New Keris/Keris baru

[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.

[Jussi M.]

Originally Posted by David

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.

Yes. However in the case of keris the parameters and boundaries that the "art piece" must fit in to and meet in the manufacturing process are much closer than is the case with the presented paintings which I see as completely different art forms - they are so separated from each other. Keris is my opinion is "just one" art form with multiple subcategories. I think the painting analogy would benefit of thinking how a given painting or at least a style of painting could had been been in different eras. - Different materials, different technology, different set of skills, yet painting the same thing.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you gentlemen.

It seems I no longer need to write 10,000 words to answer Rasdan's questions. To a large extent, I feel those questions have already been answered, but answered within relative context.

Yes, we all like representations of things to look like what they represent. Problem is that very, very few artists set out to do this. The painters and sculptors of the Renaissance did not produce art works that looked like real people:- they produced idealised images of human form that pleased their clients and patrons.

Similarly, the post-impressionists did not produce works that looked like what they used as a subject. The images were idealised in a different way.

But both these different types of artists produced great art, as David has demonstrated. Art is something that touches the human soul. Great art touches the human soul deeply.

Michelangelo did not produce works that looked like real people. He produced idealised images, with distorted proportions that were intended to be viewed from a certain angle in a certain place, at which time and place they would look correct. I think it is his "David" that has a disproportionately large head, because it was intended to be viewed from below in the open air, in a square.
Portrait painters do not produce photographically correct images of their subjects --- if they did they'd never get any commissions. They idealise the subject.

This is called "art".

To understand any art we need to learn to understand it. I have friends who tell me that Jackson Pollock's works are wonderful. Personally I can't see it, but I did not go to university and get a degree in art appreciation. I am not qualified to comment on Jackson Pollock, because I don't understand his work.

The same applies to other art forms. Take classical ballet as an example. I loath ballet. This is my personal taste. I do not understand ballet, I know nothing about it, but I do know that I don't like it. I don't like classical ballet.

The point I am trying to make is this:- to understand any art form, one needs to be taught how to understand and appreciate that art form, otherwise it becomes a matter of personal taste, as with my dislike of ballet. I can certainly say if I like ballet or not, but I am not qualified to say if a performance of ballet is any good, or not.

The keris as an art work is no different.

We can all express an opinion as to whether we like a keris or not, but very few of us can give an informed opinion as to whether it is any good --- or not.

Here are Rasdan's questions:-

1. How do we measure quality? For instance, your keris have a different ratio of sorsoran width to its length when compared to Rick's keris. The sekar kacang is also different. (It's entirely different probably) How does the shape of the ricikan justifies quality?

2. If we take tangguh as age, how can we apply the quality measures to keris with different tangguh? If we take tangguh as style of keris, can we still use the same parameters?

The first question, a couple of questions actually, 'how do we measure quality', and 'how does the shape of the ricikan justify quality'

Probably the place to start is to ask another question:-

define quality

but I'm not going to do that, I will assume that Rasdan is asking his questions in an artistic sense.

Firstly we need to classify the keris. We do not apply the same standards to a Senopaten keris, as we do to a Surakarta keris.

Then we appraise in accordance with the standards of the classification.

How do we know the standards of the classification and how to apply in appraisal?

As with any art form, we need to learn those standards. There is no easy way. There is no nice neat mechanical formula that allows us to use specific measurements. We need to learn the classifications and standards from the ground up. In my experience, the only truly effective way to do this is to find an ahli keris and convince him to teach you. Otherwise you are locked in the standards of personal opinion forever.

Since it is not really possible for everybody to get the tuition that is needed to truly understand quality in a keris, perhaps the best approach is as Rasdan has said, to collect what you like, because ultimately it is you who has to live with the keris.

However, with all that said, there is one universal that applies in all art, and in all keris:- craftsmanship. A good keris will never display shoddy craftsmanship. Superb craftsmanship may not necessarily indicate that you have a good keris in your hand, but if the craftsmanship is less than excellent, the keris cannot be a good one.

The second universal that applies, especially with older keris, is condition. A good older keris will not be a worn out ghost. A very worn older keris may be appreciated for other reasons, and some very worn older keris can command pretty impressive prices, but the reasons for appreciation of such a keris need not incorporate an overall appraisal of "good".

The third universal is material:- no matter if we are looking at an old keris, or a brand new keris, the material must be good. Good iron is dense with tight grain, and stains to a good dense black. It is not open pored and grey. Good pamor is artistically correct; it conforms with the pamor standard. Good steel is able to be hardened (evidenced by the sepuh line) and is not brittle or given to cracking.

The traditional way to appraise quality is to appraise in terms of classification (tangguh), form, and features. But then you need to appraise the pamor, steel, iron, craftsmanship, and feeling.

You cannot do any of this appraisal in the absence of adequate instruction from somebody who understands all of this. An ahli keris.

That's the answer Rasdan, and it is not at all the one you wanted. To be able to appraise a keris you need to learn the keris. There is no easy way to do this. You need an ahli keris who will agree to teach you, then you need an immense amount of time and perseverance. You need to be prepared to sacrifice time and money and many other things in your life. There is no formula, no secret method, no mechanical matrix. Its like any other field of art, you need to learn the art. To do this you need time and a teacher.

In any field of art there are the laymen, and there are the authorities. Usually it is the authorities who lead, and the laymen who follow. No different with keris. When Empu Suparman was alive there was a constant stream of people to his door seeking his opinion on keris that they wanted to buy or sell. He was the authority, the expert, the ahli keris. People sought his opinion, and he was paid for this opinion. Exactly the same with art in the western world:- very often a buyer will seek the opinion of an expert before purchase of an art work.

The ordinary collector or investor in art cannot know everything. Usually he is the same as the ordinary collector of keris:- he knows what he likes, but when he wants to invest heavy money, he employs somebody who has the experience and/or qualifications to provide an opinion on the work before he buys it.

The upside of this is that anybody who truly wishes to gain the knowledge necessary to understand the keris can do this. But as with all education it costs time, and money, and sacrifice, and perseverance. It just depends on how badly one wishes to gain this knowledge.