Quote:
|
Originally Posted by David
Well, i'm not going to jump on board just yet here, but would be interested to hear just what folks think a "replica" or "fake" keris is.   |
I´m game
Now... I think that this is a way more complex a theme that one would first think of. First there is the underlying problem of semantics bested with the multiple of ways - viewpoints - one could use in trying to answer such a question. I´ll leave Mr. Maiseys first question regarding what constitutes a good keris aside and concentrate on the latter questions "replica" and "fake".
Replica in my opinion is something that could be found on the upper right hand corner of below matrix (which I "loaned" from a professor of marketing named
Joseph Pine ). Thus a replica is "
real real" - it is being treated openly as a replication of something that itself is not ("is what it says it is"), and it "is true to itself" as it is a truthful replica. If on the other hand we would think that in order to be true to itself an item has to be unique in its design (something a replica cannot be), we could think of replicas as "
real fake", alike Disneyland is not really a magic land it portrays (being open about it) itself to be. Of course viewer discretion is yet advised, as just like with the keris, some people may take illusion as true despite it is not deliberately attempted (small children in Disneyland alike noobies in the kingdom of the keris cannot separate tale from truth). On the contrast - often times they, in their own minds, prolong the honest fantasy onto something that exceeds what was said, what happened etc. Call it imagination if you will
We are left with "fake fake" and "fake real". "
Fake real" is an honest ripoff - a con if you will: somebody promotes something which has been purportedly design and manufactured to give an illusion that it "is not what it says it is", thus it "is true to itself". "
Fake fake" is a bad fake, ie. a fake that can be recognized as one thus it cannot be "true to itself".
Easy, huh?
No. It gets more complicated now. - What about when you have, for example, a keris that has been honestly designed and executed as keris X following a Pakem Y, but the maker has not been able to follow the Pakem on precision needed for the keris to be classified by the court as yes, this is a "keris X according to Pakem Y"? This brings the issue of
intent: what was the intent of the maker - did he act on good faith and failed because of ignorance? Did he himself thought that he had followed the Pakem, only to be corrected by some of more understanding? Thus is it not true that one mans "real-real" cannot but be another mans "fake-fake" and all the other variations on the matrix?
Replica and fake out of the way, a good keris obviously needs to be "real real", or does it? Cannot a good keris also be a "fake real" if it is honest to itself despite the fact that the observer in question does not know what he is looking at, say for example when someone is looking at a worn out piece of junk (in his mind) which an expert would cherish as something extraordinary. Why? Because he understands what that worn keris once was ("real real"). Time thus can alter perception via accumulation of damage to the point that the story the keris tells changes alike it´s appearance does, hence altering from "is what it says it is" to "is not what it says it is" (to most).
Anyway, I think it would be futile to prolong this further from my part. I tried to prove the point that things really are not so clear cut what comes to this theme of categorizing stuff as "good, bad or ugly"
Thanks,
J.