Hello Fellow Forumites,
It is with some hesitation I post, being one of those referred to somewhere as “ghost readers” or something, in other words, those who read avidly but do not contribute to the discussion. I have a question about something Mr. A.G. Maisey wrote, though the question is not necessarily directed at him, as I am sure many other serious students of the Keris feel the same way. I seem to recall, in an earlier posting, mentioning of the difficulty publishers of a new book on the Keris encountered- when approaching top collectors, instead of receiving a happy consent to having their collection publicized- that is- photographed), they encountered a reluctance to share. Which brings me to my question as to the reasons why the owners of some beautiful cultural artifacts- read works of art, would say (to quote Mr. Maisey): “I am not holding an exhibition of my collection, which would be something in conflict with my personal standards and system of values, I am only showing an outline for comparative purposes.” If it is not too impertinent to ask
, I would like to try and understand why some Keris owners feel a reluctance to publicize their personal holdings. Mind you, I am asking this from the vantage point of someone who is not very knowledgeable about the Keris, more like a brash American who cannot reconcile this reluctance to the tradition in this country, of the Carnegies and Mellons, who went full bore into the art market, amassing huge collections, partly out of vanity and because they could, but in a very real world sense, having built museums and created endowments to ensure that their holdings would remain on view to the public, they did so- so that the rest of us economically disadvantaged citizens, could enjoy the same access to the best artistic productions that the millionaires and elites enjoy. I’m sure we can all agree that many Keris are complete works of art, so what are the defensible reasons behind, not the emotional predilections for, the reluctance to share photographic evidence of these works of art with the hoi polloi? I hope you don’t think I am asking this because I am insensitive to the spiritual component of the Keris, only I would submit that the spiritual component is not unique to the Keris. I can’t imagine anyone would argue that the spiritual component of a Van Gogh painting has somehow been vitiated and trivialized by being put on public display. Indeed, I think the reverse would be true. How much more moving is it that millions of viewers now respond at a very deep level to paintings that but a handful of individuals gave a second thought to in the painter’s lifetime? When one talks of the energy or heat radiated by a great Keris, one might in the same breath liken that to the life force radiated by one of Van Gogh’s paintings. And who would subscribe to the notion that a Van Gogh ought to be wrapped in a velvet coverlet, stored in a cabinet and taken out for the sole pleasure of the single collector who, by virtue of luck, money or acquaintance, called it his own? Isn’t there a point when the aesthetic qualities of a Keris subsumes it’s owner’s “personal standards and systems of values” and it demands a wider audience? Like me
- and other well intentioned but not so knowledgeable collectors, who do not enjoy similar access?