Mendhak Jogja and Solo

Boedhi Adhitya · 14th December 2007, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

nyawati > diwangun > ngilap > ngleseh > diwangun > ngleseh > diwangun (and a further 20 more steps:- ndudut kembang kacang, ngisi jalen, ngeluk KK, mekak pidakan, ngleseh, diwangun, ngluroni, natah sogokan, natah tikel alis, natah sraweyan, diwangun, nglempeng ada-ada, diwangun, followed by the gonjo work)

You are correct, we are not seeing the same sources, while both sources claimed for quoting it from the same sources (Empu Djeno).

On my note are :
Nyilak Waja kapisan (1) > Ngilap (1)> Ndudut pesi > Nyawati (Silak Waja 2) > Mapaki+Kewangunan (1) > Ngilap (2) > Nyawati (2) > Kewangunan (2) > Ngluroni (1) > Ngleseh (1) > Kewangunan (3) > Ngluroni (2) > Ngleseh (2) > Kewangunan (4) > Kembang kacang and jalen works > Ngluroni (3) > Ngleseh... and so on..

While the sequence differs, the essential principle are the same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.G. Maisey

Keris competitions.
Keris are art.
Art should not be measured subject to artificial time constraints, nor should it be done under public gaze.
By staging competitions open to the public and subject to time constraints the making of a keris has been reduced from art to a manufacturing process and is measured by commercial viability rather than artistic parameters.
Public, timed keris carving exhibitions are garbage that can do nothing but damage the art.

Yes, it is. But sadly to say, most new kerises are made with commercial intention in mind. Specialization and division of labor that we see in Madura today can be seen as 'mass-production'. Keris has become commodity. Very limited keris makers work on behalf of art, not to mention spiritual tradition. Thus, 2005 Keris Competition was only a logical step from this situation. I'm not happy with it.

A. G. Maisey · 14th December 2007, 06:52 AM

Yeah---well, as already agreed, the sequence can change. I reckon Pak Djeno worked the same as all of us do, he had a goal in mind and shifted things around , dependent on circumstances, to allow him to achieve that goal in the easiest way. Or maybe he did what many of us do when we get asked questions that the asker does not really understand:- he gave an answer that he hoped would satisfy the person who asked.

Pak Boedhi, keris have always been a commodity. Back in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries they were being exported from Jawa to the rest of SE Asia. We have pictures showing keris sellers in the markets in Batavia.

Keris at one level have always been a commodity.For many hundreds of years keris have been made to produce a living for somebody. They are an expensive thing to produce, always were, and nobody produces items that require high resource usage unless they intend to make money out of them.

Similarly with production of a single blade by a group of workers. Except in very early days and in the case of small village workers, group production has always been the norm. The extent to which group production was applied, and the role of the master might have varied a bit, but the objective was always the same:- produce the best quality at an affordable price. People tend to get lost in their imagination when it comes to keris production. Old time Jawa was not some primitive society, it was highly organised and highly stratified.Back when they were having a good solid whack at the Dutch, it took them about five minutes to copy the Dutch weapons and perhaps improve on them.

What we see in Madura today is simply a continuation of tradition, and if there were just a touch more realism around, we would recognise that the idea of exclusive authorship of keris, even old ones, is a very limited concept. It probably may be able to be considered as applicable to very low quality keris, and some (but we can never know which) very high quality keris.The vast bulk of keris have always been produced by more than a single person.You cannot call the current Madura production "mass production". It is not. It lacks the essential elements of mass production. But it is group production, where some people will sometimes do one job efficiently, and others do another job efficiently. In this way it is no different to the way in which keris, and many other complex items have always been produced , not only in Jawa, but in other places as well.It pretty much comes down to what the market wants, and what the market can afford to pay.

Look at the number of people that were used to produce a keris, that are listed in the texts , and the work allocated to those workers. Nobody but the boss (the Empu) knew the complete process, or how one piece of work fitted with another, but he was like the conductor, the music was played by other people with various instruments.

So, what we see today is really no different to what it has always been---on one level.

