The basics of keris understanding?

[David]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Jussi has mentioned the "core" of understanding of the keris, but this core could vary for different people. For the person who pursues the ideals of Kejawen, the core could be quite different to the core of the anthropologist or ethnologist. These in turn could be very different to the core of the dealer or of the committed collector.

So, can we firstly identify which "core" we might like to look more closely at?

I completely agree Alan, this could, indeed, be a most important thread. Perhaps members are hesitant to start here due to what you have stated above. Hopeful once we identify what "core" we are discussing this conversation will take off.
For me i would have to say that one of the most important "core" values in understand the keris would be making an attempt to understand the culture. I do not believe that the keris can be grasped in a vacuum. I would recommend reading all you can find about it.

[A. G. Maisey]

Jussi, I don't think that there is any longer any doubt about the time and place from whence the keris originated.

Nor is there any doubt that in its pre-modern form, and in its modern form, it was first and foremost a weapon. Moreover, a weapon, the design of which, made it extremely well suited to close quarters use.

Probably the most unusual feature of keris design is the asymmetric base of the blade that is found in most blade forms. The rationale for this feature can be understood by tracking the development of the modern keris from its pre-modern form. In fact, form does follow function in the case of the keris, as it does with most things, however to understand this we need to go back to the point of origin and follow the development.

Because of the nature of the culture from which the keris arose, it was inevitable that over the extended period of its existence, it should gather around it the esoterica for which it is so well known.

So, "understanding the keris":- exactly what is it that we wish to understand?

I agree, if we look at all the information--- and misinformation--- that has been published on the keris, it is very, very difficult to find a direction to follow.

My perspective is this:-

about 1000 years ago a weapon was in use in Jawa that over a period of several hundred years became the keris as we know it today

the keris as we know it today was and is first and foremost a weapon

it can also be a work of art

it can also be a symbol of authority

it can also be a talisman

it can also be a fetish

it can also be regarded as the vessel for a unifying force

it can also be a store of wealth

There may be other things that the keris can "also be---"

However, whatever it may be, its being depends upon the time and place in which it is found. Time alters perception, thus the perception of a person raised in a western society in 2008 is different from the perception of a person raised in a Javanese-Hindu society in 1400. Similarly, the perception of that Javanese-Hindu person differs from the perception of a person raised as a good Muslim in 19th century Jawa--- and so on.

All things will alter perception.

Time, place, experience, perhaps even if its a nice day or not. So if we seek understanding of the keris, or of anything else for that matter, we need first to define very carefully what it is we wish to understand and then to admit the qualification that our understanding can only ever be one of a number of equally valid understandings.

If we can accept this proposition, may I suggest that we begin our attempt at understanding by looking at just one facet of the keris, that is, its persona as a work of art.

What are the factors that we should consider if we wish to appraise the artistic qualities of a keris, both blade and dress?

[drdavid]

What are the factors that we should consider if we wish to appraise the artistic qualities of a keris, both blade and dress?

Thanks Alan for giving us something to focus on initially. It probably represents one of the easier and more universal qualities to reflect on in an object like the keris.

If we are thinking about the artistic qualities of anything there are a number of issues that need to be addressed, some intrinsic to the object, some extrinsic. I have concentrated on generic qualities rather than specific features of the keris as I dont feel qualified to comment on those. My list is not particularly comprehensive but these are the things that I look for when I collect for artistic merit.

Does it have quality?
By quality I mean that characteristic of an artefact that makes us realise it was made by someone who cares about what they are doing and has the skills to execute what they are trying to achieve.

Does it have cultural integrity?
Here I am not referring particularly to its monetary value but rather does it reflect the society, social group or culture from which it springs. For example Australian aboriginal art is readily recognisable and relatively consistent in style but a well made piece that originates from an artist in New York will never have the cultural resonance of a piece made by an indigenous Australian artist who resides in the isolated Kimberley region of Australia. The home grown piece is in some way more genuine, although I can respect someone in another culture creating a piece that reflects their response to the original artefact.

Is it unique?
This is not an absolute, but the more unique a piece is the greater its potential merit. Sometimes unique equals badly conceived and some non-unique pieces, for example the original hundred or so copies made from a Japanese woodblock, have definite artistic merit.

Finally (and most importantly to me), do I have a response to the piece. Does the combination presented to me as a piece of art evoke something in me? If I don’t feel something about the piece I can only appreciate the other qualities I have mentioned, but if I feel something that is quite different.

