Ethnographical weapons re-interpretated

[Antonio Cejunior]

Gentlemen,

This is another topic I am interested in obtaining your views as I understand that most of you are collectors of authentic ethnographical weapons.

As a designer, I do often feel the urge to apply my own view on things, be it graphic design, interiors, jewelry, or in this case weapons. This is a natural impulse in me based on one of my ways of perceiving things.

This being said, I would like to hear your views on the re-interpretation of this dha





The review is here: http://www.arscives.com/bladesign/newdhareview.htm

My question is how do you accept a contemporary (and exogenal to the original source) interpretation of a sword that is originally ethnographical but is viewed from the outside and made from the outside?
In other words, would you consider that in the globalized world of today is it better to keep the tradition alive in a continuous repetitive process that is outdated in time or would you think that tradition is also part of the evolutionary process?

Thank you
Best regards,
Antonio Cejunior

[tom hyle]

My friend has a Japanese gardening book. In this book it says it is very important to understand the masters of the past. It says we study them, not so we can imitate them, but so that we can learn from all they did and thought, and take off from there; so the art grows with each passing generation.

[Conogre]

Antonio, that's an often asked and discussed question here, and as to be expected, with a wide diversity of answers which shows that in the end it's subjective to one degree or another, to everyone.
For example, just the name of this forum, "Ethnographic weapons".
Being a US citizen, to me, everything except weapons peculiar to the US, which includes almost everything, is ethnographic, while the term, in relation to swords and such, at least to my understanding, includes everything except European bladed weapons.
Again, most collectors seem to be purists, meaning a bladed weapon style coming from and used by the peoples that originated and used them, with value placed upon age, but again, a certain amount of subjectivity enters into it here as well, particularly, for instance, in cases such as areas of New Guinea that had still had relatively little outside contact as recently as the 1950's.
This is where terms such as "contemporary", "reproduction", "imitation" and "tourist" enter into it and discussions become more heated and viewpoints more vehement.
Many to most, I would imagine, would consider your beautiful piece a contemporary reproduction, no matter what the quality, care and skill that went into its construction, with some considering it all but valueless, or a curiosity at best, while others see and appreciate the worth of pieces made by artisans and craftsmen just as much as antiques of bygone times.
Contemporary swords and knives of quality are often as valuable as as some of the antiques as well, particularly where attention is paid to remaining faithful to original specifications, such as using a good high carbon steel vs stainless, because of the inherent brittleness that usually comes as a trade off for being less susceptible to corrosion.
In many cases, the true test, however, is often in how the piece is presented, as in the case of artificially aged reproductions being passed off as aged original antiques, which to me expresses the basic crux of the problem.
If a piece is made so well that even expert scientific scrutiny is unable to differentiate it from an original, where is the harm, other than to an ego?
I know that I'm in the minority here, and with a much broader range of interests and conditions of acceptability than most, but I myself think that you've made a beautiful creation there that would stand extremely well on it's own merits and be a worthy addition to any collection.
Mike

[Antonio Cejunior]

Originally Posted by tom hyle

My friend has a Japanese gardening book. In this book it says it is very important to understand the masters of the past. It says we study them, not so we can imitate them, but so that we can learn from all they did and thought, and take off from there; so the art grows with each passing generation.

Tom,

I thank you. I think the present is an accumulation of all the pasts and I agree that we can take off from there, as we are inheritors of all the pasts, taking in consideration that we have absorbed it.
In as much as a designer is concerned, specially nowadays where design has become a profession in itself, I would consider a cell phone to be an engineered design evolving from the ancient drums as an early code of communication.

Best regards,
Antonio

[Antonio Cejunior]

Originally Posted by Conogre

Antonio, that's an often asked and discussed question here, and as to be expected, with a wide diversity of answers which shows that in the end it's subjective to one degree or another, to everyone.
For example, just the name of this forum, "Ethnographic weapons".
Being a US citizen, to me, everything except weapons peculiar to the US, which includes almost everything, is ethnographic, while the term, in relation to swords and such, at least to my understanding, includes everything except European bladed weapons.
Again, most collectors seem to be purists, meaning a bladed weapon style coming from and used by the peoples that originated and used them, with value placed upon age, but again, a certain amount of subjectivity enters into it here as well, particularly, for instance, in cases such as areas of New Guinea that had still had relatively little outside contact as recently as the 1950's.
This is where terms such as "contemporary", "reproduction", "imitation" and "tourist" enter into it and discussions become more heated and viewpoints more vehement.
Many to most, I would imagine, would consider your beautiful piece a contemporary reproduction, no matter what the quality, care and skill that went into its construction, with some considering it all but valueless, or a curiosity at best, while others see and appreciate the worth of pieces made by artisans and craftsmen just as much as antiques of bygone times.

