Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

A. G. Maisey · 27th November 2008, 08:33 PM

Both of these blades exhibit evidence of being made by people with a high degree of skill in the use of tools. However, using the standards of beauty which I have been taught, the blade in the possession of Kino is far and away superior from an artistic point of view. This blade has flow and harmony, the blade attributed to Tok Chu is not harmonious, and there is no flow:- it is a statement of excellent craftsmanship, but it is not a statement of art.

In the Tok Chu blade, note the poyuhan, ie, the point of the sogokan, this comes to a blocky, abrupt end. This execution just by itself, and even if all other parts of the blade were perfect and beautiful, immediately disallows this blade as an artistic endeavour.

Now have a look at the poyuhan in Kino's blade. Yes, this sogokan appears to lack the necessary cross section that would raise it to a level of brilliance, but the flow of the sogokan, and the harmonious integration of the poyuhan demonstrate a complete understanding of the requirement of harmony in a keris blade.

Its not just the difference in execution of the poyuhan, every feature I can see in Kino's blade speaks of a maker who truly understood the art of the keris. Even from a photograph I can feel the harmony of this blade.On the other hand, the Tok Chu blade, although an example of superb craftsmanship, has absolutely no soul:- it is an essay in excellence, but the proportion --- which translates into pawakan --- and the abrupt workmanship has killed any chance of harmony.

I almost never post on the art of the keris, simply because I find it too difficult to express the necessary ideas in print, however, the contrast between these two blades provides an excellent example of the difference between art and craft.

27th November 2008, 08:33 PM	#19
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,015	Both of these blades exhibit evidence of being made by people with a high degree of skill in the use of tools. However, using the standards of beauty which I have been taught, the blade in the possession of Kino is far and away superior from an artistic point of view. This blade has flow and harmony, the blade attributed to Tok Chu is not harmonious, and there is no flow:- it is a statement of excellent craftsmanship, but it is not a statement of art. In the Tok Chu blade, note the poyuhan, ie, the point of the sogokan, this comes to a blocky, abrupt end. This execution just by itself, and even if all other parts of the blade were perfect and beautiful, immediately disallows this blade as an artistic endeavour. Now have a look at the poyuhan in Kino's blade. Yes, this sogokan appears to lack the necessary cross section that would raise it to a level of brilliance, but the flow of the sogokan, and the harmonious integration of the poyuhan demonstrate a complete understanding of the requirement of harmony in a keris blade. Its not just the difference in execution of the poyuhan, every feature I can see in Kino's blade speaks of a maker who truly understood the art of the keris. Even from a photograph I can feel the harmony of this blade.On the other hand, the Tok Chu blade, although an example of superb craftsmanship, has absolutely no soul:- it is an essay in excellence, but the proportion --- which translates into pawakan --- and the abrupt workmanship has killed any chance of harmony. I almost never post on the art of the keris, simply because I find it too difficult to express the necessary ideas in print, however, the contrast between these two blades provides an excellent example of the difference between art and craft.