Bert, Depends on what you mean by "folk art." I don't know if a person with a professional "involvement" in "folk art" (e.g., academic, gallery owner) would take my criteria seriously. They are just my own generalizations about art which has been deemed "folk". My post is just about my own personal use of the term "folk art." Feel free to dismiss it.

HOWEVER, I am willing to grant the status of ART to the guitar. To me, the question whether something is art is not a very interesting one and I prefer to err on the side of inclusivity. To me the interesting question is whether something is GOOD art. Some people I have discussed aesthetics with are nervous about the value judgments implied by the terms "good" and "bad" and avoid them. However, they still manage to pack a lot of value judgments into their criteria for art.

Burke, "folk art" might not be the best term but I'm not knowledgeable enough to know what the terminological options are. None of my friends are professionally involved in folk art, so I have no one to ask. I know that there is something called "Outsider art" but I don't know it well enough to know if a professional guitar maker could properly be called an "outsider" in this respect. I think what we are looking for is a way of categorizing the guitar that puts it above (at least to some extent) the obvious criticisms voiced in this thread. I would not take the guitar as a gift, but it is so over the top that I think that it transcends the usual criticisms. Whatever that guitar is supposed to be or do or represent, it does a great job.

Bill D, excellent point. A friend suggested that the guitar is really no tackier than the Sistine chapel ceiling.