Mendhak Jogja and Solo

Boedhi Adhitya · 14th December 2007, 02:03 AM

Dear Michel,
I'm afraid my note wasn't published. I recall there is another published note regarding keris making, by Museum Sonobudoyo Yogyakarta. Only a small booklet, without illustration. I believe you won't miss much without both. Keris making is and always be a handicraft. No rigid sequences could be established. I believe Empu Djeno was 'pushed' a little bit to make a rigid sequence presciption, as he was under constant questioning on how to make keris. Keris making art was considered as a lost-art at 60's. Without Mr. Dietrich Dresser's persistence, it would be a real lost-art. So when the 'resurrection' happened, it was quite shocking a bit.

Dear Pak Alan,
The word 'ngleseh, IMHO, is definitely Javanese. As I've written before, you have made a good, literal translation. But I chose not to translate it literally. Instead, I tried to find an equal terminology in western metalworking vocabularies. If you were suggesting the meaning of ngleseh as 'spreading the blade/blank by hot forging', thus, widen it under hammer, I must say I'm disagree. According to my note, ngleseh was done JUST AFTER the ngluroni/annealing/soften the blade. Empu Djeno employed 3 ngleseh steps, all immediately after ngluroni. Thus, ngluroni must be interpreted as a step to make ngleseh easier, and ngleseh must be a cold working. Another, last, ngluroni was done just before 'ngelus'=to smoothen/erase the chisel/rough file marks. Needles to say, ngluroni also makes ngelus easier.
I think no other word could describe Ngleseh properly such as 'rasping', or 'filing the billet to reveal the pamor and make a rough contour' (but ones can use Japanese's sen if he prefers, instead of file/rasp file). The width of the billet should be readily adjusted under 'ngilap' step.

Ones could easily 'lost' in the chaotic world of Javanese grammar and vocabularies. Frankly, I don't think Javanese follow a 'rigid' grammar and vocabularies when they speak daily. What they use as a guidance is 'Rasa', literally means 'feeling', but it means much more than feeling. Everything spoken within context and under prescribed assumption. Most of this assumption is unspoken. A word can be twisted to unlimited meaning, depending on the context. "Plesetan", or playing with words(?) is a common jokes.

I agree with you that "traditional keris making terms", while not all, could be an exclusive property of Empu Djeno. He was under constant pressure to answer all questions regarding keris making. It might push him to "invent" several terms, just to make it more concise and easier to explain. Unfortunately, it is not so concise for many of us, which didn't come directly face-to-face with Empu Djeno. Even a thick book of Guritno didn't help a desperate men like Michel.

Regarding the term 'guwaya', I believe it is not as easy as you've already explained. Indeed, guwaya is influenced by proper marangi. I'm fully understand what you meant about 'guwaya cebleh' and 'guwaya mendasar' ('mendasar' is Indonesian. I think it is not 'recognizable' under strictly Javanese language), but I prefer called it as 'warangan cebleh' and 'warangan mapan'. In Jogja, we refer 'cebleh' as 'welu' : A look of someone just after getting out of the bed in the morning. It's remedy is re-etching, mostly. A properly applied warangan can surely enhance the guwaya, but some blade which had already 'lost' it's guwaya is beyond help. If guwaya is as simple as properly applied warangan, then why should Guritno put it as one of criteria in keris selection? (Gebyar, Guwaya, Wingit, Wibawa, if I'm not mistaken). I've been taught that guwaya is much more than just a blade's ability to be well-stained. In fact, one of the main criticism on contemporary kerises is it's lack of Guwaya, when many of them have an appealing appearance. If ones insist me to define guwaya, than I may say that guwaya is "something that missing in the ones' picture/photograph compared to the real him/her". Surely, going to beautician would help ones appearance, but some faces, which is 'beyond help', would not.

Regarding the Keris Carving Competition (I agree with you to name it a keris carving), I would say, Japanese Sword Making Competition, along with limitation on production, would be an ideal model. But if it really applied, well, a much more complication would arise. Seeing the good side, the competition reintroduce the keris to the society. You know how 'ordinary' Indonesian sees keris as a 'dukun's tool'.

A. G. Maisey · 14th December 2007, 04:07 AM

Pak Boedhi, I have failed to make myself clear. I apologise.

Let me try again.

On language:- yes, ngleseh is definitely Javanese.

