 sj |
||
|
||
Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: Rifleman (inactive) Date: 27 May 09 - 11:32 AM speaking of angling, wasn't it Izaak Walton who wrote that one of the first important lessons in fishing and the line that became his motto "Study to be quiet". |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: glueman Date: 27 May 09 - 11:24 AM Not patronising at all JC. You continually remind us that once the hoi-polloi get their hands on things they spoil it. RB as you'll know trout are the most stupid creatures under the sun and can be caught on the corner of your hat, which is why the toffs had to problematise their pursuit with all manner of absurd social and technical stratifications. I consider long trotting for rough stream trout one of the highest angling forms, certainly harder than fluff chucking nymphs upstream or down but it's uncommon because riparian owners don't generally allow it. I'd like a cane rod like the one that was given me as a youngster by a workmate of my father's but the truth is old cane rods, with a few exceptions, weren't up to much and a modern Barder would knock spots off one - at a price. I'm quite happy with my carbon off the peg jobs. You seem to talk more sense about angling than folk, perhaps we can agree on something? |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: Jim Carroll Date: 27 May 09 - 11:05 AM "Or, the music of the people was better as our little secret, hmmm? " So the wider population is incapable of appreciating things unless they have been "dumbed-down, diluted and commodified" - hmm. Somewhat elitist, don't you think - certainly bloody patronising. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: Richard Bridge Date: 27 May 09 - 10:58 AM Dry fly is posh. Dry fly used to consider wormers (particularly downstream wormers) as little better than poachers. Salmon fly is posh. My carbon fibre has come down in price. I remember when a good hollow glass rod (I have one still, but haven't used it for decades) was dearer than a combination cane roach rod. The first split cane roach rod was the Fred J. Taylor, and focussed roachers derided it because of its slow strike, due to the progressive action. A roach cane would have the first two sections of whole cane, and then a split-cane or hollow glass top joint. One of my best mates had a greebheart trout fly rod that had belonged to his grandfather, and the action was gloriously sweet if you could live with the weight. A good split cane or greenheart rod is still a thing of beauty. Building them would not have been a folk art, since the materials and techniques would not have been accessible enough. A reed roach-pole with reinforcing whippings could have been, at least in areas where good reed was available. |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: GUEST,Jon Date: 27 May 09 - 10:55 AM BTW, re the folk craft questions. I wish I could... We sort of inherited a pebble grinder/diamond saw unit but I was never able to make much of it (except I did once manage to cut a couple of shapes out of malachite I quite liked). Soon found I'd buy a cabouchon so much better to glue in a bought fitting... I've got an idea floating around in my head at the moment for a 4ft solar (not wind) powered windmill as a decoration for the garden but doubt if I'm going to have either the woodworking skills or alternatively metal working skills to do it. I can sometimes handle a few of the more technical aspects of a project (eg. if needs must, I could program a PIC or an Atmel microprocessor to do something basic) but I lack the more practical abilities. It's annoying in some ways... As with joining in with music in a session, I do feel there is a basic minimum standard needed but on so much of this I fail on the equivalents of playing in time and in tune. Not so bad as it's only to amuse the family but I can get frustrated I can't do it. |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: GUEST,Jon Date: 27 May 09 - 10:21 AM Again, a totally OT post but for anyone who likes Christmas lighting. It may be old hat by now but we got some electroluminescent wire last year. I thought it quite fun. Never really sussed out the tthe fixings but here is a photo of the little (I suppose) "folk shapes" we managed (for fun) on the porch window. |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: glueman Date: 27 May 09 - 09:50 AM "Roaching for example was long a primarily working class pursuit, but now it is the market place for very expensive technical products - carbon-fibre rods, etc. I don't think that means it has lost its claim to be a folk pursuit." Really? No, not really. You'll find usable carbon fibre rods available from a tenner upwards, £30-50 for something an adult might be happy to use, say a hundred pounds for something smart. If you want a cane rod, a 'folk' one, start looking from fifteen hunded quid upwards. Are roach common and trout posh? I'd like to know as I went worming for some native speckled brownies on our local stream and need to know whether it was folk or not. |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: theleveller Date: 27 May 09 - 09:46 AM "Leveller, the fact that people are protective of their possessions does not make those people elitist, nor does it make them middle class. " Well, Richard, never in my life before have I seen people bring fences and barriers with them to a folk festival with the