New Keris/Keris baru

[Jussi M.]

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.

[Gustav]

Well, it sounds good as a theory. What, when we are using it on keris of Ismarsodo as example in praxis (if he allows us to do it), going in to the small details?

[Jean]

Originally Posted by Gustav

Well, it sounds good as a theory. What, when we are using it on keris of Ismarsodo as example in praxis (if he allows us to do it), going in to the small details?

IMO the kris from Ismarsodo is a honest/ typical keris kamardikan and not a replica. Howewer I would personally replace the pendok...
Regards

[sirek]

Originally Posted by Jussi M.

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?

replica or fake is indeed not easy to define
if there is deviated from the traditional form, and we have to deal with the artistic spirit of the modern maker.
IMO its not a replica or a fake keris, but ? a modern impression?

[Jussi M.]

Originally Posted by sirek

replica or fake is indeed not easy to define
if there is deviated from the traditional form, and we have to deal with the artistic spirit of the modern maker.
IMO its not a replica or a fake keris, but ? a modern impression?

I guess a "purist" would say that anything that deviates from Pakem (if the maker is following one in the first place that is) is not a keris but a keris like object. That said I guess the difficulty is in deciding where to draw the line between artistic freedom and tradition.

I guess we all weigh and measure these things differently depending on our abilities, motives and capabilities

[Jean]

Originally Posted by sirek

replica or fake is indeed not easy to define
if there is deviated from the traditional form, and we have to deal with the artistic spirit of the modern maker.
IMO its not a replica or a fake keris, but ? a modern impression?

A modern creation indeed but not a very good one IMO, the wadidang has an odd shape and I apparently see some filing marks on the gandik and pejetan? But this is according to my personal taste only and you are fully entitled to disagree!
Regards

[David]

Originally Posted by sirek

replica or fake is indeed not easy to define
if there is deviated from the traditional form, and we have to deal with the artistic spirit of the modern maker.
IMO its not a replica or a fake keris, but ? a modern impression?

A certain amount of artistic interpretation has always been acceptable to the standards of pakem AFAIK. It can, of course, be taken too far, but that does not seem to be the case in your example.

[A. G. Maisey]

I'm going to stay out of this discussion, for a while, anyway, as I put the questions.

However, on the subject of keris used as items of formal dress. These are very often just pieces of flat iron that are used to hold the dress together. I've even seen cardboard used to hold dress together.

The standards that collectors in the western world use to judge a keris are not often used used by people in Jawa who need a dress keris. It most often comes down to what they can afford. At a grassroots level, all current production is directed at the local market. Keris sold to collectors in foreign lands are not really any sort of special or dedicated production.

[Rick]

Can you expand on what is the local market in Jawa, Alan ?

If many only need a paper stand-in for a wedding; who purchases contemporary work in Jawa ?
Only keris collectors ?

Maybe this is a digression; I would like to know; it might help how I see the keris .

[A. G. Maisey]

I saw the cardboard used by a very poor farm worker. I've seen flat iron (flat galvanised iron as used for chicken coops etc) used by a number of ordinary working people like school teachers, bus drivers etc. Based upon what I've seen in dealers kiosks in Central Jawa, the people who buy ordinary quality new keris are people who want a dress keris and can afford something better than flat iron. People who buy better quality new keris seem to be people who are collectors at one level or another.

My remarks are based on what I've seen, and discussion with friends in Solo who deal.

[Rick]

Alan, is the concept of pusaka from this time gone now ?

People would not purchase a new keris with the intent of it becoming a pusaka in future generations ?