![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 936
|
![]()
Kwiatek,
Many thanks for your help, as always! Marius, Here is photo of the subject set with two knifes produced by the same workshop. One is of general 'hunting/European' form and another is of typical Uzbek pchak design. These knifes were produced in Uzbekistan, including the blades. Of course, they are mass produced, just like they were in the past... the smith forges the blades en mass, another 'Usto' carves handles, another makes scabbards and put all together... So technically, these knifes can qualify as ethnographic, but I am still unsure and must agree that variations of non-traditional damascus patterns and different blade forms set them apart from the traditional 'norm'. According to the master, this is "to show his artistic genius by blending modern and traditional", this is a common cultural trend, and certainly not to deceive or fake the original, and this makes it a 'good art' to me. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 436
|
![]()
I agree that it' "good art" as well as ethnographic; however, it seems to me that there is still a quantum leap between the culture that created the kards we've seen and collected, and the current culture and its exemplars.
Much of the "draw" of ethnological edged weaponry, for me at least, is in the connection between what was, and is no more, and myself, looking back. The idea that objects are a nexus which creates a link between disparate individuals over a distance of space and time is, of course, magical thinking. Yet it it exists, and is undeniably a powerful force. I've chafed at the reality that an old pocketknife, for example, can attract the attention of enough individuals that its value to this group is increased a hundredfold because it was once held by Lord Byron, rather than some nameless Greek gentleman. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|