All of these qualities can of course be challenged, particularly in a de-constructionist sense but they reflect my sensibilities. I would be very keen to hear what others think.

DrD

[A. G. Maisey]

I was once taken to ballet performance.
It was a big-name company---might have been the Russian ballet---anyway, one of my clients had been given some tickets, and she asked if I would care to accompany her.So I went to the ballet. By all accounts the dancers excelled themselves on that night.
I thought the whole thing sucked, and I gave very serious consideration to billing my client for the time I spent watching those people jumping around and adopting farcical poses.

On another occasion I attended a performance of dancers at the ASKI in Solo.They performed a number of traditional dances, most were pretty boring, but I had come to this performance with some considerable background in watching Javanese dancing, I knew what to expect, and I rather enjoyed the occasion---probably as much for the social aspects as for the dancing.

However, I made the mistake of giving my opinion on the performance of the bedoyo, which I thought was really excellent. I loved it.I gave this opinion to one of my neighbors who was a dance teacher. To put it mildly and politely, she strongly disagreed with me.

Now, from these two experiences I learnt at least one thing:- I know nothing about dancing. Of either the European or the Javanese variety.I probably learnt a couple of other things too, but I won't go there.

Why do I know nothing about dancing?

Because I have never been taught anything about dancing.

This is true of any art form:- we cannot presume to comment upon the excellence or otherwise of any art, unless we are qualified to pass an opinion on that art.

We can give a personal opinion on whether or not we find the particular example of art to our taste, but we cannot pass judgment upon the excellence or otherwise of the art object unless we understand the parameters within which that art must exist, and the objectives it seeks to achieve.

This is also true of the art of the keris.

The art of the Javanese keris is a Kraton art.

It is not folk art, and it is not an art of the common people. The rules that govern this art are descended from forms and standards that can be observed in other spheres under the influence, if not direct control of a kraton.Thus, if we wish to understand the art of the keris we need to look for guidance to a kraton. I was taught the keris by people who were and are attached to the Surakarta Kraton, and any remarks that I shall make in this context will be based upon these teachings.

Firstly, we need to understand that the keris itself is inarguably of indigenous Javanese origin, as a development from an Indian source. However, the standards that govern the art of the keris are as varied in origin as the influences that have created the environment of the Javanese kraton, as it was seen at end of its development , immediately prior to WWII, and prior to the effects upon it of Japanese occupation and the establishment of the Indonesian Nation.The art of the Javanese keris needs to be understood not as an unadulterated indigenous art form, but rather as an art form that has sprung from an indigenous foundation, but that has absorbed input from Middle Eastern, Chinese, and European sources.

Dr. David has identified several overarching factors that for him are essential components in the appraisal of art in general. The factors Dr. David has identified are:-

quality, cultural integrity, uniqueness, the impact upon the individual

With the Javanese keris, all of these factors can find a place in an appraisal, but perhaps not in the way in which we might ordinarily think of the meaning of these factors.

Quality is most certainly a very important factor in the appraisal of a keris, so, as a place to begin discussion, perhaps some of you may care to nominate those characteristics of a keris that for you speak of its quality.

[Jussi M.]

Gentlemen,

I am a bit sad that there are no more replies to this subject that one of the knowledgeable persons regarding the subject - Mr. Maisey - has voiced as "important"

I have recently formed a liking regarding the shape of the Surakarta style and would like to learn more about it for starters. - What parameters does a Surakarta keris need to fulfill in order to be deemed as a "good" Surakarta keris from the viewpoint of artful design and execution? - Anybody?

Respectfully,

J.

[David]

Hi Jussi. I wouldn't worry too much. I have a feeling that this thread will take on life eventually.
I don't know how much time you have spent in the archives, but some of the questions you raise have been discussed on varying levels in the past. While these 2 threads don't directly answer your question they may at least get the ball rolling for you.
http://www.vikingsword.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000307.html

http://www.vikingsword.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000402.html

[Jussi M.]

Thank you David.

I´ve spent some time with the search function and browsing through the old postings here and the archives but as pretty much everything is new to me I am a bit dumbstruck and inpatient if you know what I mean

I have Solyom and Duuren incoming and have a feeling they will prove to be valuable investments indeed. I have plans for acquiring some Javanese kerises and wish to educate myself on that front. - Not that I know anything about specimens from out of Java either

Thank you for your help David, I will look onto those threads shortly.

Best,

J.