Kujang for comments

[David]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

So Wolfgang believed in his estimate of age, and you believed him. I believe in my estimate, David believes in his estimate, and really, none of us can prove anything.
So why not just let precise age go and accept that we are looking at something with some age. Forget the "antique" idea, it is a fatuous concept at the best of times, just think in terms of era:- Late Colonial.

Well Alan, "belief" would be a strong word for my "if push can to shove" opinion here. I just have never seen any really old versions of this particular dress form and it is quite popular in contemporary kujangs. I did note that i felt it had some age, but i am not at all convinced of my opinion that it is post WWII and would very easily be pushed towards your term "Late Colonial". When i raised the question with Detlef i had hoped that he or others might be able to provide some images of more examples of truly antique versions of this dress form. I can only form opinions based upon what i know so far, but my mind is certainly not set on the issue. I will still point out that even the 1920s would still only place this kujang on the very cusp of what is generally considered "antique".
More of what was getting at in my opinion is that this form of dress is probably still relatively recent for kujang and not really the kind of dress we are likely to see on old kujang from periods when they were a more active part of Sundanese culture.

[Sajen]

@ Alan,

So I was very careful and have spoken from "old/antique", like said, I've handled this piece so it's my own age estimation, not something I get passed on, I believe myself! It has clearly age what Paolo also confirmed in the above given thread.
Anyway, the dress has some age and was far better carved as the most recent ones I've seen until now.
But I am very ok with the term "Late Colonial"!

@ David,

Sadly I am not able to show other examples, my aim was to show an older dress in the same fashion. Like said, it's my own opinion that this piece has age, not an opinion I parrot.
How an original dress originally has looked we maybe never will know when we are not able to see an antique one with provenance.


Regards,
Detlef

[David]

Originally Posted by Sajen

Sadly I am not able to show other examples, my aim was to show an older dress in the same fashion. Like said, it's my own opinion that this piece has age, not an opinion I parrot.
How an original dress originally has looked we maybe never will know when we are not able to see an antique one with provenance.

I don't think anyone has accused you of parroting any opinions, especially since you clearly stated that you had handled the kujang personally.
Nor do i believe anyone has argued whether that kujang "has age". The difference of opinion may only be how much age.
How kujang were originally dressed is indeed something we may never know considering that examples are said to go back as far as the 9th century. But certainly kujang exist today with dress as old as the 19th century and very possibly before. The dress on the one you have shown is indeed older than some, but this exact design is one that we see time and time again in 20th century kujang onward, but not, AFAIK, in any existing older examples. I am not sure when this dress form began, but it does not appear to be very old relatively speaking. It would be interesting to see more older ones like the one you have shown and figure out where, when and why it became a model for so many modern kujangs.

[A. G. Maisey]

David, in a sort of a way I remarked that others had influenced Detlef's opinion, and Detlef, if your opinion was indeed not influenced by others, but purely the result of your own examination, and if you find this ill placed remark of mine offensive, I most sincerely apologise for any offence I may have caused.

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

...., and Detlef, if your opinion was indeed not influenced by others, but purely the result of your own examination, and if you find this ill placed remark of mine offensive, I most sincerely apologise for any offence I may have caused.

Hello Alan,

Yes, of course it was my own estimation, otherwise I wouldn't state it!
But don't worry, no offense taken, I am not a child! And you see that I am able to clarify it.
I have seen this piece some time before Wolfgang Spielmann decided to sell it. When I first saw it I thought also that the dress is recent and expressed it to him, his answer was that I shall look close, nothing more. When this is an influence I was maybe influenced! What he gets told from the seller on Java I really don't know.

Regards,
Detlef

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by David

How kujang were originally dressed is indeed something we may never know considering that examples are said to go back as far as the 9th century. But certainly kujang exist today with dress as old as the 19th century and very possibly before. The dress on the one you have shown is indeed older than some, but this exact design is one that we see time and time again in 20th century kujang onward, but not, AFAIK, in any existing older examples. I am not sure when this dress form began, but it does not appear to be very old relatively speaking. It would be interesting to see more older ones like the one you have shown and figure out where, when and why it became a model for so many modern kujangs.

Hello David,

I don't know of any other older dresses in this fashion. The most antique kujang I have seen comes without any dress or with newly made Central Java dress or in seldom cases with self made old dress which seldom follow an evident guideline. Would be interesting to see some other old dresses at this place when members have such ones.

Regards,
Detlef

[Sajen]

Here we can see an older dress for a kujang, taken from the thread Séverin has given in post #16. Makara?