Thanks for your responses thus far. I can see why sharing pics may serve to enrich dishonest people. And I see also how in Java etc showing a keris can reveal a lot to strangers. But arent the reasons for this as follows:
1. Those keris are of deep personal significance with them being made to suit the owner or ancestral objects.
2. People only had one keris generally and did not seek to acquire collections as we know
Now we have a context where keris are traded internationally as commodities on the online market. Collectors buy large numbers of these based on various criteria. The keris is not made for them and is not an ancestral object. It is an object of art totally removed from the context Alan described I would think. A cherished keris today can on a whim be sold off the next. There is not remotely the connection between keris and custodian as occurs in the home nations. On this basis then this practice of not sharing keris images might be seen as merely giving a cursory whimsical, respectful and well meaning superficial nod to the culture but nothing more. A harsher view might be that this is a bit of convenient cultural appropriation. And might it be said that the collector who does post images recognises that they are not operating in the home nation cultural context at all and their appreciation is of a different but no less disrespectful flavour. Like a western appreciation of fine art in its purest sense? I again emphasise I mean no disrespect to anyone. I am only trying to find my own way through this ethical morass. I know there is no right or wrong way. But is there a better way to act?
|