|
20 Mar 05 - 08:42 PM (#1439319) Subject: FOLK -ART A definition. From: John Routledge "Folk-art is indeed the oldest of the aristocracies of thought and, because it refuses what is passing and trivial, the merely clever and pretty, as certainly as the vulgar and insincere and, because it has gathered into itself the simplest and most unforgettable thoughts of the generations, it is the soil where all art is rooted." So said WB Yeats. What a conversation stopper :0) Wish that I had said that. |
|
20 Mar 05 - 10:27 PM (#1439376) Subject: RE: FOLK ART - A definition. From: Azizi John, I don't have any definitions of folk art that I can share, but I beleive in the philosophy that art should be more than for arts's sake. In my opinion, art should be of the people & for the people. Art should inspire, motivate, teach, correct, reinforce values and principles , comfort, energize-and yes, entertain .. of course not all at the same time :O) I'm wondering if I might expand the conversation you started to ask you and others to share not only the definitions of art, but what the purpose of art is or should be. Thanks! Azizi |
|
20 Mar 05 - 11:48 PM (#1439409) Subject: RE: FOLK ART - A definition. From: DrWord The Preface [to The picture of Dorian Grey] The artist is the creator of beautiful things. To reveal art and conceal the artist is art's aim. The critic is he who can translate into another manner or a new material his impression of beautiful things. The highest as the lowest form of criticism is a mode of autobiography. Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault. Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated. For these there is hope. They are the elect to whom beautiful things mean only beauty. There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all. The nineteenth century dislike of realism is the rage of Caliban seeing his own face in a glass. The nineteenth century dislike of romanticism is the rage of Caliban not seeing his own face in a glass. The moral life of man forms part of the subject-matter of the artist, but the morality of art consists in the perfect use of an imperfect medium. No artist desires to prove anything. Even things that are true can be proved. No artist has ethical sympathies. An ethical sympathy in an artist is an unpardonable mannerism of style. No artist is ever morbid. The artist can express everything. Thought and language are to the artist instruments of an art. Vice and virtue are to the artist materials for an art. From the point of view of form, the type of all the arts is the art of the musician. From the point of view of feeling, the actor's craft is the type. All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex, and vital. When critics disagree, the artist is in accord with himself. We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely. All art is quite useless. OSCAR WILDE |
|
20 Mar 05 - 11:57 PM (#1439412) Subject: RE: FOLK ART - A definition. From: GUEST,Art Thieme John, That's about perfect. Thanks for posting that here. Picasso once said, "Art is a lie that lets us see the truth." Art Thieme |
|
21 Mar 05 - 10:58 AM (#1439698) Subject: RE: FOLK ART - A definition. From: Uncle_DaveO There have already been a number of comments, essentially relating "art" to "the beautiful". Art is not always about the beautiful. Take Picasso's Les Demoiselles D'Avignon or Guernica. Anything but beautiful, but meaningful, and worthwhile. Now this thread is about "Folk Art", not art in general, I realize. So, for an example in the musical realm, take Strange Fruit. Not beautiful, but a powerful communication of emotion. Yes, it's a commercial song, not folk, but it illustrates the point I'm trying to make. Dave Oesterreich |
|
22 Mar 05 - 10:54 AM (#1440564) Subject: RE: FOLK ART - A definition. From: GUEST,Bee-dubya-ell Unfortunately, "folk art" as used by much of the art world today has little bearing on the folk art of which Yeats spoke. Traditional folk arts such as coopering, saddle-making, pottery and weaving have always exhibited high levels of craftsmanship. The skills haven't been learned in formal educational environments, but the craftsmanship needed to properly create the work has been learned and perfecting that crafstmanship is a lifelong endeavor. Today, "folk art" is often used as an umbrella term to cover the work of "artists" who simply haven't taken the time and effort to learn good craftsmanship. Primitively executed paintings on scraps of corrugated roofing material are passed as "folk art" at art shows everywhere. Far too often, the "folkiness" of the art is mere contrivence that let's the artist get by with inferior craftsmanship. It's analogous to the difference between an accomplished traditional fiddler whose skill level rivals that of any classical virtuoso, and a lazy guitarist who says, "I play folk music. I only need to know seven chords." |
|
22 Mar 05 - 02:43 PM (#1440817) Subject: RE: FOLK ART - A definition. From: Once Famous Fok art is all those silly looking dried leaf things at craft shows that wives like to drag their husbands to. |
|
22 Mar 05 - 07:54 PM (#1441117) Subject: RE: FOLK ART - A definition. From: John Routledge I was thinking particularly of the refining of traditional tunes and songs over the generations when posting the Yeats quotation. The last paragraph of Bee-dubya-ell is particularly appropriate in this context. Nice to hear that UK husbands are not the only ones dragged off to craft shows.:0) |