My understanding of the distinction between Javanese and Indonesian is imperfect because my teachers have been the people I meet and converse with everyday in Solo, as well as the members of my own family, and friends here in Australia. All of these people carelessly mix Indonesian and Javanese when they speak with me. None will ever use perfect Indonesian, and their idea of Indonesian is a level of Javanese with perhaps a few more Indonesian words than Javanese words.However, that said, I can often recognise Javanese words, simply because they are words that I do not see in Indonesian language publications.The word "ngleseh" is one such word. Not at all uncommon in the conversations I have, but I cannot ever remember seeing it in a publication in formal Indonesian.

Your remarks on the inconstantcy of the Javanese language are accurate.
Linguists recognise Javanese as a non-standardised language.Apart from which it is equally recognised by linguists that each speaker of Javanese regards the words he uses as his own personal property to alter and manipulate as he will, provided the meaning is clear to the listener.Above all, Javanese is primarily a spoken language, rather than a language designed for clear communication through print, thus, it relies greatly on inflection, and on the accompanying body language.

Which brings us back to "ngleseh".
You are handicapped by not having Haryoguritno's book in front of you, if you did have, I am sure that you would understand instantly what I mean.

If we look at the workflow we see:-

nyawati > diwangun > ngilap > ngleseh > diwangun > ngleseh > diwangun (and a further 20 more steps:- ndudut kembang kacang, ngisi jalen, ngeluk KK, mekak pidakan, ngleseh, diwangun, ngluroni, natah sogokan, natah tikel alis, natah sraweyan, diwangun, nglempeng ada-ada, diwangun, followed by the gonjo work)

the keris process of nyawati involves the opening up of the forged surface so you can see the place where the steel core surfaces; in practice, the way you do this is by a lot of repeated short, light throws of the file, you cannot afford to be too enthusiastic, you need to just pick away at the edge, just sufficient to be able to pick up the edge of the core; the word "nyawati" describes this process well, because you are repeatedly throwing the file at the surface, you are not seriously using the file to remove bulk metal

the next step in the work flow is "diwangun"; when we wangun something we build it, or give it form,or perfect it, so we've taken off a wee bit of metal with our nyawati, then we need to do the corrections by going back to the forge and giving shape, or improvement to the blade forging

the next step is ngilap , "ngilap", from kilap, "lightening"; we strike very light, very rapid blows---blows that are like lightening-- for the purpose of refining the work ( in western forge work, this is parallel with edge packing).

the next step is the much discussed "ngleseh"; in this step we spread the open area of bevelled edge upon the ground of the forged blade, we do this by widening with a file the bevel already established by the previous three steps

then we correct the form of the blade again, by cold working this time, so we have "diwangun" again

the next thing we do is to once again "ngleseh", this time we spread the bevelled edge all the way back to the centreline that will eventually become the place where we put the ada-ada

then we once again "diwangun" and correct the blade form

If we understand the way in which to work on a forging in order to produce a blade, it is fairly easy to see how we could use words like "ngleseh" and "ngilap" to refer to the actions involved in the work process.
To me, the use of these words is a completely logical development of a system of working instructions.

Pak Boedhi, it is not a matter of "literal translation", it is a matter of "literal understanding". Yes, some of the words I translated literally, because there was no translation given in Haryoguritno's glossary, but with just a little understanding of the actual hands on process it is easy to see how this literal translation can be understood to convey a specific work-application meaning. These words do not acquire a completely different meaning when used to describe keris work, they acquire a meaning parrallel with their common meaning, but specific to work on a keris.

As far as "guwaya" goes, I have simply repeated here the explanation given me by two Kraton Surakarta empus, and verified by a man who is perhaps the most respected authority on Javanese art, especially the keris. I have no opinion on this, I simply pass on what I have been taught. There are other words and concepts to refer to other characteristics, for instance, "wanda". In fact, both wanda and guwaya can be considered to be a level above the understanding of pure physical form, and begin to approach the level of being able to "feel" the keris.Although I used the word "staining" when I spoke of guwaya previously, actually the true meaning goes beyond just the result of staining a blade, but it is not possible for me to put the ideas associated with guwaya and wanda into English; "staining" is a fairly simple concept for ordinary people to understand.Wingit and wibawa are not similar to guwaya or wanda, but are specific feelings that can be generated by a keris;for instance you could say that the feeling of a keris is "wingit", but you cannot say that the feeling of a keris is "guwaya", because "guwaya" is an overall quality, not a specific quality.As I said previously, perhaps "charisma" is near enough for an understanding in English.