But we also have people who are capable of producing a keris as a work of art from the beginning to the end. These people are the true artists. Sometimes they may produce commercially orientated items, but so do all other artists in all fields:- artists must live too, you know. What I would like to see is this current commercial competition dumped, and the institution of a true competition for those people who are entitled to be called "pandai keris", or "empu". And there are not very many of these people.

Rick · 14th December 2007, 02:38 PM

This raises a question for me ; I hope I can express it correctly .

When judging the work of an empu class artisan where does one draw the line between proper form/dhapur and individual creativity on the part of the maker ?

Is there room for imagination and innovation in the process ?

A. G. Maisey · 14th December 2007, 07:56 PM

Rick, I cannot answer this question.

It is a matter of experience,knowledge and inate artistic sensibility, as it is with any art work.

What is it that causes the work of one artist, in any field, to be regarded as great, and the work of another artist to be regarded as mundane?

The person with no knowledge or experience, or artistic sensibility could well choose the work of Mr. Mundane as superior to the work of Mr. Great, but the knowledgeable and experienced people will invariably choose the work of the artist recognised as great, even if they do not know it is by that particular artist.

The "proper form" (dhapur) question is a simple one to answer, because various guidebooks or pakems exist which lay down the features and overall form of any particular dhapur. Provided the keris conforms with the laid down design, it is that dhapur.

However, the "creativity" question is very difficult, because the individual artist must interpret the laid down form and features within very narrow parameters, and be able to express the art and the feeling within those parameters.To detect and appraise this you need a lot of experience, very good tuition, and at least some innate artistic feeling.

One of the constant and deeply felt complaints of my own teacher was about people who saw fit to discuss and comment upon the excellence or otherwise of keris, but who could not determine the difference between the work of a talented artist, and the work of a maker without talent.I recall one time when my teacher, I, and a couple of other people attended a keris meeting in a neighbouring city. He and one of his close friends, who was also highly placed in the Surakarta Kraton, fumed all the way home because of what they considered to be a total lack of knowledge displayed by our hosts. The repeated comment was:- "It is easy to invent stories; it is very difficult to learn the keris".

Yes, there is room for creativity, but that creativity must be displayed within a very narrow range. Unless we have an extremely thorough knowledge of what is regarded as excellence we are not in a position to judge what is acceptable, and what is not.

Now, what I am talking about here are the standards as they are applied by an artistic elite centered on the Surakarta Kraton.

For anybody who is not in a position to learn these standards, and who is not committed to be bound by these standards, it becomes a bit easier.

For proper interpretation of a form you simply consult a pakem. Find that exact collection of specific features in a pakem, any pakem, and you've got a legitimate dhapur.

For the way in which those features are expressed, it comes back to whether it pleases your eye, or not.In the final analysis, you are the person who needs to live with the keris:- if it pleases you, it is a good keris --- for you.
If it does not please you, get rid of it.

The alternative to this simple approach is to go to Solo and find a good teacher.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

