Pics: Snake-like Curves

A. G. Maisey · 8th June 2007, 05:03 AM

I'm sorry Cahaya, no.

As I have already stated, I do not agree with the practice of showing keris in a personal collection on a public website.

I have intentionally made this keris very dark so only the outline can be seen, not the keris itself.

I am not holding an exhibition of my collection, which would be something in conflict with my personal standards and system of values,I am only showing an outline for comparative purposes.

Sepang · 8th June 2007, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

I'm sorry Cahaya, no.

As I have already stated, I do not agree with the practice of showing keris in a personal collection on a public website.

I have intentionally made this keris very dark so only the outline can be seen, not the keris itself.

I am not holding an exhibition of my collection, which would be something in conflict with my personal standards and system of values,I am only showing an outline for comparative purposes.

hi.
seems like a madiun keris. shown by the pucuk (tips), luk style and aslant of kembang kacang. the ganja not simetris. longer than bottom of the blade. I supposed that the gonjo was replaced or revisioned ?

sepang.

A. G. Maisey · 8th June 2007, 08:58 AM

No, it does not bear the characteristics of a Madiun blade, the gonjo is original, however the buntut urang is eroded, as is the wadidang ; if the line of the gonjo and wadidang are extended to their original positions, this line will be seen to be quite long.It is not a high quality blade, but a very ordinary example, and in no respect could it be considered a work of art.The pesi is almost completely gone, and has been replaced with a metal cone held in place with jabung.

As I have already stated, in the opinion of two highly respected ahli keris, one of whom is an empu, now retired, this blade can be classified as Pengging.

It also bears the characteristics of a Pengging blade according to information gathered from Empu Suparman Supowijaya, and as confirmed in conversation with a number of other ahli keris, collectors, and dealers over a 20 year period.

I have provided this silhouette purely for comparative purposes:- a number opinions which must be respected classify this as Pengging, but it's form is nothing at all like the Pengging tosan aji that has already been shown.

I am positive that the attribution of Pengging given to the previously shown tosan aji has not been given lightly, and that a number of people would have this same opinion; in fact, I have another blade, a current era production, that is supposedly a copy of a Pengging blade, and the silhouette of this blade would agree with the silhouette of the previously shown tosan aji which has been identified as Pengging.

Then I have a third blade which is completely different from these other two that was given the tangguh of Pengging by two highly respected ahli keris from Jogjakarta.

The point I am trying to make is this:- Pengging is a very scarce tangguh, and there are clearly a number of opinions as to exactly what characteristics are possessed by a keris of tangguh Pengging.

We would not have the same problem with Mataram Sultan Agung, or with Surakarta, or with Segaluh, or with many other tangguhs, but Pengging is a very, very problematical tangguh.As a tangguh which attracts widely varying opinions it has been an excellent example to make my case that in discussion of tangguh, especially when photographs are being relied upon, all opinions must be qualified.

cahaya · 8th June 2007, 10:11 AM

Hai all

No body perfect (100%) prof,doctor,scientist, could be wrong,
including in 'Keris world' --- Mpu can do something wrong to in Nangguh.

Raden Usman Djogja · 8th June 2007, 10:50 AM

dear All Kerislovers,

If you have been in Merapi mountain, perhaps you would
realize, coincidently, there are 2 versions in any aspect there.
It is because Merapi mountain and surrounding area have important role in Javanese civilization.

So, if we talk about pengging? Which pengging? during Mataram Hindhu or Mataram Islam. If during Mataram Hindhu, so the prominent Empu is Mpu Ramadhi. If the scope of discussion is Mataram Islam, so different empus will be mentioned.

Perhaps, there are 2 kind of pengging which have obvious differentiation, yupe, because, they came from far different era. But, All are true penggings

Usman

A. G. Maisey · 8th June 2007, 01:14 PM

Yes Cahaya, anybody can be wrong.

In fact everybody could be wrong.

The very fact that tangguh involves opinion , and not fact, means that any opinion can be given. It does not need to be right, or wrong, it only needs to be accepted. In order to have it accepted, it needs to be supported, but even if it is supported, it still does not mean that it right. For an opinion to be "right", it would first be necessary to quantify exactly what constitutes "right" in respect of any tangguh. The very nature of tangguh precludes such a factual approach. The best that can be hoped for is concensus, or perhaps only majority agreement.Certainly we can never hope for something as absolute as "right".

However, this is not about right and wrong.