Keris competitions.
Keris are art.
Art should not be measured subject to artificial time constraints, nor should it be done under public gaze.
By staging competitions open to the public and subject to time constraints the making of a keris has been reduced from art to a manufacturing process and is measured by commercial viability rather than artistic parameters.
Public, timed keris carving exhibitions are garbage that can do nothing but damage the art.

Boedhi Adhitya · 14th December 2007, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

nyawati > diwangun > ngilap > ngleseh > diwangun > ngleseh > diwangun (and a further 20 more steps:- ndudut kembang kacang, ngisi jalen, ngeluk KK, mekak pidakan, ngleseh, diwangun, ngluroni, natah sogokan, natah tikel alis, natah sraweyan, diwangun, nglempeng ada-ada, diwangun, followed by the gonjo work)

You are correct, we are not seeing the same sources, while both sources claimed for quoting it from the same sources (Empu Djeno).

On my note are :
Nyilak Waja kapisan (1) > Ngilap (1)> Ndudut pesi > Nyawati (Silak Waja 2) > Mapaki+Kewangunan (1) > Ngilap (2) > Nyawati (2) > Kewangunan (2) > Ngluroni (1) > Ngleseh (1) > Kewangunan (3) > Ngluroni (2) > Ngleseh (2) > Kewangunan (4) > Kembang kacang and jalen works > Ngluroni (3) > Ngleseh... and so on..

While the sequence differs, the essential principle are the same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.G. Maisey

Keris competitions.
Keris are art.
Art should not be measured subject to artificial time constraints, nor should it be done under public gaze.
By staging competitions open to the public and subject to time constraints the making of a keris has been reduced from art to a manufacturing process and is measured by commercial viability rather than artistic parameters.
Public, timed keris carving exhibitions are garbage that can do nothing but damage the art.

Yes, it is. But sadly to say, most new kerises are made with commercial intention in mind. Specialization and division of labor that we see in Madura today can be seen as 'mass-production'. Keris has become commodity. Very limited keris makers work on behalf of art, not to mention spiritual tradition. Thus, 2005 Keris Competition was only a logical step from this situation. I'm not happy with it.

A. G. Maisey · 14th December 2007, 06:52 AM

Yeah---well, as already agreed, the sequence can change. I reckon Pak Djeno worked the same as all of us do, he had a goal in mind and shifted things around , dependent on circumstances, to allow him to achieve that goal in the easiest way. Or maybe he did what many of us do when we get asked questions that the asker does not really understand:- he gave an answer that he hoped would satisfy the person who asked.

Pak Boedhi, keris have always been a commodity. Back in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries they were being exported from Jawa to the rest of SE Asia. We have pictures showing keris sellers in the markets in Batavia.

Keris at one level have always been a commodity.For many hundreds of years keris have been made to produce a living for somebody. They are an expensive thing to produce, always were, and nobody produces items that require high resource usage unless they intend to make money out of them.

Similarly with production of a single blade by a group of workers. Except in very early days and in the case of small village workers, group production has always been the norm. The extent to which group production was applied, and the role of the master might have varied a bit, but the objective was always the same:- produce the best quality at an affordable price. People tend to get lost in their imagination when it comes to keris production. Old time Jawa was not some primitive society, it was highly organised and highly stratified.Back when they were having a good solid whack at the Dutch, it took them about five minutes to copy the Dutch weapons and perhaps improve on them.

What we see in Madura today is simply a continuation of tradition, and if there were just a touch more realism around, we would recognise that the idea of exclusive authorship of keris, even old ones, is a very limited concept. It probably may be able to be considered as applicable to very low quality keris, and some (but we can never know which) very high quality keris.The vast bulk of keris have always been produced by more than a single person.You cannot call the current Madura production "mass production". It is not. It lacks the essential elements of mass production. But it is group production, where some people will sometimes do one job efficiently, and others do another job efficiently. In this way it is no different to the way in which keris, and many other complex items have always been produced , not only in Jawa, but in other places as well.It pretty much comes down to what the market wants, and what the market can afford to pay.

