Yep, folks is folks. Something to consider: Emily Dickinson was not a poet. She was a recluse. She wrote verse upon scraps of paper and laid them away. Some she rolled up and stuck into crevices or behind a mirror or in a bed post. If I remember correctly she may have shared some with correspondents but hers was a very limited and tight society.

After she died family and friends began to discover the treasure trove she had left behind ( " I could not stop for Death, so Death kindly stopped for me" ). It was then she became a poet and an artist.

When you release, when you let go of your work and put it out there before the public, several things happen. One, your work becomes an entity, a thing unto itself. It stands on its own. Two, you have no more artistic control over it. Three, it's fair game for the critics. Four it becomes both a mirror and a prism that reflects the artist and whatever the listener (viewer) brings to it.

I peeked in on this thread with apprehension! What a novel idea. An opinion being expressed at the 'Cat! We all have opinions. Some, and I would say most everyone here, have considered opinions that rise above "I like it" or "That sucks". We bring all that we know and understand to the artistic judgment seat.

So, is it folk? You bet and I don't think so. We are the folk and it's all part of the mix. As time and the world change, as cultures shift and events shape our world, the definition of "folk" ought to also change and reflect what is current as well as what may be timeless about the human condition. It may be an audience of one or of millions. Each hearer, each observer will decide for himself, herself and will file it in a category with which they are most comfortable.