I hope the posters in question will not be put out too much by me cutting and pasting this tangential thread of comments debating the relevence or otherwise of Folk Arts to the masses (posted on Folk Activism! thread.). I thought this discussion pertinent to this board, and thus might warrant a thread of it's own?

From: Richard Bridge - PM
Date: 23 May 09 - 07:37 AM

In the main however I think we need someone like Joanna Lumley to ram it through to the powers that be and the ministry of Culture that THIS culture merits promotion - indeed far more so than things like opera and ballet which are of no relevance to most of the world, and for which there is no major tradition in the UK anyway

***

From: glueman - PM
Date: 23 May 09 - 07:56 AM

"more so than things like opera and ballet which are of no relevance to most of the world"

You were doing so well till that point. I can hear Joe Public saying the same thing of Morris dancing and Maypoles. Never understood this high/low art snobbery. I'm happy to do Glyndebourne and football terraces - at least in the places terraces still remain. All art is mine, all mine!!!

From: glueman - PM
Date: 23 May 09 - 08:49 AM

The point is campaigns like these so often define themselves by what they are against, or name other genres they believe have unfair advantages. The idea of promoting folk is a valuable one without dissing other art forms.

***

From: Crow Sister - PM
Date: 23 May 09 - 09:04 AM

Sure, I like early English music and contemporary dance too and I doubt either of these are particularly important to the majority of people.
I don't think RB was saying ballet and opera are 'crap', just that - very much like folk I guess - they are of little interest or consequence to the public at large.
Irrespective of this however, what they do have - unlike folk - is a whole lot more funding and promotion. While these arts may well be entirely worthy of receiving the recognition and support that they do, I personally see that *key disparity* as relevent and worthwhile to recognise and consider.

So long as we don't fall into err 'dissing' innit.

***

From: Richard Bridge - PM
Date: 23 May 09 - 12:41 PM

Gg - I left the issue of "taste" right out of it. Opera is in the main not "relevant" (the word I actually used) because it is not rooted in the experience of the bulk of these isles - or indeed any other. It is a wholly elitist pursuit. Folk arts are rooted in the historic experience of the masses.

Further, those who in the main like opera have enough money to support it for themselves.

***

From: glueman - PM
Date: 23 May 09 - 03:05 PM

Rooted in what experience? Elitist how? 'Folk arts' are as elevated as Billy Budd. Try buying a Shaker cabinet or some Staffordshire flat backs to see how down-home the folk arts are.

Post - Top - Forum Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

***

From: Rifleman - PM
Date: 23 May 09 - 03:13 PM

"Folk arts are rooted in the historic experience of the masses."

sounds like one of those phrases"leftie" to me.
It's certainly rooted in the experiences of people; but the masses, nope

and folk arts are NOT elitist? If not elitist then they certainly are a special interest, every bit as much as opera, and classical music

***

Didn't bother with the last Guest post, as he seems to be largely a figment of his own imagination. If anyone isn't happy about me pasting their comments here, I'll ask the Mod's to delete this thread.