prime intent of excluding anyone else from their circle (which would, incidentally, have accommodated two more caravans or tents). If that's not elitist, I don't know what is. It seemed to be the norm at Towersey. |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: Richard Bridge Date: 27 May 09 - 09:22 AM Paranoia now too, glueman? Folk arts include folk dancing, folk music, folk song, folk crafts and other plastic folk arts. Trade Union banners once were a splendid example of a folk art. The common features are that they are not driven to be "high art" (so the songs do not contain expressions like your words "palimpsest of geography and psychogeography") nor are they the product of consumerism (a "top down" process of manipulation of artificially created consumption). This correlates quite closely to the 1954 definition, and it is the antithesis of elitism. It is unlikely to be true that folk arts have become dominated by the middle and upper classes. Even if that were true, it does not mean that the aspirational and judgmental qualities of elitism are present. Leveller, the fact that people are protective of their possessions does not make those people elitist, nor does it make them middle class. If you were to go say to smokingtyrez.com you can imagine the reprisals if yoof were to start kicking footballs around near and potentially at those cars - and those cars are the badges of working class assertiveness (even perhaps rebelliousness), not middle class. Competitive Xmas decoration, however (to take an example) is consumerism in display, and therefore not a folk art. I would accept competitive leek growing as a folk form, but I'm not sure it is an art. Coarse fishing is in an interesting cleft stick. Roaching for example was long a primarily working class pursuit, but now it is the market place for very expensive technical products - carbon-fibre rods, etc. I don't think that means it has lost its claim to be a folk pursuit. Is earthenware pottery a folk art? I am undecided. |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: glueman Date: 27 May 09 - 08:48 AM "It's unfortunate that once those things become popular there is a tendency for them to be dumbed-down, diluted and commodified." Or, the music of the people was better as our little secret, hmmm? |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 27 May 09 - 08:45 AM "And what is it with new folkies that the miracle of personal epiphany isn't enough for them that they then have to go on some crusade to convert the world to their new found religion? I've seen this happen so many times it's untrue - the zeal of the newly converted! Energy best spent in perfecting one's craft I would have thought..." I'm afraid that I have to say "amen" to that, S O'P - with apologies to 'Crow Sister, who I don't particularly want to offend. It has been my experience that some of the best things in life are those that one stumbles upon by accident. It's unfortunate that once those things become popular there is a tendency for them to be dumbed-down, diluted and commodified. |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: glueman Date: 27 May 09 - 08:40 AM You don't think one of the marks of folk music taken as a whole is lack of deference for self-appointed authority figures Jon? I'm not putting anyone 'down' as you put it, unlike the disapproval that was heaped on my first posts. If you want to learn more about my school experiences of institutional folk music I'm happy to discuss them. But perhaps Bye is best, eh? |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: GUEST,Jon Date: 27 May 09 - 08:33 AM Hmm failure to answer: "How are 'Searching for Lambs', 'The Banks of the Sweet Primroses', 'John Barleycorn', 'Lisbon', 'The Manchester Angel', 'The Furze Field', 'The Outlandish Knight', 'Scarborough Fair' or 'Bushes and Briars' "anti-establishment"," Personal doubts (which may be wrong) about your school memory and your method of bringing "Open Mindedness" into this where I'm trying to discuss solutions that can work for everyone without putting anyone down. Those 3 are enough for me. Bye. |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: glueman Date: 27 May 09 - 08:30 AM Sounds like Herr Bridge has been keeping everyone on message by PM because I can't see anything controversial in what myself or others have said. |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: glueman Date: 27 May 09 - 08:29 AM Why? I've given you an honest response to your question. If it wasn't the one you wanted to hear I'm sorry, it is the one I believe however. |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: GUEST,Jon Date: 27 May 09 - 08:10 AM I'll try to ignore you in future glueman. |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: glueman Date: 27 May 09 - 08:06 AM I'm not going to engage in a long what-is-folk dialogue, I know what I believe it to be and it isn't defined by an historical category but is on-going and adapts to the resources that surround it. With open-mindedness Folk could find a new definition that retains pre-industrial roots and encompasses modern vernacular forms but there's no appetite for it among the orthodoxy so the barrier remains. 