Tactical keris

[sjors]

Like this example Sjors ?

I'm afraid so, I included another "example of fine art"
OK, we all agree they are cheap and ugly but are they cheap and ugly keris or just cheap and ugly pieces of junk (or both)?

[Rick]

Hi Sjors, I guess beauty is in the eye of the Beholder.

The example I have shown is rarely seen nowadays .

Your example I have no idea about; but (using your criteria) they are keris IMO (some are better than others), junky or not .
The dress here is Gabilan (IMO) in both circumstances; a recognised Maduran form .
Being such it is a part of keris history and culture .

Also, who is to say these were not sometimes owned by poorer local people who still wanted a keris ?

[fearn]

Ya know, there's this wonderful expression from where I grew up that perfectly describes this (cough cough) tactical (cough) kris:

duuuuuude.

Too bad I can't put in the umlauts to show proper pronunciation.

On a more proper note, I'll be interested to see where you folk draw the line between the world's ugliest proper keris and the world's best looking keris-shaped piece of junk. Does it depend on whether it was made by someone trained by an empu, or is it what the object looks like? Inquiring minds want to know.

my 0.00000000000000002 centimes,

F

[Rick]

Dude ....... ; I know that term from the beach Fearn; never call me that ok? .

There are Pandais and Empus .
Both make keris .
Not all can be great; but both can fulfill a need for a cultural icon .

[A. G. Maisey]

In my earlier post I wrote this:-


The definition that any of us could use, could vary from time to time, place to place and in accordance with the degree of formality that we wished to apply.


This "degree of formality" approach is probably critical to the entire question of "what is a keris".

Let's look at it this way:- we all move within a broad community. Taking myself as an example, the people I normally speak to and interact with will run through a range of different people, from the kid who comes to clean my gutters to a professor of anatomy---and above and below these stations.

Now both the kid who does the gutters, and the anatomist may have a similar level of understanding in respect of the keris, so if they saw , let us say , just for example, Semar's keris, and they asked me what it was, I would tell them it was a keris, and maybe give a short explanation of what a keris is. They do not need to know more than this, nor want to know more than this. If some people do not yet know their keris ABC, these two people do not yet even know where the kindergarten is. But is doesn't make them any less excellent in their chosen pursuits of anatomy or gutter cleaning, so we don't talk down to them, we don't use terms they obviously will not understand, we don't pretend that we are the fount of all wisdom. In short, we do not behave like intellectual snobs.

However, let us say I was in conversation with a friend in Solo who is a maker, and who has an extremely high level of keris knowledge, and we were considering this same keris of Semar's. I could not envisage that there would be any discussion of dhapur, or tangguh, or period, or origin, or anything else. I would think the discussion would be something like:- gee, that's weird, isn't it?I wonder what the maker was trying to do?

But, if by some error of judgement on my part I became involved in a discussion of this same keris with an ethusiastic collector--- or even worse, one of the intellectual snobs who seem to gravitate to some parts of the world of the Javanese Keris--- and who knew all the correct terminology, had a good smattering of the philosophy and who regarded the keris as a vehicle for his personal advancement as a man of respect and influence, then I would undoubtedly be forced to become very formal and call on this pakem and that pakem, and use all the correct vocabulary---simply to show that I had learnt it--- and take the position that Semar's keris was not really a keris because it failed to follow the parameters of form.

So, we can be either quite formal in the way we look at a keris, or we can be more or less relaxed. Relaxation does not suit rigid, academic nor prestige seeking discussion.

Intellectual snobbery does not suit friendly, relaxed conversation.

Perhaps our real difficulty comes in determining the nature of any particular exchange.

Now, if we look at Sjor's keris, and Rick's most recent posting, I think we can be a bit relaxed. Both are keris, but they're not good keris. Not being good keris, they would not be the subject of any serious academic discussion, nor of a discussion where the objective was to raise one's level of prestige.

On the subject of "Good Keris", I think volumes may have already been written.

[sjors]

Gentlemen, thank you for your detailed answers,

It was certainly not my intention to start a discussion about the question: "What is good or bad, art or not or what is beautifull" because simply I'm not in the position to judge them but rather the question: "Can we still consider this kind as a real keris or simply as tourist stuff or can they be both?" (It was really puzzling me)

This kind of keris are offered very regular in the Netherlands (concidering our history: most of them were souvenirs brought home by Dutch soldiers in the late forties, early fifties)) and I was wondering about the combination of these roughly made wrangka and ukiran with old (maybe worn) but real blades.

Another question is why there are offered so many of these "Madurese" type kerisses in the Netherlands, considering the fact that most soldiers were stationed on the island of Java?

[Newsteel]

Nice keris Jussi. Especially the ricikan (perabot).

[Marcokeris]

Originally Posted by sjors

I'm afraid so, I included another "example of fine art"
OK, we all agree they are cheap and ugly but are they cheap and ugly keris or just cheap and ugly pieces of junk (or both)?

Sjors
from your photo sarong and ukiran seem to me to be nice and well made. About blade: i cannot see well but it seems not so good

[A. G. Maisey]

Sjors, I think I have already answered your question in my earlier post, however, put simply, the answer to your question depends upon the standard being applied.

I do appreciate that English is not your first language, and I may have been insufficiently direct in my earlier post, however, the question comes down to what standards one wishes to apply.

There is no doubt at all that your keris is of the correct form and construction to be called a keris.

However, as whether it is a "real" keris or not, well that depends on the standard being applied.

If one is inclined to snobbishness, then I'm sorry, your keris fails as a "real" keris for any number of reasons.

If one is not inclined to snobbishness, then yes, it is most definitely a real keris, and a fair example of its type.

[sjors]

Dear Mr. Maisey,

Your first answer was very clear to me; I only tried to explain the reason why I asked that question or brought up the subject. Sorry about that...

@Marcokeris
I was wondering about the sarong and ukiran because, if I compare them with other Madurakeris of the same type, a soft and light kind of wood is used.
They are less than half the weight of other sarong and ukiran.

[Marcokeris]

Sjors of course from your (little ) pic i can only see that the quality of wood's work seems to me good (the carving of horse and the others lines seem well done).
About the kind of wood: between a nice/hard wood with a bad work I prefer a nice soft wood with a good carving.
About blade from the little pic i can't understand because i see badly (for size of pic) the pamor and the dapur but if the sarong is good... i suppose probably also the blade is ok