It is about a system of classification which depends upon the comparison of certain physical characteristics in a keris, with accepted characteristics for a particular classification, or tangguh.

The person or persons carrying out the comparison forms an opinion as to whether or not the observed characteristics coincide with the accepted characteristics to a sufficient degree to assign a particular tangguh to a keris, thus placing it within that classification.

The problems arise when there is not universal agreement on exactly what the characteristics are for a particular classification, or tangguh.

We have just seen Sepang suggest that the silhouette which I posted is possibly Madiun. Sepang has been able to deduce this from only the silhouette. Just the outline of the blade.

I have already provided the information that the characteristics of the keris in the silhouette are the same as those listed in a previous post. Please read those characteristics listed in the previous post and consider for one moment if these are the accepted characteristics for a keris of tangguh Madiun.

This little exercise has provided a vivid example of just how silly the tangguh game can get.

It ought not to be silly. It is a serious branch of keris study, and is vital to an understanding of the Javanese keris, most particularly so in respect of value. If one fails to understand tangguh one can wind up losing big-time when buying.

We have already agreed that it is not possible to learn tangguh from pictures. It would seem that at this point nobody is prepared to assert that it is possible to learn tangguh from pictures.

I maintain that it is not possible to give other than a qualified opinion as to the tangguh of any keris from a picture.

I further suggest that where a picture of an example of any tangguh be given, that it be clearly stated that the claimed tangguh assigned to the keris is an opinion, either the opinion of the owner of the keris, or the opinion of a person or persons known to the owner.

If this practice is followed, it should lessen considerably the degree of misunderstanding in respect of tangguh , which currently appears to exist amongst those people who have not had the benefit of close and intense personal instruction in the practice of tangguh.

Opinions should not be presented as fact.

ganjawulung · 9th June 2007, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

... This little exercise has provided a vivid example of just how silly the tangguh game can get.

It ought not to be silly. It is a serious branch of keris study, and is vital to an understanding of the Javanese keris, most particularly so in respect of value. If one fails to understand tangguh one can wind up losing big-time when buying.

We have already agreed that it is not possible to learn tangguh from pictures. It would seem that at this point nobody is prepared to assert that it is possible to learn tangguh from pictures.

I maintain that it is not possible to give other than a qualified opinion as to the tangguh of any keris from a picture.

I further suggest that where a picture of an example of any tangguh be given, that it be clearly stated that the claimed tangguh assigned to the keris is an opinion, either the opinion of the owner of the keris, or the opinion of a person or persons known to the owner.

If this practice is followed, it should lessen considerably the degree of misunderstanding in respect of tangguh , which currently appears to exist amongst those people who have not had the benefit of close and intense personal instruction in the practice of tangguh.

Opinions should not be presented as fact.

Yes Alan,
Tangguh game is a serious branch of keris study. (So, I don't agree with the joke you proposed before: joking about "tangguh is invented to give men something to talk about..") I know, it was a joke. But can be a destructive opinion too...

Why did I post pictures? Even books like Mr Tammens, Mr Guritno, or the book of respected David van Duuren, still posting pictures. Knowledge on keris is something "visual knowledge" too. It is easier to look the pictures (although someone can not feel the blade, or knowing the "ting-ting-an" the iron in absence of the keris), but still, makes people easier to understand. More accurate than without pictures. Still it has a positive side in showing pictures in a public website.

About "showing the private collection to public", in my opinion, it is not a general rule. But personal rule. I know, there is a good habitude in the past in Java of "sinengker" (keep it secret) tradition. And knowledge on keris in the past is a "kawruh sinengker" (not for public knowledge, but only for certain rank of people)...

But I learned also from the openess of Mr Sumodiningrat (in Jasper and Mas Pirngadie's book, 1912). That due to the benevolent of Mr Sumodiningrat, we could know now the kind of "extraordinary" dhapur such as "carang candala tinanding" or tjarang tjandala tinanding -- kind of karno tinanding with kembang kacang in both sides of the gandhik, but with luk like "megantoro" (combination of luk in the bottom, and straight in the point). Mr Sumodiningrat let his private collection to be published in public "for the shake of the knowledge of keris". It can be interpreted as "for the shake of the conservation of keris knowledge", Mr Sumodiningrat let his private collection to be seen by public. Also the private collection that had shown in Mr Tammens' book (De Kris).. I don't think it is a matter of "exhibitionist" attitude.