'Dilute' seems to be precisely what folkies believe will happen if ordinary people get a say. |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: GUEST,Jon Date: 27 May 09 - 07:55 AM Dilute is always the scare word I don't know why when everyone can get together as well as find more specialist events. leave Folk to their own devices and checklist I do and to date it seems to have resulted in the mix of more specialised events and anything goes events we have. It seems to be you not me that wants to change what you are saying leave alone. |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: glueman Date: 27 May 09 - 07:50 AM Dilute is always the scare word and while it is, folk will get on with the real stuff of making and singing and doing as they always have done and leave Folk to their own devices and checklists. |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: glueman Date: 27 May 09 - 07:46 AM Pubic funding will only arrive is when the wizened old gent in the town hall gets a good shake up and can be encouraged to splash out. |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: GUEST,Jon Date: 27 May 09 - 07:44 AM These criteria are fairly exacting and designed to keep things out rather than include, adapt, amend and change with time, thus retaining a status quo. OK. I don't agree with that. Firstly I do recognise that there are different "what is folk" feelings, that some "folk" can in one way or other, even to listen to, be more or less accessible to an individual and that somehow the needs of the broadest definitions of folk need accommodating (and yes, even if it may not all be folk to me...). I think changing with time happens anyway. It's just a question of the time scale. The repertoires in the Irish sessions I go to are traditional (including tunes that just sound traditional) but I don't think anyone seriously believes that the tenor banjo (c 1915) or the tenor mandola (1970s Irish Bazouki movement) are traditional instruments or that what we play in terms of style would be a carbon copy of say what was played in Clare in 1850. We know it moves on but at its own natural pace. I also have difficulties with some "inclusion" arguments. Apart from my own specific interests (and perhaps selfishness), I feel we would dilute and limit the folk scene rather than enhance it if every event was to include everything. Diversity and opportunities for specialities (as well as for anything goes mixes) IMO are strengths, not weaknesses, |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: Spleen Cringe Date: 27 May 09 - 07:35 AM Is that when the government pays for you to have a "downstairs haircut"? |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: Will Fly Date: 27 May 09 - 07:27 AM Glueman - I'd love some "pubic funding". :-) |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: glueman Date: 27 May 09 - 07:25 AM Much repetition of criteria but you get the point. |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: glueman Date: 27 May 09 - 07:23 AM Jon, rather than acknowledge any common 'vernacular' response to music or art is a folk response, the revival, like the art market, has a strict set of criteria as to what can be considered folk based on a set of criteria that must be met. These criteria are fairly exacting and designed to keep things out rather than include, adapt, amend and change with time, thus retaining a status quo. As myself and others have suggested the thread has gone some way to showing that folk arts are perceived as elevated things that can only be conveyed through education (in a modern sense), special pleading and pubic funds whereas these arts are all around and require little or none to participate. |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: theleveller Date: 27 May 09 - 07:21 AM I suppose all minority interests (which folk arts are) can be viewed as elitist by those who don't follow them, but I think that if elitism does exist in tradarts, it's probably localised and created by those who wish it to reflect their own social aspirations. I certainly don't think that it is universal. I just got back from Ryedale Folk Weekend and there was no sign of any elitism there – just a lot of people sharing some wonderful music, offering help and advice, swapping songs, stories and the occasional(!) beer and having a wonderful time with others from a wide range of different backgrounds. Being able to chat to the likes of Dave Burland, Dave Goulder, Dick Miles and other folk 'gurus' was great. There were also plenty of young people around as well as us old-stagers. People who were just visiting the Folk Museum, where the festival was held, were given an opportunity to sample folk music and dance in a 'traditional' setting and talk to 'folkies' about it. On the other hand, the one occasion we went to Towersey was the total opposite. It started in the campsite when people erected barricades and fences around their caravans and tents and the kids were told off for kicking a football around. The whole time we were there was like that – even in the beer tent when we tried singing some shanties and got black looks from the massed melodeon players who then proceeded to drown us out. The whole experience was redolent of an interminable vicarage garden party. |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: GUEST,Jon Date: 27 May 09 - 07:09 AM (folk music that is) |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: GUEST,Jon Date: 27 May 09 - 07:08 AM if people care to look and don't formalise folk into insider and outsider commodities. Please explain. You have lost me. What would you propose with