New Keris/Keris baru

[rasdan]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Timo

Are the sculptures of Michelangelo Buonarroti generally regarded as work of exceptionally high quality?

If yes, why is this so?

Thank you for your reply Alan.

I think because it resembles the real thing very closely and a lot people say that it is of high quality (generally looks good)? But in human sculptures, we know exactly how its supposed to look like.

Well, ok, I think I'm starting to get some idea here. If I add an extra ricikan to a keris, it may look nice and a lot of people will think it is nice, but it can not be considered valid since the pakem (of the Javanese keris) is being decided by the keraton and therefore they are the one that can say or set the benchmark that this according to the specs or not...

But still, we probably can only use the current specification for keris that were made, say, 1800s and above? Probably for older ones the quality are not so much on shape (probably judged by how many people thinks it looks good), but measured by material, forging skill etc.?

[A. G. Maisey]

OK, let's try another question.

If we were appraising an artistic work from the 15th century, and an artistic work from , say, the late 19th century, would we use the same criteria to determine the excellence or otherwise of both those works?

[David]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

OK, let's try another question.

If we were appraising an artistic work from the 15th century, and an artistic work from , say, the late 19th century, would we use the same criteria to determine the excellence or otherwise of both those works?

Excellent question Alan, and my answer would be yes and no. Some criteria would remain the same, mostly, does the work "move" me. Art is not merely a technical contrivance. How a work makes me feel and think is as important as the level of technical excellence with which it is crafted. However, for the most part the criteria for technical execution alone would indeed be very different between, say, a 15th century master work and that of one of the master impressionists of the 19th century.

[rasdan]

I for one would still appraise it in terms of how good it resembles of the real thing it that tries to depict. If the tools and materials are the same, the artist should be able to draw good paintings whether in 19th or 20th century. Which make me wonder about older drawings from say, the 10th century or the Chauvet cave painting (on the extreme side ) .

This would certainly be different.. Haven't really given much thoughts on this one, but if this is the case, we should probably use a different standard. However the keris had probably developed in a shorter time frame where we can accept that the tools and general artistic skill of people can be considered pretty much the same and hence use the same ruler in quality..

By the way, Alan, I am really intrigued with the pendok design. Do you design it and why do you choose that design?

[Jussi M.]

Originally Posted by David

Excellent question Alan, and my answer would be yes and no. Some criteria would remain the same, mostly, does the work "move" me. Art is not merely a technical contrivance. How a work makes me feel and think is as important as the level of technical excellence with which it is crafted. However, for the most part the criteria for technical execution alone would indeed be very different between, say, a 15th century master work and that of one of the master impressionists of the 19th century.

Agreed. However this is somewhat contradictory what comes to the level of technical execution as many times guys in the old days did unbelievable works of art that can hardly be copied nowadays despite the excellence in technical ability. Appears to me that what can be achieved nowadays in many occasions is being less well done - the how - than what was done in the old days with lesser capable tool etc. Knowing the limitations of technology used on sculpting, forging etc something on a given time gives a more well-rounded base to form opinion on whether something is "good, bad or ugly". Of course this does not necessarily make how something appears personally to someones taste any different. Or something. Sorry. Rambling here. Must be the long day and red wine I opened a while ago

Thanks,

J.

[David]

Originally Posted by Jussi M.

Appears to me that what can be achieved nowadays in many occasions is being less well done - the how - than what was done in the old days with lesser capable tool etc. Knowing the limitations of technology used on sculpting, forging etc something on a given time gives a more well-rounded base to form opinion on whether something is "good, bad or ugly".

While i am not going to dismiss technical execution as a criteria for judgement, i believe the point Alan was trying to make with his art reference was that technique can be specific to a particular time as well. Consider Botticelli's Birth of Venus and van Gogh's Wheat Field with Cypress. The first is late 15th century and the second late 19th century, just 400 years apart. The technique is vastly different and one could never assess each of these works based upon a specific criteria for technique. Yet both, at least in my estimation, can be seen as master works though van Gogh's technique would never have been accepted in Botticelli's day and in fact was hardly accepted during his own life time.

[Rick]

Ahh, why did you have to bring up Vincent, David .

Botticelli was a great technician for his time; but Vincent; Vincent was a gift from God .

Like Mozart .

[David]

Originally Posted by Rick

Ahh, why did you have to bring up Vincent, David .

Botticelli was a great technician for his time; but Vincent; Vincent was a gift from God .

Like Mozart .

I agree, but my point is that Vincent's work and technique would never have been acceptable for Botticelli's time. His work work be viewed as crude and unschooled in that period. I could just as easily compared his work to da Vinci or Rembrandt with the same conclusion.