Jump to content

Folk art: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
ok
→‎Performance folk arts: added explanatory paragraph to this heading.
Line 132: Line 132:
== Performance folk arts ==
== Performance folk arts ==


{{see|Folklore#In_action:_performance_in_context}}

In addition to tangible folk art objects, there is a second broad category of {{em|performance folk art}} which includes intangible arts forms such as music, dance and narrative structures. This category is comparable to the [[performing arts]] classed under the study of the [[fine arts]]. These intangible folk art forms only became labeled as such in the second half of the 20th century, when the two terms "[[Performance studies|folklore performance]]" and "text and context" dominated discussions among folklorists. Performance is frequently tied to verbal and customary lore, whereas context is used in discussions of material lore. Both formulations offer different perspectives on the same folkloric understanding, specifically that folklore artifacts need to remain embedded in their cultural environment if we are to gain insight into their meaning for the community.

The concept of cultural (folklore) performance is shared with [[ethnography]] and [[anthropology]] among other social sciences. The cultural anthropologist Victor Turner identified four universal characteristics of cultural performance. These are playfulness, [[Framing (social sciences)|framing]], using symbolic language and employing the subjunctive mood.<ref>{{harv|Ben-Amos|1997a|pages=633–34}}</ref> In performance the audience leaves the daily reality to move into a mode of make-believe, "what if". That this fits well with all types of verbal lore, music, and movement, where reality finds little footing among the symbols, fantasies, and nonsense of traditional tales, proverbs, and jokes is self-evident. Customs and the lore of children and games also fit easily into the language of a folklore performance.


* [[Children's folklore]]
* [[Children's folklore]]
* [[Folk music]]
* [[Game studies]]
* [[Folk dance]]
* [[Folk dance]]
* [[Folk music]]
* [[Folk song]]
* [[Folk song]]
* [[Game studies]]


==Influence on mainstream art==
==Influence on mainstream art==

Revision as of 15:26, 11 February 2019

"Gran calavera eléctrica" by José Guadalupe Posada, Mexico, 1900–1913
"Old Bright, The Postman", George Smart, c1830s
Detail of 17th century calendar stick carved with national coat of arms, a common motif in Norwegian folk art.

Folk art covers all forms of visual art made in the context of folk culture. Definitions vary, but generally the objects have practical utility of some kind, rather than being exclusively decorative. The makers of folk art are normally trained within a popular tradition, rather than in the fine art tradition of the culture. There is often overlap, or contested ground,[1] with naive art, but in traditional societies where ethnographic art is still made, that term is normally used instead of "folk art".

The types of object covered by the term varies considerably and in particular "divergent categories of cultural production are comprehended by its usage in Europe, where the term originated, and in the United States, where it developed for the most part along very different lines."[2] In America, "folk art" is more likely to include contemporary or recent works of "Outsider art" and similar types, that elsewhere might be called "popular art".[3]

Folk arts are rooted in and reflective of the cultural life of a community. They encompass the body of expressive culture associated with the fields of folklore and cultural heritage. Tangible folk art includes objects which historically are crafted and used within a traditional community. Intangible folk arts include such forms as music, dance and narrative structures. Each of these arts, both tangible and intangible, was originally developed to address a real need. Once this practical purpose has been lost or forgotten, there is no reason for further transmission unless the object or action has been imbued with meaning beyond its initial practicality. These vital and constantly reinvigorated artistic traditions are shaped by values and standards of excellence that are passed from generation to generation, most often within family and community, through demonstration, conversation, and practice.

Characteristics of folk art objects

Main article: Concepts in folk art

Objects of folk art are a subset of material culture, and include objects which are experienced through the senses, by seeing and touching. As with all material culture, these tangible objects can be handled, repeatedly re-experienced and sometimes broken. They are considered works of art because of the skillful technical execution of an existing form and design; the skill might be seen in the precision of the form, the surface decoration or in the beauty of the finished product.[4] As folk art, these objects share several characteristics which distinguish them from other artifacts of material culture.

Folk artists

The object is created by a single artisan or team of artisans. The craftsmen and women are named individuals who work within an established cultural framework. They frequently have a recognizable style and method in crafting their pieces, allowing their products to be recognized and attributed to a single individual or workshop. This was originally articulated by Alois Riegl in his study of "Volkskunst, Hausfleiss, und Hausindustrie", published in 1894. "Riegl … stressed that the individual hand and intentions of the artist were significant, even in folk creativity. To be sure, the artist may have been obliged by group expectations to work within the norms of transmitted forms and conventions, but individual creativity – which implied personal aesthetic choices and technical virtuosity – saved received or inherited traditions from stagnating and permitted them to be renewed in each generation."[5] Individual innovation in the production process plays an important role in the continuance of these traditional forms.