folk in practice? |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: glueman Date: 27 May 09 - 07:05 AM "By this definition, folk artists are far from elitist - they exist happily within their own world, uncaring perhaps about the opinion of others" I agree but the world of the folk revival would see such sensibilities as quite rare, 'exotic' whereas they are in fact common if you alter the definition to include contemporary manifestations of folk. In the visual arts natural artists like Alfred Wallis have been codified in the same way as music into Art Brut, Outsider Art, Naive art or whatever to define them against the self-awareness of other artists but their kind of thing is everywhere if people care to look and don't formalise folk into insider and outsider commodities. |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: Spleen Cringe Date: 27 May 09 - 07:05 AM Really enjoyed that film, S. And a fabulous soundtrack. The Ha-Ha should collaborate with Jah Wobble. In fact, is there any mileage in conflating the sounds of the Ha-Ha with the sounds of Venerium Arvum? Sounds like a fab idea to me. We must talk! Anyhoo, the new issue of English Dance & Song has just plopped through my letterbox, so I'm going to curl up on the sofa and read it whilst nursing my man-flu with more Lemsip. See y'all later. |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: GUEST,Jon Date: 27 May 09 - 07:04 AM Christmas lighting as far as I can gather, certainly can be competitive. |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: Jack Blandiver Date: 27 May 09 - 07:04 AM All art is folk art; I ain't seen no horse make a sandcastle... |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: Jack Blandiver Date: 27 May 09 - 07:02 AM Take nothing but footprints; leave nothing but photographs |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: glueman Date: 27 May 09 - 06:57 AM Another self-generating folk art is we take a few stones from one place, say Rhodes and put them on the next beach we come to, perhaps in the Lleyn peninsula, which in turn gives a few stones to Normandy on to the Baltic, and so on, all photographed until a palimpsest of geography and psychogeography builds up tracing our journeys. Folk art or high art? Does it matter? |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: GUEST Date: 27 May 09 - 06:57 AM Perhaps we ought to have a What are Folk Arts? thread to clarify the issue. If it is Arts of the Folk, then we might include Digital Photography, <snip> Such things, of course, aren't elitist in the slightest, Perhaps not but I'm sure you can find elitism there. eg. "I've got a Nikon with 1000 lenses and a Leica. You only have a point and shoot you found in an Argos catalogue."
Thanks. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 27 May 09 - 06:54 AM Incidentally though - err yeah I can be rather driven when I hit on something. A personality thing, not exclusive to this by any means :-/ Now, if I could only get passionate about something actually useful... |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: Will Fly Date: 27 May 09 - 06:52 AM Glueman - I was merely commenting on the fact that what might have been an interesting discussion on folk arts as a whole was all subsumed into yet another thread on folk music - and no fault of the OPs, either. The thread has now actually become far more interesting with the inclusion of christmas lights displays and sandcastles! I think these are true folk arts - and I don't think anyone could call these elitist. In a visual arts context, "folk" artists, e.g. painters, are often equated with "naive" artists such as Grandma Moses, Henri Rousseau, Alfred Wallis, etc. Naive,in this instance, used to describe artists who have no formal training but who - in the words of one book I have on the subject - bring a "refreshing view" of artistic subjects to the world. By this definition, folk artists are far from elitist - they exist happily within their own world, uncaring perhaps about the opinion of others. |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: Jack Blandiver Date: 27 May 09 - 06:50 AM PS - Some years ago I made a film called Luminos which documents the X-mas house lights in the villages around where we used to live. Hopefully soon I'll have this up on YouTube - maybe later today if I can figure out how to the necessary file transfer. Watch this space... |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: glueman Date: 27 May 09 - 06:48 AM "It's as square as fuck of course" It isn't CS, those fuckers just nicked it. |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: Jack Blandiver Date: 27 May 09 - 06:48 AM Don't forget front-of-house Christmas light displaying and sandcastle building. The latter in particular highlights the ephemeral nature of folk art... Absolutely. And by extension, of course, Blackpool Illuminations becomes a Seasonal Folk Custom by default, though rarely is it considered as such. I made two films when we first moved over this way, one concentrating on the folkloric narratives of the illuminated tableaux themselves and the other of the peripheral events. Unfortunately the latter was lost when the laptop crashed, but the first one survives: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isgwb_g66rU At this time of year, Blackpool is bending down with Hen Parties - each group festively sporting a distinctive costumed uniform, or