New Addition #1 Bugis?

[BluErf]

But the picture I posted above is supposedly a keris made by Tok Chu himself.

[A. G. Maisey]

Both of these blades exhibit evidence of being made by people with a high degree of skill in the use of tools. However, using the standards of beauty which I have been taught, the blade in the possession of Kino is far and away superior from an artistic point of view. This blade has flow and harmony, the blade attributed to Tok Chu is not harmonious, and there is no flow:- it is a statement of excellent craftsmanship, but it is not a statement of art.

In the Tok Chu blade, note the poyuhan, ie, the point of the sogokan, this comes to a blocky, abrupt end. This execution just by itself, and even if all other parts of the blade were perfect and beautiful, immediately disallows this blade as an artistic endeavour.

Now have a look at the poyuhan in Kino's blade. Yes, this sogokan appears to lack the necessary cross section that would raise it to a level of brilliance, but the flow of the sogokan, and the harmonious integration of the poyuhan demonstrate a complete understanding of the requirement of harmony in a keris blade.

Its not just the difference in execution of the poyuhan, every feature I can see in Kino's blade speaks of a maker who truly understood the art of the keris. Even from a photograph I can feel the harmony of this blade.On the other hand, the Tok Chu blade, although an example of superb craftsmanship, has absolutely no soul:- it is an essay in excellence, but the proportion --- which translates into pawakan --- and the abrupt workmanship has killed any chance of harmony.

I almost never post on the art of the keris, simply because I find it too difficult to express the necessary ideas in print, however, the contrast between these two blades provides an excellent example of the difference between art and craft.

[PenangsangII]

Since English is not my mother's tongue, I cant explain it the way Alan said earlier..... Yes, I agree with Alan. It's very hard to explain but Kino's keris looks more "alive" whilst the tok chu looks quite "stiff". But Tok Chu is meant for fighting only.....

[BluErf]

Originally Posted by PenangsangII

But Tok Chu is meant for fighting only.....

How was that conclusion reached?

Tok Chu was supposedly one of the last great pandai keris in N Malaya. Anyone who commissioned a keris by him would have paid a lot. I'm sure the keris here can be used for fighting, just like any other keris, but would the primary purpose be for fighting or status/aesthetic appreciation?

[A. G. Maisey]

Kai Wee, I do not challenge your opinion in even the slightest degree, you're swimming in one pool, I'm swimming in another.

However, in the matter of keris aesthetics, as they apply in the Javanese sense, it is not a matter of personal preferences, it is a matter of certain very specific criteria being met. The Tok Chu blade quite simply fails in many respects to meet those critieria, however, the other blade, although it does have some shortcomings, does meet those criteria in many important respects. The biggest single point of difference in the two blades from my point of view, is the total and absolute failure of the Tok Chu blade to create a viable poyuhan:- in this blade the poyuhan just does not exist, and this ---from a Javanese perspective---destroys the entire blade. Secondary is the pawakan---slim women , well endowed ones.

I can easily understand how in a discreet environment the Tok Chu blade could be highly regarded for many reasons, but appraised by Javanese criteria, it doesn't make it. The other blade almost does make it.

However, the main point of my previous post was this:- in respect of these two specific blades, I accept that all my comments could be totally irrelevant, however , using these two blades as examples, I have been able to comment on a couple of very important aesthetic factors. If I were to try to use two Javanese blades to carry out the same exercise, the difference between superb and terrible would be so slight that no untrained person could see it.

[Jussi M.]

Greetings,

I cannot help but to comment these two kerises based on how they appear to me on the pictures. The other one seems to have fines and flow, yet it is very obviously a force to reckon with. - It reminds me of an old Jaguar E-Type. The other one on the other hand is nothing like a Jaguar but more of a robust Volvo 240 if you will. - Both great cars on their own, different, way.





Just my 002

Thanks,

J

[PenangsangII]

Originally Posted by BluErf

How was that conclusion reached?