Hand crafted

All folk art objects are produced in a one-off production process. Only one object is made at a time, either by hand or in a combination of hand and machine methods; they are not mass-produced. As a result of this manual production, each individual piece is unique and can be differentiated from other objects of the same type. In his essay on "Folk Objects", folklorist Simon Bronner references preindustrial modes of production, but folk art objects continue to be made as unique crafted pieces by skilled artisans. "The notion of folk objects tends to emphasize the handmade over machine manufactured. Folk objects imply a mode of production common to preindustrial communal society where knowledge and skills were personal and traditional."[6] This does not mean that all folk art is old, it continues to be hand-crafted today in many regions around the world.

Workshops and apprentices

The design and production of folk art is learned and taught informally or formally; folk artists are not self-taught. Folk art does not strive for individual expression. Instead, "the concept of group art implies, indeed requires, that artists acquire their abilities, both manual and intellectual, at least in part from communication with others. The community has something, usually a great deal, to say about what passes for acceptable folk art."[7] Historically the training in a handicraft was done as apprenticeships with local craftsmen, such as the blacksmith or the stonemason. As the equipment and tools needed were no longer readily available in the community, these traditional crafts moved into technical schools or applied arts schools.

Owned by the community

The object is recognizable within its cultural framework as being of a known type. Similar objects can be found in the environment made by other individuals which resemble this object. Without exception, individual pieces of folk art will reference other works in the culture, even as they show exceptional individual execution in form or design. If antecedents cannot be found for this object, it might still be a piece of art but it is not folk art. "While traditional society does not erase ego, it does focus and direct the choices that an individual can acceptably make… the well-socialized person will find the limits are not inhibiting but helpful… Where traditions are healthy the works of different artists are more similar than they are different; they are more uniform than personal."[8]

Utility of the object

The known type of the object must be, or have originally been, utilitarian; it was created to serve some function in the daily life of the household or the community. This is the reason the design continues to be made. Since the form itself had function and purpose, it was duplicated over time in various locations by different individuals. A ground-breaking book on the history of art states that "every man-made thing arises from a problem as a purposeful solution."[9] Written by George Kubler and published in 1962, "The Shape of Time: Remarks on the History of Things" goes on to describe an approach to historical change which places the history of objects and images in a larger continuum of time. It maintains that if the purpose of the form were purely decorative, then it would not be duplicated; instead the creator would have designed something new. However since the form itself was a known type with function and purpose, it continued to be copied over time by different individuals.

Aesthetics of the genre

The object is recognized as being exceptional in the form and decorative motifs. Being part of the community, the craftsman is well aware of the community aesthetics, and how members of the local culture will respond to his work. He strives to create an object which matches their expectations, working within (mostly) unspoken cultural biases to confirm and strengthen them.[10] While the shared form indicates a shared culture, innovation allows the individual artisan to embody his own vision; it is a measure of how well he has been able to tease out the individual elements and manipulate them to form a new permutation within the tradition. "For art to progress, its unity must be dismantled so that certain of its aspects can be freed for exploration, while others shrink from attention."[11] The creative tension between the traditional object and the craftsman becomes visible in these exceptional objects. This in turn allows us to ask new questions about creativity, innovation, and aesthetics.[12]

Materials, forms, and crafts

Folk art comes in many different shapes and sizes. It uses the materials which are at hand in the locality and reproduces familiar shapes and forms. In order to gain an overview of the multitude of different folk art objects, the Smithsonian Center for Folklife and Cultural Heritage has compiled a page of storied objects that have been part of one of their annual folklife festivals. The list below includes a sampling of different materials, forms, and artisans involved in the production of everyday and folk art objects.[13]

Listed below are a wide-ranging assortment of labels for an eclectic group of art works. All of these genres are created outside of the institutional structures of the art world, they are not considered "fine art". There is undoubtedly overlap between these labeled collections, such that an object might be listed under two or more labels.[14] Many of these groupings and individual objects might also resemble "folk art" in one aspect or another, without however meeting the defining characteristics listed above. As our understanding of art expands beyond the confines of the "fine arts", each of these types needs to be included in the discussion.