14th December 2007, 06:52 AM	#2
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,054	Yeah---well, as already agreed, the sequence can change. I reckon Pak Djeno worked the same as all of us do, he had a goal in mind and shifted things around , dependent on circumstances, to allow him to achieve that goal in the easiest way. Or maybe he did what many of us do when we get asked questions that the asker does not really understand:- he gave an answer that he hoped would satisfy the person who asked. Pak Boedhi, keris have always been a commodity. Back in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries they were being exported from Jawa to the rest of SE Asia. We have pictures showing keris sellers in the markets in Batavia. Keris at one level have always been a commodity.For many hundreds of years keris have been made to produce a living for somebody. They are an expensive thing to produce, always were, and nobody produces items that require high resource usage unless they intend to make money out of them. Similarly with production of a single blade by a group of workers. Except in very early days and in the case of small village workers, group production has always been the norm. The extent to which group production was applied, and the role of the master might have varied a bit, but the objective was always the same:- produce the best quality at an affordable price. People tend to get lost in their imagination when it comes to keris production. Old time Jawa was not some primitive society, it was highly organised and highly stratified.Back when they were having a good solid whack at the Dutch, it took them about five minutes to copy the Dutch weapons and perhaps improve on them. What we see in Madura today is simply a continuation of tradition, and if there were just a touch more realism around, we would recognise that the idea of exclusive authorship of keris, even old ones, is a very limited concept. It probably may be able to be considered as applicable to very low quality keris, and some (but we can never know which) very high quality keris.The vast bulk of keris have always been produced by more than a single person.You cannot call the current Madura production "mass production". It is not. It lacks the essential elements of mass production. But it is group production, where some people will sometimes do one job efficiently, and others do another job efficiently. In this way it is no different to the way in which keris, and many other complex items have always been produced , not only in Jawa, but in other places as well.It pretty much comes down to what the market wants, and what the market can afford to pay. Look at the number of people that were used to produce a keris, that are listed in the texts , and the work allocated to those workers. Nobody but the boss (the Empu) knew the complete process, or how one piece of work fitted with another, but he was like the conductor, the music was played by other people with various instruments. So, what we see today is really no different to what it has always been---on one level. But we also have people who are capable of producing a keris as a work of art from the beginning to the end. These people are the true artists. Sometimes they may produce commercially orientated items, but so do all other artists in all fields:- artists must live too, you know. What I would like to see is this current commercial competition dumped, and the institution of a true competition for those people who are entitled to be called "pandai keris", or "empu". And there are not very many of these people.

14th December 2007, 02:38 PM	#3
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,348	This raises a question for me ; I hope I can express it correctly . When judging the work of an empu class artisan where does one draw the line between proper form/dhapur and individual creativity on the part of the maker ? Is there room for imagination and innovation in the process ?

14th December 2007, 07:56 PM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,054	Rick, I cannot answer this question. It is a matter of experience,knowledge and inate artistic sensibility, as it is with any art work. What is it that causes the work of one artist, in any field, to be regarded as great, and the work of another artist to be regarded as mundane? The person with no knowledge or experience, or artistic sensibility could well choose the work of Mr. Mundane as superior to the work of Mr. Great, but the knowledgeable and experienced people will invariably choose the work of the artist recognised as great, even if they do not know it is by that particular artist. The "proper form" (dhapur) question is a simple one to answer, because various guidebooks or pakems exist which lay down the features and overall form of any particular dhapur. Provided the keris conforms with the laid down design, it is that dhapur. However, the "creativity" question is very difficult, because the individual artist must interpret the laid down form and features within very narrow parameters, and be able to express the art and the feeling within those parameters.To detect and appraise this you need a lot of experience, very good tuition, and at least some innate artistic feeling. One of the constant and deeply felt complaints of my own teacher was about people who saw fit to discuss and comment upon the excellence or otherwise of keris, but who could not determine the difference between the work of a talented artist, and the work of a maker without talent.I recall one time when my teacher, I, and a couple of other people attended a keris meeting in a neighbouring city. He and one of his close friends, who was also highly placed in the Surakarta Kraton, fumed all the way home because of what they considered to be a total lack of knowledge displayed by our hosts. The repeated comment was:- "It is easy to invent stories; it is very difficult to learn the keris". Yes, there is room for creativity, but that creativity must be displayed within a very narrow range. Unless we have an extremely thorough knowledge of what is regarded as excellence we are not in a position to judge what is acceptable, and what is not. Now, what I am talking about here are the standards as they are applied by an artistic elite centered on the Surakarta Kraton. For anybody who is not in a position to learn these standards, and who is not committed to be bound by these standards, it becomes a bit easier. For proper interpretation of a form you simply consult a pakem. Find that exact collection of specific features in a pakem, any pakem, and you've got a legitimate dhapur. For the way in which those features are expressed, it comes back to whether it pleases your eye, or not.In the final analysis, you are the person who needs to live with the keris:- if it pleases you, it is a good keris --- for you. If it does not please you, get rid of it. The alternative to this simple approach is to go to Solo and find a good teacher.