livery. Trouble is, you can't point a camera at them without risking multiple breast exposure, or worse... |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: glueman Date: 27 May 09 - 06:45 AM Don't forget the chalk bag. Ever noticed northern soul girls dressed like mill hands in navy pinafore dresses, puritan collars and thick tights? Until it all got 40s swing and big skirts and daft trousers anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 27 May 09 - 06:44 AM "crusade to convert the world to their new found religion?" Oh poo to you! I've no interest in converting people or telling them how 'great' it is. It's as square as fuck of course, and definitely no chance of a shag going for anyone under retirement age either, and of course that's all fine(ish). But traditional song does exist in an hermetically sealed bubble, mostly populated by people as old or older than my parents. And utterly isolated from people like me, unless we happen to fall over it. All I think is that more people should have the opportunity to decide for themselves. Otherwise, I'm quite happy to disagree with you on the matter... |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: Spleen Cringe Date: 27 May 09 - 06:39 AM There's a whole subculture of WM inspired acts out there on the not-really-folk scene. I love 'em. My latest faves are Wyrdstone and Arborea and Trembling Bells. Check out the latter's awesome 'Carbeth'. I still think elitism in folk arts is largely in the eye of the beholder. Anything that's not trumpeted as must-have-must-do by mainstream commentators runs the risk of being labelled as elitist... when it's not being labelled much worse things. If you want elitism talk to trainer* snobs and northern soul purists. There again, northern soul dancing is definitely a folk art! *Sneaker, pump, plimsoll. You choose. |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: glueman Date: 27 May 09 - 06:38 AM "sandcastle building" Now then. When my eldest was a nipper my wife and I began building what we called fairy grottoes on the beach. These used whatever was available in the way of materials; sand, pebbles, slate, discarded packaging, dead fish and crabs, whatever the beach threw up. They began as modest sized constructions and finished up as huge endeavours with an on-going story to them and the development of every kid and often adult, within reach. Some are circular, others chambered, flat or monumental, whatever the group adds to their making as the idea grows. By their nature they are at the whim of the tide and donated and destroyed by the sea's so we film them as the are being built and erased by the waves. If that isn't a folk art I don't know what is. |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: Spleen Cringe Date: 27 May 09 - 06:27 AM Don't forget front-of-house Christmas light displaying and sandcastle building. The latter in particular highlights the ephemeral nature of folk art... |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: glueman Date: 27 May 09 - 06:23 AM Cross posted with S o'P with whom as usual, I'm in agreement. |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 27 May 09 - 06:23 AM Yeah, Spleeny - Ditto Wicker Man there. Probably the very first (and indeed remains virtually the ONLY) folk album I ever bought (about five years ago) - though in my head the fact it was folk never actually figured, it was merely a Soundtrack to a great quirky film. Have you noticed how influential The Wicker Man seems to be with young folk bands? It's an ambience thing. I crossed paths with these guys a couple months back - but there's more out there who cite The wicker Man amongst influences: The Hare and the Moon |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: glueman Date: 27 May 09 - 06:21 AM Will Fly there's a very interesting discussion to be had about what real folk arts are beyond performance, and I don't mean the stuff you're likely to find at your local craft market. The way they are taught and funded deserves more serious engagement than this board tends to if the musical aspects are anything to go by. |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: Jack Blandiver Date: 27 May 09 - 06:15 AM Perhaps we ought to have a What are Folk Arts? thread to clarify the issue. If it is Arts of the Folk, then we might include Digital Photography, Computer Film-Making, YouTube, Home Pornography, DIY, Allotment Architecture, Garden Sheds, Pigeon Crees, Railway Modelling, Outsider Art, Cross-Stitch, Flower Arranging, Gardening, Baking, Roadside Shrine Making, Grave Decoration etc. etc. etc. Such things, of course, aren't elitist in the slightest, but then again are they truly Folk Arts? And what about Trad. Arts? * And what is it with new folkies that the miracle of personal epiphany isn't enough for them that they then have to go on some crusade to convert the world to their new found religion? I've seen this happen so many times it's untrue - the zeal of the newly converted! Energy best spent in perfecting one's craft I would have thought... ;-] |
|
Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist? From: glueman Date: 27 May 09 - 06:14 AM You could happily pull dahn the skool I attended, indeed it has been, and the nation's education in an anything including folk matters would be negatively affected not a jot. At least we agree on the other's contribution being utterly moronic. |
| Share Thread: |