This is my "second responsibility", concerning Mr Alan's statement..

This is an information era. Why must we shut the keris world in a total secret, like in a dark age?

Once again, for the shake of the keris knowledge, I have no intention of destructing certain value, or personal value of the keris world. And please, this is not a personal conflict. But, discussion. We can take the positive thing out of this. With respect to Mr Alan Maisey, that I know, he has encourage the development of the Javanese keris in the last of 30 (?) years..

Ganjawulung

David · 8th June 2007, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cahaya

No body perfect (100%) prof,doctor,scientist, could be wrong,
including in 'Keris world' --- Mpu can do something wrong to in Nangguh.

Certainly any individual, empu or not, can make a mistake. It should be noted, however, that Alan is not basing his opinion on the word of a single empu.

"As I have already stated, in the opinion of two highly respected ahli keris, one of whom is an empu, now retired, this blade can be classified as Pengging.

It also bears the characteristics of a Pengging blade according to information gathered from Empu Suparman Supowijaya, and as confirmed in conversation with a number of other ahli keris, collectors, and dealers over a 20 year period."

In fact, his opinion is based on information from 2 empus, another highly respected ahli keris and a number of other keris ahli, collectors and dealers. Still, this doesn't mean that all these people are correct, but i believe it would be unfair to imply that because any one individual can be wrong that it is as likely that this entire group of people are also wrong.
Consensus on tangguh is very often a difficult thing to reach. I believe that is part of Alan's point.

A. G. Maisey · 8th June 2007, 01:23 PM

Thanks for clarifying what I wrote, David, however, I would like to clarify even further:- I have not yet given any opinion.

In fact, as far as tangguh Pengging is concerned I do not believe I could form an opinion for the simple reason that there is too much variation amongst knowledgeable people as to exactly what a Pengging keris looks like.

I feel that the best I could ever do with Pengging would to quote other people, without necessarily giving an opinion myself.

vogan · 9th June 2007, 03:03 AM

Hello Fellow Forumites,
It is with some hesitation I post, being one of those referred to somewhere as “ghost readers” or something, in other words, those who read avidly but do not contribute to the discussion. I have a question about something Mr. A.G. Maisey wrote, though the question is not necessarily directed at him, as I am sure many other serious students of the Keris feel the same way. I seem to recall, in an earlier posting, mentioning of the difficulty publishers of a new book on the Keris encountered- when approaching top collectors, instead of receiving a happy consent to having their collection publicized- that is- photographed), they encountered a reluctance to share. Which brings me to my question as to the reasons why the owners of some beautiful cultural artifacts- read works of art, would say (to quote Mr. Maisey): “I am not holding an exhibition of my collection, which would be something in conflict with my personal standards and system of values, I am only showing an outline for comparative purposes.” If it is not too impertinent to ask

, I would like to try and understand why some Keris owners feel a reluctance to publicize their personal holdings. Mind you, I am asking this from the vantage point of someone who is not very knowledgeable about the Keris, more like a brash American who cannot reconcile this reluctance to the tradition in this country, of the Carnegies and Mellons, who went full bore into the art market, amassing huge collections, partly out of vanity and because they could, but in a very real world sense, having built museums and created endowments to ensure that their holdings would remain on view to the public, they did so- so that the rest of us economically disadvantaged citizens, could enjoy the same access to the best artistic productions that the millionaires and elites enjoy. I’m sure we can all agree that many Keris are complete works of art, so what are the defensible reasons behind, not the emotional predilections for, the reluctance to share photographic evidence of these works of art with the hoi polloi? I hope you don’t think I am asking this because I am insensitive to the spiritual component of the Keris, only I would submit that the spiritual component is not unique to the Keris. I can’t imagine anyone would argue that the spiritual component of a Van Gogh painting has somehow been vitiated and trivialized by being put on public display. Indeed, I think the reverse would be true. How much more moving is it that millions of viewers now respond at a very deep level to paintings that but a handful of individuals gave a second thought to in the painter’s lifetime? When one talks of the energy or heat radiated by a great Keris, one might in the same breath liken that to the life force radiated by one of Van Gogh’s paintings. And who would subscribe to the notion that a Van Gogh ought to be wrapped in a velvet coverlet, stored in a cabinet and taken out for the sole pleasure of the single collector who, by virtue of luck, money or acquaintance, called it his own? Isn’t there a point when the aesthetic qualities of a Keris subsumes it’s owner’s “personal standards and systems of values” and it demands a wider audience? Like me

- and other well intentioned but not so knowledgeable collectors, who do not enjoy similar access?