Tok Chu was supposedly one of the last great pandai keris in N Malaya. Anyone who commissioned a keris by him would have paid a lot. I'm sure the keris here can be used for fighting, just like any other keris, but would the primary purpose be for fighting or status/aesthetic appreciation?

The conclusion was based on malay ORAL tradition - the robustness and the wesi type also contributed to the Malays' minds that this tok chu type is meant for fighting 1st, and other functions come seconds and so on. No doubt the original kerises commissioned by Tok Chu would have paid a lot of money (maybe palace related ppl), but the numbers were certainly no more than hundreds. He could be an empu tindih for the palace.......

[David]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Both of these blades exhibit evidence of being made by people with a high degree of skill in the use of tools. However, using the standards of beauty which I have been taught, the blade in the possession of Kino is far and away superior from an artistic point of view. This blade has flow and harmony, the blade attributed to Tok Chu is not harmonious, and there is no flow:- it is a statement of excellent craftsmanship, but it is not a statement of art.
I almost never post on the art of the keris, simply because I find it too difficult to express the necessary ideas in print, however, the contrast between these two blades provides an excellent example of the difference between art and craft.

I must say that i also much prefer kino's keris. Still, i have to wonder if the standards of beauty that you were taught, which are based upon Javanese standards, can be fully applied to a keris made on the peninsula.
That being said, i see what you mean and we share a similar aesthetic.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes, I understand what you mean, David.

I'm applying a very high Javanese standard to a piece of work that comes from an area where it is entirely possible these standards were unknown.

Its a bit like appraising a Pro Hart (popular Aussie artist), or a Grandma Moses by the same standards that would be applied to an old master.

However, the contrast was just too good to let pass. Even if these standards cannot be applied to blades from this area, the blades themselves can serve as very good examples to allow me to make my point.

[BluErf]

Not that I'm taking the contrarian view for the sake of being different, but somehow, I thought Kino's blade was the one that was well-executed but somehow a little 'muddled' in the middle part. It has a strong base, an nice tip, but the middle is not a strong statement.

The suspected Tok Chu blade is strong and sure, with a lot of character.

But I agree that matters of aesthetics are a tricky matter. Some people prefer tall and waif-thin super models, others prefer women with a bit of extra flesh.

[David]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Yes, I understand what you mean, David.

I'm applying a very high Javanese standard to a piece of work that comes from an area where it is entirely possible these standards were unknown.

Its a bit like appraising a Pro Hart (popular Aussie artist), or a Grandma Moses by the same standards that would be applied to an old master.

However, the contrast was just too good to let pass. Even if these standards cannot be applied to blades from this area, the blades themselves can serve as very good examples to allow me to make my point.

I may be stepping out on a limb here, because i admittedly do not know enough about peninsula blades to know what would or should be an acceptable or even preferred pawakan to the people that either of these blade would have been made for. Since you have brought up the art comparison Alan, there is the expression "Rubenesque" used when referring to some women. By popular Western standards of today such women might be considered fat and less desirable, but in their time and place they were the ideal. I also don't find your comparisons of Hart and Moses to the old masters acceptable. Grandma Moses (and i assume Hart) was an unskilled artist working in the style of folk art. I do not believe that there is any question as to the technical skill applied to the Tok Chu blade, just the aesthetics.
You say that you have used these two blades to comment on some very important aesthetic factors that may indeed be totally irrelevant. But if we can not apply these aesthetics to this style of keris then i am afraid that i miss your point. Since, as you say, trying to carry out this exercise on two Javanese blades would make it nearly impossible to distinguish a superb blade from a terrible one, i am not sure that i see how we can apply your comments at all. How can i take this information and apply it to other (Javanese?) keris, for instance, if the differences in these aspects of these keris would be so slight that my untrained eye probably wouldn't even see it? So why does it matter if the Tok Chu blade fails to meet Javanese criteria? Aren't we discussing apples and oranges here?

[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks for the reality check gentlemen --- I do sometimes forget the advice of Yoda.

Please regard my earlier posts to this thread as an error of judgment.

I will try not to repeat this error.

[BluErf]

Hi Alan,

Just curious, what teaching of Yoda were you referring to?