Look at the number of people that were used to produce a keris, that are listed in the texts , and the work allocated to those workers. Nobody but the boss (the Empu) knew the complete process, or how one piece of work fitted with another, but he was like the conductor, the music was played by other people with various instruments.

So, what we see today is really no different to what it has always been---on one level.

But we also have people who are capable of producing a keris as a work of art from the beginning to the end. These people are the true artists. Sometimes they may produce commercially orientated items, but so do all other artists in all fields:- artists must live too, you know. What I would like to see is this current commercial competition dumped, and the institution of a true competition for those people who are entitled to be called "pandai keris", or "empu". And there are not very many of these people.

Rick · 14th December 2007, 02:38 PM

This raises a question for me ; I hope I can express it correctly .

When judging the work of an empu class artisan where does one draw the line between proper form/dhapur and individual creativity on the part of the maker ?

Is there room for imagination and innovation in the process ?

A. G. Maisey · 14th December 2007, 07:56 PM

Rick, I cannot answer this question.

It is a matter of experience,knowledge and inate artistic sensibility, as it is with any art work.

What is it that causes the work of one artist, in any field, to be regarded as great, and the work of another artist to be regarded as mundane?

The person with no knowledge or experience, or artistic sensibility could well choose the work of Mr. Mundane as superior to the work of Mr. Great, but the knowledgeable and experienced people will invariably choose the work of the artist recognised as great, even if they do not know it is by that particular artist.

The "proper form" (dhapur) question is a simple one to answer, because various guidebooks or pakems exist which lay down the features and overall form of any particular dhapur. Provided the keris conforms with the laid down design, it is that dhapur.

However, the "creativity" question is very difficult, because the individual artist must interpret the laid down form and features within very narrow parameters, and be able to express the art and the feeling within those parameters.To detect and appraise this you need a lot of experience, very good tuition, and at least some innate artistic feeling.

One of the constant and deeply felt complaints of my own teacher was about people who saw fit to discuss and comment upon the excellence or otherwise of keris, but who could not determine the difference between the work of a talented artist, and the work of a maker without talent.I recall one time when my teacher, I, and a couple of other people attended a keris meeting in a neighbouring city. He and one of his close friends, who was also highly placed in the Surakarta Kraton, fumed all the way home because of what they considered to be a total lack of knowledge displayed by our hosts. The repeated comment was:- "It is easy to invent stories; it is very difficult to learn the keris".

Yes, there is room for creativity, but that creativity must be displayed within a very narrow range. Unless we have an extremely thorough knowledge of what is regarded as excellence we are not in a position to judge what is acceptable, and what is not.

Now, what I am talking about here are the standards as they are applied by an artistic elite centered on the Surakarta Kraton.

For anybody who is not in a position to learn these standards, and who is not committed to be bound by these standards, it becomes a bit easier.

For proper interpretation of a form you simply consult a pakem. Find that exact collection of specific features in a pakem, any pakem, and you've got a legitimate dhapur.

For the way in which those features are expressed, it comes back to whether it pleases your eye, or not.In the final analysis, you are the person who needs to live with the keris:- if it pleases you, it is a good keris --- for you.
If it does not please you, get rid of it.

The alternative to this simple approach is to go to Solo and find a good teacher.