8th June 2007, 05:03 AM	#1
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	I'm sorry Cahaya, no. As I have already stated, I do not agree with the practice of showing keris in a personal collection on a public website. I have intentionally made this keris very dark so only the outline can be seen, not the keris itself. I am not holding an exhibition of my collection, which would be something in conflict with my personal standards and system of values,I am only showing an outline for comparative purposes. Last edited by A. G. Maisey; 8th June 2007 at 06:29 AM.

9th June 2007, 03:03 AM	#10
vogan Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 10	Photographs of Keris Hello Fellow Forumites, It is with some hesitation I post, being one of those referred to somewhere as “ghost readers” or something, in other words, those who read avidly but do not contribute to the discussion. I have a question about something Mr. A.G. Maisey wrote, though the question is not necessarily directed at him, as I am sure many other serious students of the Keris feel the same way. I seem to recall, in an earlier posting, mentioning of the difficulty publishers of a new book on the Keris encountered- when approaching top collectors, instead of receiving a happy consent to having their collection publicized- that is- photographed), they encountered a reluctance to share. Which brings me to my question as to the reasons why the owners of some beautiful cultural artifacts- read works of art, would say (to quote Mr. Maisey): “I am not holding an exhibition of my collection, which would be something in conflict with my personal standards and system of values, I am only showing an outline for comparative purposes.” If it is not too impertinent to ask , I would like to try and understand why some Keris owners feel a reluctance to publicize their personal holdings. Mind you, I am asking this from the vantage point of someone who is not very knowledgeable about the Keris, more like a brash American who cannot reconcile this reluctance to the tradition in this country, of the Carnegies and Mellons, who went full bore into the art market, amassing huge collections, partly out of vanity and because they could, but in a very real world sense, having built museums and created endowments to ensure that their holdings would remain on view to the public, they did so- so that the rest of us economically disadvantaged citizens, could enjoy the same access to the best artistic productions that the millionaires and elites enjoy. I’m sure we can all agree that many Keris are complete works of art, so what are the defensible reasons behind, not the emotional predilections for, the reluctance to share photographic evidence of these works of art with the hoi polloi? I hope you don’t think I am asking this because I am insensitive to the spiritual component of the Keris, only I would submit that the spiritual component is not unique to the Keris. I can’t imagine anyone would argue that the spiritual component of a Van Gogh painting has somehow been vitiated and trivialized by being put on public display. Indeed, I think the reverse would be true. How much more moving is it that millions of viewers now respond at a very deep level to paintings that but a handful of individuals gave a second thought to in the painter’s lifetime? When one talks of the energy or heat radiated by a great Keris, one might in the same breath liken that to the life force radiated by one of Van Gogh’s paintings. And who would subscribe to the notion that a Van Gogh ought to be wrapped in a velvet coverlet, stored in a cabinet and taken out for the sole pleasure of the single collector who, by virtue of luck, money or acquaintance, called it his own? Isn’t there a point when the aesthetic qualities of a Keris subsumes it’s owner’s “personal standards and systems of values” and it demands a wider audience? Like me - and other well intentioned but not so knowledgeable collectors, who do not enjoy similar access?

8th June 2007, 08:58 AM	#3
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	No, it does not bear the characteristics of a Madiun blade, the gonjo is original, however the buntut urang is eroded, as is the wadidang ; if the line of the gonjo and wadidang are extended to their original positions, this line will be seen to be quite long.It is not a high quality blade, but a very ordinary example, and in no respect could it be considered a work of art.The pesi is almost completely gone, and has been replaced with a metal cone held in place with jabung. As I have already stated, in the opinion of two highly respected ahli keris, one of whom is an empu, now retired, this blade can be classified as Pengging. It also bears the characteristics of a Pengging blade according to information gathered from Empu Suparman Supowijaya, and as confirmed in conversation with a number of other ahli keris, collectors, and dealers over a 20 year period. I have provided this silhouette purely for comparative purposes:- a number opinions which must be respected classify this as Pengging, but it's form is nothing at all like the Pengging tosan aji that has already been shown. I am positive that the attribution of Pengging given to the previously shown tosan aji has not been given lightly, and that a number of people would have this same opinion; in fact, I have another blade, a current era production, that is supposedly a copy of a Pengging blade, and the silhouette of this blade would agree with the silhouette of the previously shown tosan aji which has been identified as Pengging. Then I have a third blade which is completely different from these other two that was given the tangguh of Pengging by two highly respected ahli keris from Jogjakarta. The point I am trying to make is this:- Pengging is a very scarce tangguh, and there are clearly a number of opinions as to exactly what characteristics are possessed by a keris of tangguh Pengging. We would not have the same problem with Mataram Sultan Agung, or with Surakarta, or with Segaluh, or with many other tangguhs, but Pengging is a very, very problematical tangguh.As a tangguh which attracts widely varying opinions it has been an excellent example to make my case that in discussion of tangguh, especially when photographs are being relied upon, all opinions must be qualified.

