Ethnographical weapons re-interpretated

Federico · 21st March 2005, 05:35 AM

OK, first off beautiful piece, regardless of the context. Very faithful to the aesthetic of more classical pieces, while having a very unique modern flare.

As for re-interpretation of ethnographic pieces, I believe Mike hit it right on the head, when he spoke of context, particularly in representation. Many of us here also have non-ethnographic pieces as well. On many levels modern non-ethnographic pieces hold a valuable niche in of in themselves. They are modern art and often practical interpretations of pieces whose own working lives are no more due to their own inherent rarity. Yet, for me, what makes a piece ethnographical is its rooting within a cultural context. If an interpretation is made, no matter how faithful its superficial resemblence is to an ethnographic piece, without the cultural context of intention/rooting, it is still just a modern interpretation. Meaning for me, if we say we are speaking about modern made khukris, if a Westerner made a perfect replica, but whose life and intention in creation was not rooted in the tradition of use and ownership but rather was an expression of mere visual art, while in value as a work of art, it would not be to me a traditional khukri. Whereas, the ugliest bolo, pounded out of a leaf spring, full of file and hammer marks, but with the intention of serving a traditional cultural role, lets say hanging off a farmers belt for work, or in the case of some modern Moro swords, marking off a man's status within adult life, then it is an ethnographic piece. I guess for me it comes down to how I view ethnographic pieces, the value in them is not just the innate material merit of the piece itself, but the cultural connotations and history that they inhabit. Now that is not to say a Westerner could not make an ethnographic piece, or what pieces in any given culture will inhabit that niche. Cultures/civilizations are dynamic, constantly in a state of flux. However, it is all dependent on the intention of its creation. Now, that is not to say non-ethnographic pieces do not have value or worth, but I cannot call a Western made kris, made without tradition or intention, to be displayed on a Western wall, where its value will not be rooted in Moro culture, but as an expression of Western cultural interpretation, a Moro kris. I can call it a Western interpretation, but without the intention, then... Hmmm...Ive rambled, and dont think I make much sense. Oh well, Mike said it better.

ariel · 21st March 2005, 07:34 PM

I greatly admire modern artisans who are trying to reproduce and reinvent ancient weapons. Their dedication to the field, tenacity in execution and respect for tradition are inspiring. The final fruit of their labor is often functionally superior to the original: after all, the old masters had no access to modern steels, instruments, materials and technology. If I were to go to a sword battle, I'd probably choose a good modern replica rather than the original.
Having said that, as a collector I would not buy a modern rendition of a shashka, a yataghan or a dha. For me, 99% of the value is in the history of the sword, not in it's technological attributes. No matter how well modern replicas are executed, how dedicated their creator was and how close they are to the original, they totally lack an element of The Past.

Antonio Cejunior · 23rd March 2005, 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

For me, 99% of the value is in the history of the sword, not in it's technological attributes. No matter how well modern replicas are executed, how dedicated their creator was and how close they are to the original, they totally lack an element of The Past.

Hi Ariel,

Thank you for your post.

I fully respect your views.
IMHO, I think that an antique is not equal to quality, and the Past itself is not a qualification.
I am far from challenging. Just stating my own opinion.
Like in everything there is good and bad, and when I mean contemporary interpretation I speak about it as a designer.

I made a statement in my website http://www.arscives.com/bladesign/statement.htm which may help to assist me in bringing out my points of view. I don't expect to obtain any agreement, but I like to discuss things in a civilized way and I must say that this Forum is superb for this

Best regards,
Antonio

Antonio Cejunior · 23rd March 2005, 04:11 AM

Hi Fred,

Thanks for your input and apologies for my delayed reply.

One of the basic definitions of kitsch is the inferior copy of an existing piece, which embodies a lack of experimentation of the context in which the original piece was made.

In this case I would place all the Chinese and American made katanas in this category.

I am not putting words in your mouth. I am just thinking out loud myself.