Hi Mike,

I wasn't aware of earlier posts on the subject. But thank you for taking the time to reply.
I fully understand the subjectivity of the issue in the eyes of collectors and I wouldn't want to go into any heated discussions.
My issue is to understand others' viewpoints.
I say contemporary as opposed to antique, and obviously hibryd.
I wonder how much we consider the travel of knowledge and products in the past. Just to think how Pasta travelled from China to Italy, how silks and brocades came to the West via the Silk Road, how porcelain is now made in the West as an inheritor of the East.
Your words on the piece are most kind. It was placed here as an example, and my earlier paragraph was based on the thought of how the Keris has travelled as well. There is a polearm in China that has a Kris point and another one that very much reminds me of the half moon shape of Turkey.

Contemporary swords and knives of quality are often as valuable as as some of the antiques as well, particularly where attention is paid to remaining faithful to original specifications, such as using a good high carbon steel vs stainless, because of the inherent brittleness that usually comes as a trade off for being less susceptible to corrosion.
In many cases, the true test, however, is often in how the piece is presented, as in the case of artificially aged reproductions being passed off as aged original antiques, which to me expresses the basic crux of the problem.
If a piece is made so well that even expert scientific scrutiny is unable to differentiate it from an original, where is the harm, other than to an ego?
I know that I'm in the minority here, and with a much broader range of interests and conditions of acceptability than most, but I myself think that you've made a beautiful creation there that would stand extremely well on it's own merits and be a worthy addition to any collection.
Mike

As an ex-Museum Director and still working as a Consultant for a Museum, I am quite comfortable with both ancient and contemporary art. I do not think that they collide. I do often see ancestry in the former and respect both.
Again thank you for your kind words. I'd like to state, since I am a newcomer here, that I was/am definitely not looking for any kind comments, but to assess how a specific forum of collectors would view contemporanity.

Thank you so much for your great input.
Best regards,
Antonio

[Andrew]

I'm in Timonium, and pressed for time as my laptop's battery is running low and the charger is home in Florida.

However, let me say I really enjoy your interpretive designs, Antonio, and not just that dha which, of course, I really like. Some of your Japanese inspired swords are attractive to me in ways most Japanese swords are not.

I'm one of those collectors that likes to aquire. However, I really obsess about only one particular form at a time. For some years, it has been dha, and I luxuriate in the seemingly endless variations and interpretations seen from the original culture. I think it's perfectly acceptable to arrive at one's own interpretation of a weapon form. These are things, after all, and so long as they are not presented as something they are not, I'm not interested in entertaining criticism of my "failure" to adhere to conservation of the original.

My interpretation of a Thai darb designed with and executed by sword maker John Lundemo:

[Antonio Cejunior]

Originally Posted by Andrew

I'm in Timonium, and pressed for time as my laptop's battery is running low and the charger is home in Florida.

However, let me say I really enjoy your interpretive designs, Antonio, and not just that dha which, of course, I really like. Some of your Japanese inspired swords are attractive to me in ways most Japanese swords are not.

I'm one of those collectors that likes to aquire. However, I really obsess about only one particular form at a time. For some years, it has been dha, and I luxuriate in the seemingly endless variations and interpretations seen from the original culture. I think it's perfectly acceptable to arrive at one's own interpretation of a weapon form. These are things, after all, and so long as they are not presented as something they are not, I'm not interested in entertaining criticism of my "failure" to adhere to conservation of the original.

My interpretation of a Thai darb designed with and executed by sword maker John Lundemo:

Hi Andrew,

Hope your trip is going well and your computer is holding.
Your words are too kind, as always
I've always liked that dha, specially the damascus work.
You see, what I think it is we are all hybrid ourselves, for long. Countries were shaped by layers of invaders that mixed with the earlier ones.
And the US is the permanent melting pot that has proven to be one of the forerunners of present day culture.
This being said, I do admire your devotion to the dha.
I myself have a compulsion to take things that touch me, and try to change it.
In my dhakris project still to be made, it was this detail that touched me profoundly



for the beauty of the details which I felt could be incorporated in the spine of a blade-to-be...



As for the Japanese style, they are more common and are becoming boring, or unchallanging
Too formal wraps done a ten thousand times. As a designer it reminds me of a dog chasing its own tail.

Thank you for your inputs my friend,
Wish you a very nice weekend.
Antonio

[BluErf]

Hello Antonio,

Have you considered placing the greneng (the design from the longer asymmetric end of the kris) design on the cutting edge side instead?

Like this:

[Antonio Cejunior]

Originally Posted by BluErf

Hello Antonio,

Have you considered placing the greneng (the design from the longer asymmetric end of the kris) design on the cutting edge side instead?