14th December 2007, 02:03 AM	#1
Boedhi Adhitya Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 103	Dear Michel, I'm afraid my note wasn't published. I recall there is another published note regarding keris making, by Museum Sonobudoyo Yogyakarta. Only a small booklet, without illustration. I believe you won't miss much without both. Keris making is and always be a handicraft. No rigid sequences could be established. I believe Empu Djeno was 'pushed' a little bit to make a rigid sequence presciption, as he was under constant questioning on how to make keris. Keris making art was considered as a lost-art at 60's. Without Mr. Dietrich Dresser's persistence, it would be a real lost-art. So when the 'resurrection' happened, it was quite shocking a bit. Dear Pak Alan, The word 'ngleseh, IMHO, is definitely Javanese. As I've written before, you have made a good, literal translation. But I chose not to translate it literally. Instead, I tried to find an equal terminology in western metalworking vocabularies. If you were suggesting the meaning of ngleseh as 'spreading the blade/blank by hot forging', thus, widen it under hammer, I must say I'm disagree. According to my note, ngleseh was done JUST AFTER the ngluroni/annealing/soften the blade. Empu Djeno employed 3 ngleseh steps, all immediately after ngluroni. Thus, ngluroni must be interpreted as a step to make ngleseh easier, and ngleseh must be a cold working. Another, last, ngluroni was done just before 'ngelus'=to smoothen/erase the chisel/rough file marks. Needles to say, ngluroni also makes ngelus easier. I think no other word could describe Ngleseh properly such as 'rasping', or 'filing the billet to reveal the pamor and make a rough contour' (but ones can use Japanese's sen if he prefers, instead of file/rasp file). The width of the billet should be readily adjusted under 'ngilap' step. Ones could easily 'lost' in the chaotic world of Javanese grammar and vocabularies. Frankly, I don't think Javanese follow a 'rigid' grammar and vocabularies when they speak daily. What they use as a guidance is 'Rasa', literally means 'feeling', but it means much more than feeling. Everything spoken within context and under prescribed assumption. Most of this assumption is unspoken. A word can be twisted to unlimited meaning, depending on the context. "Plesetan", or playing with words(?) is a common jokes. I agree with you that "traditional keris making terms", while not all, could be an exclusive property of Empu Djeno. He was under constant pressure to answer all questions regarding keris making. It might push him to "invent" several terms, just to make it more concise and easier to explain. Unfortunately, it is not so concise for many of us, which didn't come directly face-to-face with Empu Djeno. Even a thick book of Guritno didn't help a desperate men like Michel. Regarding the term 'guwaya', I believe it is not as easy as you've already explained. Indeed, guwaya is influenced by proper marangi. I'm fully understand what you meant about 'guwaya cebleh' and 'guwaya mendasar' ('mendasar' is Indonesian. I think it is not 'recognizable' under strictly Javanese language), but I prefer called it as 'warangan cebleh' and 'warangan mapan'. In Jogja, we refer 'cebleh' as 'welu' : A look of someone just after getting out of the bed in the morning. It's remedy is re-etching, mostly. A properly applied warangan can surely enhance the guwaya, but some blade which had already 'lost' it's guwaya is beyond help. If guwaya is as simple as properly applied warangan, then why should Guritno put it as one of criteria in keris selection? (Gebyar, Guwaya, Wingit, Wibawa, if I'm not mistaken). I've been taught that guwaya is much more than just a blade's ability to be well-stained. In fact, one of the main criticism on contemporary kerises is it's lack of Guwaya, when many of them have an appealing appearance. If ones insist me to define guwaya, than I may say that guwaya is "something that missing in the ones' picture/photograph compared to the real him/her". Surely, going to beautician would help ones appearance, but some faces, which is 'beyond help', would not. Regarding the Keris Carving Competition (I agree with you to name it a keris carving), I would say, Japanese Sword Making Competition, along with limitation on production, would be an ideal model. But if it really applied, well, a much more complication would arise. Seeing the good side, the competition reintroduce the keris to the society. You know how 'ordinary' Indonesian sees keris as a 'dukun's tool'.