a folk art wall in Lincoln Park, Chicago

Performance folk arts

Further information: Folklore § In_action:_performance_in_context

In addition to tangible folk art objects, there is a second broad category of performance folk art which includes intangible arts forms such as music, dance and narrative structures. This category is comparable to the performing arts classed under the study of the fine arts. These intangible folk art forms only became labeled as such in the second half of the 20th century, when the two terms "folklore performance" and "text and context" dominated discussions among folklorists. Performance is frequently tied to verbal and customary lore, whereas context is used in discussions of material lore. Both formulations offer different perspectives on the same folkloric understanding, specifically that folklore artifacts need to remain embedded in their cultural environment if we are to gain insight into their meaning for the community.

The concept of cultural (folklore) performance is shared with ethnography and anthropology among other social sciences. The cultural anthropologist Victor Turner identified four universal characteristics of cultural performance. These are playfulness, framing, using symbolic language and employing the subjunctive mood.[15] In performance the audience leaves the daily reality to move into a mode of make-believe, "what if". That this fits well with all types of verbal lore, music, and movement, where reality finds little footing among the symbols, fantasies, and nonsense of traditional tales, proverbs, and jokes is self-evident. Customs and the lore of children and games also fit easily into the language of a folklore performance.

Influence on mainstream art

Folk artworks, styles and motifs have inspired various artists. For example, Pablo Picasso was inspired by African tribal sculptures and masks, while Natalia Goncharova and others were inspired by traditional Russian popular prints called luboks.[16]

Supporting organizations

The United Nations recognizes and supports cultural heritage around the world, in particular UNESCO in partnership with the International Organization of Folk Art. Their declared mission is to “further folk art, customs and culture around the world through the organization of festivals and other cultural events, … with emphasis on dancing, folk music, folk songs and folk art.”[17] By supporting international exchanges of folk art groups as well as the organization of festivals and other cultural events, their goal is promote international understanding and world peace.

In the United States, the National Endowment for the Arts works to promote greater understanding and sustainability of cultural heritage across the United States and around the world through research, education, and community engagement. As part of this, they identify and support NEA folk art fellows in quilting, ironwork, woodcarving, pottery, embroidery, basketry, weaving, along with other related traditional arts. The NEA guidelines define as criteria for this award a display of “authenticity, excellence, and significance within a particular tradition” for the artists selected. (NEA guidelines) .” In 1966, the NEA’s first year of funding, support for national and regional folk festivals was identified as a priority with the first grant made in 1967 to the National Folk Festival Association. Folklife festivals are now celebrated around the world to encourage and support the education and community engagement of diverse ethnic communities.

Regional folk arts

Associations

Museum Collections

Citations

  1. ^ (Wertkin 2004, p. xxxiv-xxxvi)
  2. ^ (Wertkin 2004, p. xxxii)
  3. ^ (Wertkin 2004, p. xxxvi)
  4. ^ (Wertkin 2004, p. xxx)
  5. ^ (Wertkin 2004, p. xxviii)
  6. ^ (Bronner 1986, p. 214)
  7. ^ (Vlach 1992, p. 19)
  8. ^ (Vlach 1992, p. 20)
  9. ^ (Kubler 1962, p. 8)
  10. ^ (Toelken 1996, p. 221)
  11. ^ (Glassie 1992, p. 271)
  12. ^ (Pocius 1995, p. 421)
  13. ^ (Roberts 1972, p. 240 ff)
  14. ^ (Wertkin 2004, p. xxxii)
  15. ^ (Ben-Amos 1997a, pp. 633–34)
  16. ^ Goncharova Biography Archived 2009-07-20 at the Wayback Machine, Hatii, retrieved 19/2/2012
  17. ^ UNESCO Mission Statement