Like this:

Hello BluErf

I did consider it, but it would remind me of the Kukhri solution

I did however consider how to blend it with the scabbard.



Thank you for the suggestion though. It looks wonderful in your picture since it is not as long as the cut out I took exactly from the longer end

[tom hyle]

Another thing you might look into are the extended split off/welded on decorations that come off the blade base of some jimpuls and mandaus, as well as (similar) those on mambele ('Zande, 'Gombe, etc. sickle-sword; BTW I was recently told this is pronounced M'mambele; not sure whether to believe that; I've never seen it written that way)

[Federico]

OK, first off beautiful piece, regardless of the context. Very faithful to the aesthetic of more classical pieces, while having a very unique modern flare.

As for re-interpretation of ethnographic pieces, I believe Mike hit it right on the head, when he spoke of context, particularly in representation. Many of us here also have non-ethnographic pieces as well. On many levels modern non-ethnographic pieces hold a valuable niche in of in themselves. They are modern art and often practical interpretations of pieces whose own working lives are no more due to their own inherent rarity. Yet, for me, what makes a piece ethnographical is its rooting within a cultural context. If an interpretation is made, no matter how faithful its superficial resemblence is to an ethnographic piece, without the cultural context of intention/rooting, it is still just a modern interpretation. Meaning for me, if we say we are speaking about modern made khukris, if a Westerner made a perfect replica, but whose life and intention in creation was not rooted in the tradition of use and ownership but rather was an expression of mere visual art, while in value as a work of art, it would not be to me a traditional khukri. Whereas, the ugliest bolo, pounded out of a leaf spring, full of file and hammer marks, but with the intention of serving a traditional cultural role, lets say hanging off a farmers belt for work, or in the case of some modern Moro swords, marking off a man's status within adult life, then it is an ethnographic piece. I guess for me it comes down to how I view ethnographic pieces, the value in them is not just the innate material merit of the piece itself, but the cultural connotations and history that they inhabit. Now that is not to say a Westerner could not make an ethnographic piece, or what pieces in any given culture will inhabit that niche. Cultures/civilizations are dynamic, constantly in a state of flux. However, it is all dependent on the intention of its creation. Now, that is not to say non-ethnographic pieces do not have value or worth, but I cannot call a Western made kris, made without tradition or intention, to be displayed on a Western wall, where its value will not be rooted in Moro culture, but as an expression of Western cultural interpretation, a Moro kris. I can call it a Western interpretation, but without the intention, then... Hmmm...Ive rambled, and dont think I make much sense. Oh well, Mike said it better.

[ariel]

I greatly admire modern artisans who are trying to reproduce and reinvent ancient weapons. Their dedication to the field, tenacity in execution and respect for tradition are inspiring. The final fruit of their labor is often functionally superior to the original: after all, the old masters had no access to modern steels, instruments, materials and technology. If I were to go to a sword battle, I'd probably choose a good modern replica rather than the original.
Having said that, as a collector I would not buy a modern rendition of a shashka, a yataghan or a dha. For me, 99% of the value is in the history of the sword, not in it's technological attributes. No matter how well modern replicas are executed, how dedicated their creator was and how close they are to the original, they totally lack an element of The Past.

[Antonio Cejunior]

Hi Fred,

Thanks for your input and apologies for my delayed reply.

One of the basic definitions of kitsch is the inferior copy of an existing piece, which embodies a lack of experimentation of the context in which the original piece was made.

In this case I would place all the Chinese and American made katanas in this category.
I am not putting words in your mouth. I am just thinking out loud myself.

It can also be merely repeating convention and formula, lacking the sense of creativity and originality displayed in genuine art.

I don't see this happening in both definitions when it comes to re-interpreting. However I think that a contemporary piece can exist side by side with a historical piece, the former being a inheritor of the later, in as much as we are the same. Otherwise how could we justify our own existence today as being an evolutionary process that preserving the past does not deny the present?

I guess we are in total agreement

Thanks Kaibigan

[Antonio Cejunior]

Originally Posted by ariel

For me, 99% of the value is in the history of the sword, not in it's technological attributes. No matter how well modern replicas are executed, how dedicated their creator was and how close they are to the original, they totally lack an element of The Past.

Hi Ariel,

Thank you for your post.
I fully respect your views.
IMHO, I think that an antique is not equal to quality, and the Past itself is not a qualification.
I am far from challenging. Just stating my own opinion.
Like in everything there is good and bad, and when I mean contemporary interpretation I speak about it as a designer.

I made a statement in my website http://www.arscives.com/bladesign/statement.htm which may help to assist me in bringing out my points of view. I don't expect to obtain any agreement, but I like to discuss things in a civilized way and I must say that this Forum is superb for this

Best regards,
Antonio