Keris and Rembrandt

A. G. Maisey · 15th April 2010, 11:59 PM

This is alike to failing to see a forest because the trees got in the way.

I can see that keris clearly and in detail now.

Last night I looked again and again and focussed intently on the hand.

I did not see that the mailed hand was grasping the blade, I sub-consciously had that hand gripping the hilt.

Helps to look at things when you haven't just finished 12 hours in front of a computer screen.

ganjawulung · 16th April 2010, 02:59 AM

Examining the "Rembrandt's Keris" in his painting of "The Blinding Samson" (1636), of course is not like examining a Banten keris in Jensen's Krisdisk -- for instance. Or like watching this "blade-gripping a seven luks Carubuk" like this too (picture). So, IMHO, it is not important -- whether Rembrandt was painting a Carubuk or Banten keris in his "Blinding Samson", or a Kidang Soka in Maduran walikat sheath.

This was "Rembrandt's Keris", of course. No matter what dapur it was. It was his expression at a certain mood in a certain time in the past. Why gripping the keris not in the keris' hilt, this was of course his liberty in expressing certain idea. For me, it is more interesting to look back at the biography of this one greatest painter in Europe.

Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn (you may browse anywhere) -- (July 16, 1606 until October 4, 1669) was living in the period of the golden era of the famous multi-national corporation VOC (Vereenigde Nederlandsche g'octroyeerde Oost-Indische Compagnie). No wonder, if he owned some "Indonesian thing" in his life. Many building, and even the city of Batavia (Jakarta now) was built during this VOC period. (The National Museum of Jakarta still exists, until now).

In the journey of his life in painting -- The Blinding Samson was expressed in his "Amsterdam Period" (1632-1636) where he used more biblical and mythological theme in his paintings.. But in dramatical way.

So, not important whether this "keris like object" was a Carubuk, Kidang Soka or whatever dhapur. It was "Rembrandt's keris".... It is a painting. Not a photograph.

GANJAWULUNG

Rick · 16th April 2010, 03:07 AM

Yes, it is a painting; famous one .

Still, what does the use of a keris represent in this classic 16?C painting .
Is it allegorical ?

Why should Sampson be blinded by a keris as the chosen weapon ??

David · 16th April 2010, 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

I did not see that the mailed hand was grasping the blade, I sub-consciously had that hand gripping the hilt.

Makes perfect sense to me Alan. Because your mind wasn't connecting to the fact that the hand is holding the blade in a completely unpractical manner you just weren't seeing it correctly.
Ganja, yes, in many ways this is "Rembrandt's Keris", but it is most certainly modeled after a keris he actually held in his possession. As such it is as much a "real" item that can be identified as is a photograph, that is a 2 dimensional depictions of an actual 3 dimensional object.
Rick, i think perhaps Rembrandt chose to use various exotic arms simply because they were exotic. We might be thinking too deeply if we are searching for a allegory here.

ThePepperSkull · 16th April 2010, 07:53 AM

Agreed with David. I think it's a case of a cigar just being a cigar. Rembrandt was an enthnographic arms collector and included various ethnographic arms in his paintings.

kronckew · 16th April 2010, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePepperSkull

Agreed with David. I think it's a case of a cigar just being a cigar. Rembrandt was an enthnographic arms collector and included various ethnographic arms in his paintings.

edited:

(translation:"this is not a pipe.". this is also not a kris. this isn't a keris either.)

Gustav · 16th April 2010, 11:39 AM

C'est un kris?

kronckew · 16th April 2010, 12:30 PM

this is not a keris, it is an image of a keris

p.s. - this is not a kris either. this is an image of a kris.

of course, in classical thaumaturgy the image IS the object, it's the sympathetic magical law of similarity.....

A. G. Maisey · 17th April 2010, 01:56 PM

Kronckew in your most recent post you have made the most beautiful and most accurate statement I think I have ever seen in this discussion group:-

this is not a keris, it is an image of a keris

I thank you most sincerely for reminding us that when we look at an image on a computer screen, no matter how expertly that image has been prepared, it is still not the real thing, it is only something that acts upon our mind to conjure our own understanding of the real thing.

16th April 2010, 02:59 AM	#2
ganjawulung Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: J a k a r t a Posts: 991	Examining the "Rembrandt's Keris" in his painting of "The Blinding Samson" (1636), of course is not like examining a Banten keris in Jensen's Krisdisk -- for instance. Or like watching this "blade-gripping a seven luks Carubuk" like this too (picture). So, IMHO, it is not important -- whether Rembrandt was painting a Carubuk or Banten keris in his "Blinding Samson", or a Kidang Soka in Maduran walikat sheath. This was "Rembrandt's Keris", of course. No matter what dapur it was. It was his expression at a certain mood in a certain time in the past. Why gripping the keris not in the keris' hilt, this was of course his liberty in expressing certain idea. For me, it is more interesting to look back at the biography of this one greatest painter in Europe. Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn (you may browse anywhere) -- (July 16, 1606 until October 4, 1669) was living in the period of the golden era of the famous multi-national corporation VOC (Vereenigde Nederlandsche g'octroyeerde Oost-Indische Compagnie). No wonder, if he owned some "Indonesian thing" in his life. Many building, and even the city of Batavia (Jakarta now) was built during this VOC period. (The National Museum of Jakarta still exists, until now). In the journey of his life in painting -- The Blinding Samson was expressed in his "Amsterdam Period" (1632-1636) where he used more biblical and mythological theme in his paintings.. But in dramatical way. So, not important whether this "keris like object" was a Carubuk, Kidang Soka or whatever dhapur. It was "Rembrandt's keris".... It is a painting. Not a photograph. GANJAWULUNG Attached Images

16th April 2010, 12:30 PM	#8
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,224	this is not a keris, it is an image of a keris p.s. - this is not a kris either. this is an image of a kris. of course, in classical thaumaturgy the image IS the object, it's the sympathetic magical law of similarity..... Last edited by kronckew; 16th April 2010 at 12:50 PM.

15th April 2010, 11:59 PM	#1
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,013	This is alike to failing to see a forest because the trees got in the way. I can see that keris clearly and in detail now. Last night I looked again and again and focussed intently on the hand. I did not see that the mailed hand was grasping the blade, I sub-consciously had that hand gripping the hilt. Helps to look at things when you haven't just finished 12 hours in front of a computer screen.

16th April 2010, 03:07 AM	#3
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,339	Yes, it is a painting; famous one . Still, what does the use of a keris represent in this classic 16?C painting . Is it allegorical ? Why should Sampson be blinded by a keris as the chosen weapon ??

16th April 2010, 07:53 AM	#5
ThePepperSkull Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 338	Agreed with David. I think it's a case of a cigar just being a cigar. Rembrandt was an enthnographic arms collector and included various ethnographic arms in his paintings.

16th April 2010, 11:39 AM	#7
Gustav Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,279	C'est un kris?

17th April 2010, 01:56 PM	#9
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,013	Kronckew in your most recent post you have made the most beautiful and most accurate statement I think I have ever seen in this discussion group:- this is not a keris, it is an image of a keris I thank you most sincerely for reminding us that when we look at an image on a computer screen, no matter how expertly that image has been prepared, it is still not the real thing, it is only something that acts upon our mind to conjure our own understanding of the real thing.