It is not as simple as that, Gwirya.
We are talking micro here, not macro. To adequately answer your question I would need to be sitting with you and point out the defects one by one, and I would be using something small and pointed to do the pointing. Good garap and artistic interpretation in a keris is all about very, very tiny things.
However, there is one area of this keris where the carving has been very badly handled, and it is big enough not to need any particular expertise to identify.
Look at the convergence of the ada-ada - blumbangan - tampingan. From an artistic perspective this is very poor work.
Defects in the kembang kacang puguk are pretty obvious too.
When I look at this blade my feeling is that the maker was struggling, his work does not flow. It is competent work, but there is no artistic feeling to it.
I'm not going to comment any further on this blade.
I did not want to make these comments that I have made. If I had wanted to comment thus, and if I had thought it would have served a useful purpose I would have commented in my earlier posts.
This type of criticism should be reserved for blades where it is obvious that the maker has attempted art.
The maker of this blade has not attempted art and has simply produced a blade of the required form, with no particular attention to art or detail. He has made a weapon.
It is very unfair to criticise something for not being that which it did not set out to be.
|