14th December 2007, 04:07 AM	#2
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,736	Pak Boedhi, I have failed to make myself clear. I apologise. Let me try again. On language:- yes, ngleseh is definitely Javanese. My understanding of the distinction between Javanese and Indonesian is imperfect because my teachers have been the people I meet and converse with everyday in Solo, as well as the members of my own family, and friends here in Australia. All of these people carelessly mix Indonesian and Javanese when they speak with me. None will ever use perfect Indonesian, and their idea of Indonesian is a level of Javanese with perhaps a few more Indonesian words than Javanese words.However, that said, I can often recognise Javanese words, simply because they are words that I do not see in Indonesian language publications.The word "ngleseh" is one such word. Not at all uncommon in the conversations I have, but I cannot ever remember seeing it in a publication in formal Indonesian. Your remarks on the inconstantcy of the Javanese language are accurate. Linguists recognise Javanese as a non-standardised language.Apart from which it is equally recognised by linguists that each speaker of Javanese regards the words he uses as his own personal property to alter and manipulate as he will, provided the meaning is clear to the listener.Above all, Javanese is primarily a spoken language, rather than a language designed for clear communication through print, thus, it relies greatly on inflection, and on the accompanying body language. Which brings us back to "ngleseh". You are handicapped by not having Haryoguritno's book in front of you, if you did have, I am sure that you would understand instantly what I mean. If we look at the workflow we see:- nyawati > diwangun > ngilap > ngleseh > diwangun > ngleseh > diwangun (and a further 20 more steps:- ndudut kembang kacang, ngisi jalen, ngeluk KK, mekak pidakan, ngleseh, diwangun, ngluroni, natah sogokan, natah tikel alis, natah sraweyan, diwangun, nglempeng ada-ada, diwangun, followed by the gonjo work) the keris process of nyawati involves the opening up of the forged surface so you can see the place where the steel core surfaces; in practice, the way you do this is by a lot of repeated short, light throws of the file, you cannot afford to be too enthusiastic, you need to just pick away at the edge, just sufficient to be able to pick up the edge of the core; the word "nyawati" describes this process well, because you are repeatedly throwing the file at the surface, you are not seriously using the file to remove bulk metal the next step in the work flow is "diwangun"; when we wangun something we build it, or give it form,or perfect it, so we've taken off a wee bit of metal with our nyawati, then we need to do the corrections by going back to the forge and giving shape, or improvement to the blade forging the next step is ngilap , "ngilap", from kilap, "lightening"; we strike very light, very rapid blows---blows that are like lightening-- for the purpose of refining the work ( in western forge work, this is parallel with edge packing). the next step is the much discussed "ngleseh"; in this step we spread the open area of bevelled edge upon the ground of the forged blade, we do this by widening with a file the bevel already established by the previous three steps then we correct the form of the blade again, by cold working this time, so we have "diwangun" again the next thing we do is to once again "ngleseh", this time we spread the bevelled edge all the way back to the centreline that will eventually become the place where we put the ada-ada then we once again "diwangun" and correct the blade form If we understand the way in which to work on a forging in order to produce a blade, it is fairly easy to see how we could use words like "ngleseh" and "ngilap" to refer to the actions involved in the work process. To me, the use of these words is a completely logical development of a system of working instructions. Pak Boedhi, it is not a matter of "literal translation", it is a matter of "literal understanding". Yes, some of the words I translated literally, because there was no translation given in Haryoguritno's glossary, but with just a little understanding of the actual hands on process it is easy to see how this literal translation can be understood to convey a specific work-application meaning. These words do not acquire a completely different meaning when used to describe keris work, they acquire a meaning parrallel with their common meaning, but specific to work on a keris. As far as "guwaya" goes, I have simply repeated here the explanation given me by two Kraton Surakarta empus, and verified by a man who is perhaps the most respected authority on Javanese art, especially the keris. I have no opinion on this, I simply pass on what I have been taught. There are other words and concepts to refer to other characteristics, for instance, "wanda". In fact, both wanda and guwaya can be considered to be a level above the understanding of pure physical form, and begin to approach the level of being able to "feel" the keris.Although I used the word "staining" when I spoke of guwaya previously, actually the true meaning goes beyond just the result of staining a blade, but it is not possible for me to put the ideas associated with guwaya and wanda into English; "staining" is a fairly simple concept for ordinary people to understand.Wingit and wibawa are not similar to guwaya or wanda, but are specific feelings that can be generated by a keris;for instance you could say that the feeling of a keris is "wingit", but you cannot say that the feeling of a keris is "guwaya", because "guwaya" is an overall quality, not a specific quality.As I said previously, perhaps "charisma" is near enough for an understanding in English. Keris competitions. Keris are art. Art should not be measured subject to artificial time constraints, nor should it be done under public gaze. By staging competitions open to the public and subject to time constraints the making of a keris has been reduced from art to a manufacturing process and is measured by commercial viability rather than artistic parameters. Public, timed keris carving exhibitions are garbage that can do nothing but damage the art.

