Gentlemen, with the possible exception of David, I think that perhaps you may be missing the point I was trying to make.
As serious students and collectors of the keris, is it fitting that we devote so much of our discussion time to the classification of keris, and to the affixation of names to various design components?
If the study of the keris is limited to the compilation of an encyclopaedic list of motifs and names, what exactly has that list of words produced as an addition to knowledge?
Those of you who are well acquainted with me will have heard me railing against the "name game" on occasion.
Why?
Why am I so out of step with the bulk of collectors of keris---or anything else, for that matter?
Surely the naming and classification of those things we collect is at the very heart of our interest. Is it not?
Yes, of course it is. If we wish to retain the status of junior clerks forever:- classify it, give it a name, give it an origin, give it a collection number, record it, file it.
I ask you:- is that serious study of an object that is at the very heart of an entire culture?
However, if we wish to learn something about what it is that we have an interest in, if we wish to understand the nature of that which we have an interest in, then we need to extend our study into all of those areas of knowledge that can add to our knowledge of the thing in which we have an interest. If we do not wish to learn, then we might just as well collect postage stamps. Or better yet, Shrek memorabilia.
We have chosen to collect and to study an object that is perhaps the most complex cultural icon in existence.
Something that is worthy of the most intense study, research and mental effort that the human mind can bring to bear on it.
But if we review the content of posts to our discussion group, how often do we come across evidence that we are thinking beyond the mere classification of something?
I think that possibly only one time during the period I have taken an interest in this discussion group have I seen evidence that somebody was really thinking outside the square. I've forgotten the name of the person involved, and I think it was prior to the Warung opening up for business, a thinker put forth the proposition that the ron dha really represented the Hindu "OM". Brilliant thought process. At the moment I do not agree with him, but the thought process that produced this idea is exactly what we need to see more of.
The names of various design motifs, be they forms of the naga, be they dapurs, be they pamors, are only of value if accompanied by attribution of source and time, and even then they are only descriptors. In some of the older forms these descriptors may be able to be subjected to analysis in attempts to extract origin and possible original meaning of the name applied, but for the most part, even that approach could be like chasing rainbows.
The choice is ours:- accumulate objects that we do not understand, or try to gain some understanding of the forces that have produced an icon that can incorporate the highest societal, religious, and artistic ideals of a culture.
|