It can also be merely repeating convention and formula, lacking the sense of creativity and originality displayed in genuine art.

I don't see this happening in both definitions when it comes to re-interpreting. However I think that a contemporary piece can exist side by side with a historical piece, the former being a inheritor of the later, in as much as we are the same. Otherwise how could we justify our own existence today as being an evolutionary process that preserving the past does not deny the present?

I guess we are in total agreement

Thanks Kaibigan

21st March 2005, 05:35 AM	#1
Federico Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Minneapolis, MN, USA Posts: 312	OK, first off beautiful piece, regardless of the context. Very faithful to the aesthetic of more classical pieces, while having a very unique modern flare. As for re-interpretation of ethnographic pieces, I believe Mike hit it right on the head, when he spoke of context, particularly in representation. Many of us here also have non-ethnographic pieces as well. On many levels modern non-ethnographic pieces hold a valuable niche in of in themselves. They are modern art and often practical interpretations of pieces whose own working lives are no more due to their own inherent rarity. Yet, for me, what makes a piece ethnographical is its rooting within a cultural context. If an interpretation is made, no matter how faithful its superficial resemblence is to an ethnographic piece, without the cultural context of intention/rooting, it is still just a modern interpretation. Meaning for me, if we say we are speaking about modern made khukris, if a Westerner made a perfect replica, but whose life and intention in creation was not rooted in the tradition of use and ownership but rather was an expression of mere visual art, while in value as a work of art, it would not be to me a traditional khukri. Whereas, the ugliest bolo, pounded out of a leaf spring, full of file and hammer marks, but with the intention of serving a traditional cultural role, lets say hanging off a farmers belt for work, or in the case of some modern Moro swords, marking off a man's status within adult life, then it is an ethnographic piece. I guess for me it comes down to how I view ethnographic pieces, the value in them is not just the innate material merit of the piece itself, but the cultural connotations and history that they inhabit. Now that is not to say a Westerner could not make an ethnographic piece, or what pieces in any given culture will inhabit that niche. Cultures/civilizations are dynamic, constantly in a state of flux. However, it is all dependent on the intention of its creation. Now, that is not to say non-ethnographic pieces do not have value or worth, but I cannot call a Western made kris, made without tradition or intention, to be displayed on a Western wall, where its value will not be rooted in Moro culture, but as an expression of Western cultural interpretation, a Moro kris. I can call it a Western interpretation, but without the intention, then... Hmmm...Ive rambled, and dont think I make much sense. Oh well, Mike said it better.

21st March 2005, 07:34 PM	#2
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	I greatly admire modern artisans who are trying to reproduce and reinvent ancient weapons. Their dedication to the field, tenacity in execution and respect for tradition are inspiring. The final fruit of their labor is often functionally superior to the original: after all, the old masters had no access to modern steels, instruments, materials and technology. If I were to go to a sword battle, I'd probably choose a good modern replica rather than the original. Having said that, as a collector I would not buy a modern rendition of a shashka, a yataghan or a dha. For me, 99% of the value is in the history of the sword, not in it's technological attributes. No matter how well modern replicas are executed, how dedicated their creator was and how close they are to the original, they totally lack an element of The Past.

23rd March 2005, 04:11 AM	#4
Antonio Cejunior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Macau Posts: 294	Hi Fred, Thanks for your input and apologies for my delayed reply. One of the basic definitions of kitsch is the inferior copy of an existing piece, which embodies a lack of experimentation of the context in which the original piece was made. In this case I would place all the Chinese and American made katanas in this category. I am not putting words in your mouth. I am just thinking out loud myself. It can also be merely repeating convention and formula, lacking the sense of creativity and originality displayed in genuine art. I don't see this happening in both definitions when it comes to re-interpreting. However I think that a contemporary piece can exist side by side with a historical piece, the former being a inheritor of the later, in as much as we are the same. Otherwise how could we justify our own existence today as being an evolutionary process that preserving the past does not deny the present? I guess we are in total agreement Thanks Kaibigan