8th June 2007, 10:11 AM	#4
cahaya Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 49	Hai all No body perfect (100%) prof,doctor,scientist, could be wrong, including in 'Keris world' --- Mpu can do something wrong to in Nangguh.

8th June 2007, 10:50 AM	#5
Raden Usman Djogja Member Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 199	dear All Kerislovers, If you have been in Merapi mountain, perhaps you would realize, coincidently, there are 2 versions in any aspect there. It is because Merapi mountain and surrounding area have important role in Javanese civilization. So, if we talk about pengging? Which pengging? during Mataram Hindhu or Mataram Islam. If during Mataram Hindhu, so the prominent Empu is Mpu Ramadhi. If the scope of discussion is Mataram Islam, so different empus will be mentioned. Perhaps, there are 2 kind of pengging which have obvious differentiation, yupe, because, they came from far different era. But, All are true penggings Usman

8th June 2007, 01:14 PM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	Yes Cahaya, anybody can be wrong. In fact everybody could be wrong. The very fact that tangguh involves opinion , and not fact, means that any opinion can be given. It does not need to be right, or wrong, it only needs to be accepted. In order to have it accepted, it needs to be supported, but even if it is supported, it still does not mean that it right. For an opinion to be "right", it would first be necessary to quantify exactly what constitutes "right" in respect of any tangguh. The very nature of tangguh precludes such a factual approach. The best that can be hoped for is concensus, or perhaps only majority agreement.Certainly we can never hope for something as absolute as "right". However, this is not about right and wrong. It is about a system of classification which depends upon the comparison of certain physical characteristics in a keris, with accepted characteristics for a particular classification, or tangguh. The person or persons carrying out the comparison forms an opinion as to whether or not the observed characteristics coincide with the accepted characteristics to a sufficient degree to assign a particular tangguh to a keris, thus placing it within that classification. The problems arise when there is not universal agreement on exactly what the characteristics are for a particular classification, or tangguh. We have just seen Sepang suggest that the silhouette which I posted is possibly Madiun. Sepang has been able to deduce this from only the silhouette. Just the outline of the blade. I have already provided the information that the characteristics of the keris in the silhouette are the same as those listed in a previous post. Please read those characteristics listed in the previous post and consider for one moment if these are the accepted characteristics for a keris of tangguh Madiun. This little exercise has provided a vivid example of just how silly the tangguh game can get. It ought not to be silly. It is a serious branch of keris study, and is vital to an understanding of the Javanese keris, most particularly so in respect of value. If one fails to understand tangguh one can wind up losing big-time when buying. We have already agreed that it is not possible to learn tangguh from pictures. It would seem that at this point nobody is prepared to assert that it is possible to learn tangguh from pictures. I maintain that it is not possible to give other than a qualified opinion as to the tangguh of any keris from a picture. I further suggest that where a picture of an example of any tangguh be given, that it be clearly stated that the claimed tangguh assigned to the keris is an opinion, either the opinion of the owner of the keris, or the opinion of a person or persons known to the owner. If this practice is followed, it should lessen considerably the degree of misunderstanding in respect of tangguh , which currently appears to exist amongst those people who have not had the benefit of close and intense personal instruction in the practice of tangguh. Opinions should not be presented as fact.

8th June 2007, 01:23 PM	#9
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	Thanks for clarifying what I wrote, David, however, I would like to clarify even further:- I have not yet given any opinion. In fact, as far as tangguh Pengging is concerned I do not believe I could form an opinion for the simple reason that there is too much variation amongst knowledgeable people as to exactly what a Pengging keris looks like. I feel that the best I could ever do with Pengging would to quote other people, without necessarily giving an opinion myself.