reasonable understanding of the keris without also studying the Indonesian cultures which spawned it.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by David

As for the correct name of the beastie(s) on this keris Marius, you may find yourself "fighting" for a long time to come up with a correct name.

While you are right on the others, I hope you're wrong on this one! Just need more wine and I'll get the inspiration!

Still I wonder which would be more accurate:

Ganesho-naga Garuda or Garudo-naga Ganesha?! But it's the siren that baffles me...

Now that's an existential dilemma!

[Battara]

Thank you Alan.

[Timo Nieminen]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Then again, it would be useless as a weapon --- except maybe to wave at the kids stealing my fruit and cause them nightmares.

I don't think that this has greatly impaired its usefulness as a weapon. It still has a point and edge; the thinnest part in the carving is still about as thick as the base of the tang. One could still stab almost as effectively with this as with the pre-worked original.

But this is accidental. It isn't made for use as a weapon. As you said,

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Nope this object is purely and simply a piece of canvas, its purpose is to permit the craftsman to display his skill, which is considerable.

... and whatever function it has as a weapon is a by-product of the artist's choice of medium.

[Roland_M]

Originally Posted by Timo Nieminen

I don't think that this has greatly impaired its usefulness as a weapon. It still has a point and edge; the thinnest part in the carving is still about as thick as the base of the tang.

Please check the thinnest part of the blade, the neck of the Naga.

This blade will bend or break if it is used as a weapon.


Roland

[Timo Nieminen]

Originally Posted by Roland_M

Please check the thinnest part of the blade, the neck of the Naga.

This blade will bend or break if it is used as a weapon.

Like I said, it's still about as thick as the tang (and the wing is connected to the head, so front-to-back strength should be OK). I can't see the side-to-side thickness at that point in the photo. If somebody was to try to stab a naked or lightly dressed human with that blade, I'd bet on the human failing before the blade.

It isn't as strong as the uncarved blade would have been, but looks sufficient.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by Timo Nieminen

Like I said, it's still about as thick as the tang (and the wing is connected to the head, so front-to-back strength should be OK). I can't see the side-to-side thickness at that point in the photo. If somebody was to try to stab a naked or lightly dressed human with that blade, I'd bet on the human failing before the blade.

It isn't as strong as the uncarved blade would have been, but looks sufficient.

After reading your argument, I gave it a closer look and you might be right.

However, it might work only for a perfectly directed stabbing blow as any slight lateral inclination would most likely make the blade bend or break sideways.

[Jean]

Hum, is this subject worth so many posts? It looks a bit irrelevant to me...

[GIO]

Originally Posted by Jean

Hum, is this subject worth so many posts? It looks a bit irrelevant to me...

Agreed

[David]

Originally Posted by Jean

Hum, is this subject worth so many posts? It looks a bit irrelevant to me...

Thanks Jean. I was was noting that a couple of posts back, but the discussion on this continued even more since then. Gentlemen, i think we can move on now. This blade was never intended to be an operational weapon, though any sharp and pointy object can injure or kill. Further discussion on this seems besides the point however.