14th December 2007, 06:52 AM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,736	Yeah---well, as already agreed, the sequence can change. I reckon Pak Djeno worked the same as all of us do, he had a goal in mind and shifted things around , dependent on circumstances, to allow him to achieve that goal in the easiest way. Or maybe he did what many of us do when we get asked questions that the asker does not really understand:- he gave an answer that he hoped would satisfy the person who asked. Pak Boedhi, keris have always been a commodity. Back in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries they were being exported from Jawa to the rest of SE Asia. We have pictures showing keris sellers in the markets in Batavia. Keris at one level have always been a commodity.For many hundreds of years keris have been made to produce a living for somebody. They are an expensive thing to produce, always were, and nobody produces items that require high resource usage unless they intend to make money out of them. Similarly with production of a single blade by a group of workers. Except in very early days and in the case of small village workers, group production has always been the norm. The extent to which group production was applied, and the role of the master might have varied a bit, but the objective was always the same:- produce the best quality at an affordable price. People tend to get lost in their imagination when it comes to keris production. Old time Jawa was not some primitive society, it was highly organised and highly stratified.Back when they were having a good solid whack at the Dutch, it took them about five minutes to copy the Dutch weapons and perhaps improve on them. What we see in Madura today is simply a continuation of tradition, and if there were just a touch more realism around, we would recognise that the idea of exclusive authorship of keris, even old ones, is a very limited concept. It probably may be able to be considered as applicable to very low quality keris, and some (but we can never know which) very high quality keris.The vast bulk of keris have always been produced by more than a single person.You cannot call the current Madura production "mass production". It is not. It lacks the essential elements of mass production. But it is group production, where some people will sometimes do one job efficiently, and others do another job efficiently. In this way it is no different to the way in which keris, and many other complex items have always been produced , not only in Jawa, but in other places as well.It pretty much comes down to what the market wants, and what the market can afford to pay. Look at the number of people that were used to produce a keris, that are listed in the texts , and the work allocated to those workers. Nobody but the boss (the Empu) knew the complete process, or how one piece of work fitted with another, but he was like the conductor, the music was played by other people with various instruments. So, what we see today is really no different to what it has always been---on one level. But we also have people who are capable of producing a keris as a work of art from the beginning to the end. These people are the true artists. Sometimes they may produce commercially orientated items, but so do all other artists in all fields:- artists must live too, you know. What I would like to see is this current commercial competition dumped, and the institution of a true competition for those people who are entitled to be called "pandai keris", or "empu". And there are not very many of these people.

14th December 2007, 02:38 PM	#5
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,268	This raises a question for me ; I hope I can express it correctly . When judging the work of an empu class artisan where does one draw the line between proper form/dhapur and individual creativity on the part of the maker ? Is there room for imagination and innovation in the process ?

14th December 2007, 07:56 PM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,736	Rick, I cannot answer this question. It is a matter of experience,knowledge and inate artistic sensibility, as it is with any art work. What is it that causes the work of one artist, in any field, to be regarded as great, and the work of another artist to be regarded as mundane? The person with no knowledge or experience, or artistic sensibility could well choose the work of Mr. Mundane as superior to the work of Mr. Great, but the knowledgeable and experienced people will invariably choose the work of the artist recognised as great, even if they do not know it is by that particular artist. The "proper form" (dhapur) question is a simple one to answer, because various guidebooks or pakems exist which lay down the features and overall form of any particular dhapur. Provided the keris conforms with the laid down design, it is that dhapur. However, the "creativity" question is very difficult, because the individual artist must interpret the laid down form and features within very narrow parameters, and be able to express the art and the feeling within those parameters.To detect and appraise this you need a lot of experience, very good tuition, and at least some innate artistic feeling. One of the constant and deeply felt complaints of my own teacher was about people who saw fit to discuss and comment upon the excellence or otherwise of keris, but who could not determine the difference between the work of a talented artist, and the work of a maker without talent.I recall one time when my teacher, I, and a couple of other people attended a keris meeting in a neighbouring city. He and one of his close friends, who was also highly placed in the Surakarta Kraton, fumed all the way home because of what they considered to be a total lack of knowledge displayed by our hosts. The repeated comment was:- "It is easy to invent stories; it is very difficult to learn the keris". Yes, there is room for creativity, but that creativity must be displayed within a very narrow range. Unless we have an extremely thorough knowledge of what is regarded as excellence we are not in a position to judge what is acceptable, and what is not. Now, what I am talking about here are the standards as they are applied by an artistic elite centered on the Surakarta Kraton. For anybody who is not in a position to learn these standards, and who is not committed to be bound by these standards, it becomes a bit easier. For proper interpretation of a form you simply consult a pakem. Find that exact collection of specific features in a pakem, any pakem, and you've got a legitimate dhapur. For the way in which those features are expressed, it comes back to whether it pleases your eye, or not.In the final analysis, you are the person who needs to live with the keris:- if it pleases you, it is a good keris --- for you. If it does not please you, get rid of it. The alternative to this simple approach is to go to Solo and find a good teacher.