References

  • Bauman, Richard (1971). "Differential Identity and the Social Base of Folklore". The Journal of American Folklore. 84 (331): 31–41. JSTOR 539731. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Bronner, Simon J. (1986). "Folk Objects". In Oring, Elliott (ed.). Folk Groups And Folklore Genres: An Introduction. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press. pp. 199–223. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Bronner, Simon J. (1986a). Grasping Things : Folk Material Culture and Mass Society in America. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Congdon, Kristin G. (1996). "Art, Folk". In Brunvand, Jan Harald (ed.). American Folklore, an Encyclopedia. New York, London: Garland Publishing. pp. 46–53. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Glassie, Henry (1972). "Folk Art". In Dorson, Richard (ed.). Folklore and Folklife: an Introduction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 253–280. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Dundes, Alan (1980). Interpreting Folklore. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Gabbert, Lisa (1999). "The "Text/Context" Controversy and the Emergence of Behavioral Approaches in Folklore" (PDF). Folklore Forum. 30 (112): 119–128. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Glassie, Henry (1976). Folk Housing in Middle Virginia: Structural Analysis of Historic Artifacts. Univ of Tennessee Press. ISBN 9780870491733. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Glassie, Henry (1992). "The Idea of Folk Art". In Vlach, John Michael; Bronner, Simon (eds.). Folk Art and Art Worlds. Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press. pp. 269–274. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Glassie, Henry (1999). Material Culture. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Jones, Michael Owen (1975). The Handmade Object and its Maker. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Jones, Michael Owen (1997). "Art, Folk". In Green, Thomas (ed.). Folklore An Encyclopedia of Beliefs, Customs, Tales, Music, and Art. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. pp. 56–60. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Joyce, Rosemary (1992). ""Fame don't make the Sun any cooler": Folk artists and the Marketplace". In Vlach, John Michael; Bronner, Simon (eds.). Folk Art and Art Worlds. Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press. pp. 225–241. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Kubler, George (1980). "The Arts: Fine and Plain". In Quimby, Ian M.G.; Swank, Scott T. (eds.). Perspectives on American folk art. New York: Winterthur. pp. 234–246. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Kubler, George (1962). The shape of time : Remarks on the History of Things. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Pocius, Gerald L. (1995). "Art". The Journal of American Folklore. 108 (430): 413–431. doi:10.2307/541654. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Rahmen, Sabrina (2007). "INDUSTRIALIZING FOLK ART Aesthetic Transformation in Alois Riegl's Volkskunst, Hausfleiß und Hausindustrie (1894)" (PDF). Kakanien Revisited: Emergenzen. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Riegl, Alois (1894). Volkskunst, Hausfleiss, und Hausindustrie. Berlin. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  • Roberts, Warren (1972). "Folk Crafts". In Dorson, Richard (ed.). Folklore and Folklife: an Introduction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 233–252. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Santino, Jack (1992). "Tradition and Creativity in Halloween Folk Art". In Vlach, John Michael; Bronner, Simon (eds.). Folk Art and Art Worlds. Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press. pp. 151–169. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Schenda, Rudolf (1970). Volk ohne Buch. Studien zur Sozialgeschichte der populaeren Lesestoffe 1770–1910. Frankfurt am Main 1970: Klostermann. ISBN 3-465-01836-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: location (link)
  • Sims, Martha; Stephens, Martine (2005). Living Folklore: Introduction to the Study of People and their Traditions. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Teske, Robert (1986). "'Crafts Assistance Programs' and Traditional Crafts" (PDF). New York Folklore. 12. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Toelken, Barre (1996). The Dynamics of Folklore. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Vlach, John Michael; Bronner, Simon (1992). "Introduction to the New Edition". In Vlach, John Michael; Bronner, Simon (eds.). Folk Art and Art Worlds. Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press. pp. xv–xxxi. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Vlach, John Michael (1992). "Properly Speaking: The need for Plain Talk about Folk Art". In Vlach, John Michael; Bronner, Simon (eds.). Folk Art and Art Worlds. Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press. pp. 13–26. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Vlach, John Michael (1996). "Index of American Design". In Brunvand, Jan Harald (ed.). American Folklore, an Encyclopedia. New York, London: Garland Publishing. pp. 389–390. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Vlach, John (1997). "Material Culture". In Green, Thomas (ed.). Folklore An Encyclopedia of Beliefs, Customs, Tales, Music, and Art. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. pp. 540–544. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Wertkin, Gerard C. (2004). "Introduction". In Wertkin, Gerald C. (ed.). Encyclopedia of American Folk Art. New York, London: Routledge. pp. xxvii–xxxiii. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Williams, Raymond (1985). Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. USA: Oxford University Press. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • MM Hoque and SS Mostafizur Rahman, Wari-Bateshwer, Banglapedia: The National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh, Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, Dhaka, Retrieved; 11 January 2013


See also

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Folk art.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Folk_art&oldid=882823435"