The keris has been around for a very long time, and one of the reasons it has survived through the centuries is that it has changed in style, nature and social perception with the passing of time.
That which was reserved for specific ranks or purposes in the past is now available to all.
Is this a bad thing?
Personally, I do not think so. I'm going to limit my comments to consideration of this matter from a Javanese point of view, one reason being that I do not believe that here is the place for a 5000 word analytical paper.
When the keris changed from the early (Buda) form to the form that we recognise now, along with that change, its position in Javanese society changed. Changes continued, and the keris that we see being made today have a quite different position in society, and are recognised as having a different nature to earlier keris.
In times past not a lot of people could afford gold, but the position of gold in the Javanese perception is not just as a substance of value, it has the nature of a substance that carries honour. During the early classical period the celebrations held by Javanese rulers were accompanied by the distribution of gold, this was a recognition from the ruler of the worth of the minor lords who supported him. The position of the ruler in early Jawa was only firm as long as he had support from those he ruled, to ensure this support he paid respect to those below him in the hierarchy, just as they paid respect to him. Gold was the how a ruler gave honour.
Today, this overt perception of gold has to a very large extent disappeared, but I am certain that it still is carried in the sub-conscious of many Javanese people, especially those who cling to traditional values.
The Javanese people possess their own culture, and it the Javanese people who set the values within their own society. It is not the place of those who are not a part of this society and its culture to criticize the values of the society.
Certainly, we can all express our own likes and dislikes, but it is important that we recognise that these likes and dislikes may be quite the opposite to the likes and dislikes of the people who own the cultural artifact upon which we level comment.
So, if it is currently seen in Javanese society as a desirable thing to adorn something with gold, we should accept this as a legitimate expression of today's societal values.
We may or may not like this use of gold, but we cannot influence the values of a society that does enjoy seeing gold wherever it deems it to be suitable, be that on a keris, or somewhere else.
As to the confusion that might be caused at some time in the future by the current production of fine keris, I rather think not. This production in later periods of earlier keris styles has been happening for a very long time, and it doesn't really cause those who understand the keris much of a problem.
The use of garish materials? Old Bali keris, and even more recent ones can be about as garish as garish gets.
Consider this:- all those wonderful stone temples in Bali and Jawa did not look anything like what we see today when they were originally built. Not at all. They were overlaid with plaster and brightly painted --- you could see them from miles away.
Our tastes are most definitely not the tastes of those who lived and live in different places and different times.
Flamboyant display and garishness are part and parcel of Javanese society.
This sort of brings me back to something I've said many times:- if we wish to understand the keris, we must first understand the culture and society of the keris.
|