Replies: 14 Comments
on Tuesday, January 8th, Abstract Art said
I agree with laurence on this one, folk art also reminds me of my child hood, also my grand parents and how things have changed over the years, I think folk art shows us our heritage, i was also brought up in a very rural area and it reminds me of how simple things were then to what they are today
on Sunday, December 30th, Lawrence Mitchell said
I read your words with great interest and have a few comments. I believe that folk art is what allows us to go back in our hearts to a simpler time and place. It transports us in our imagination to the soul of the peole who lived in those times. To use a dictionary definition may not be appropos to identifying whether an object is considered "Folk Art". My vision of Folk Art is what takes me back to my childhood on the farm and the wonderful craftspeople who made decorative, useful and beautiful items for many uses. These items are indelibly imprinted into my soul as a part of my "Humanness", to use your word. Do not limit any belief by the use of a dictionary. Define it with your soul and the definition would be more accurate.
on Friday, December 21st, Ellen said
Mark-
I know & thanks..... Love your mountains & streams!!
To all: Happy 08!
on Friday, December 21st, Mark said
Ellen,
I did not take your words that way, sorry if I gave that impression, I was just thinking outloud, wondering and pondering, not just folk art but art in general. I agree with much of what you say about folk art and art.
on Friday, December 21st, jose said
An interesting Blog Nicholas, and a new topic on this forum. Unfortunately I know very little about Folk Art, though I take it to be something different than Naïf art. There is something that I very much agree with you on: ‘In an art market where quick thrills and flashy bling have become the norm it is no wonder that people are beginning to detect a lack of emotion, energy and spirit in the works on the market’. However, whether that alone is enough to make Folk Art stand out I do not know; again, I’m not overly familiar with folk art, but I would imagine that as in Naïf painting there is the good stuff and the bad stuff.
The vision of the naïve painter arises from a condition of the soul, which is particularly unique and commanding. This vision, like every artistic concept, merges with a necessity to express itself, a necessity much stronger than the artist himself. Now, from what I believe to know about folk art there is one fundamental difference that separates the naïve painters from all the representatives of Folk Art: the latter work according to certain rules and patterns which have been passed down through the centuries from one generation to another, usually from father to son. The unique vision and the urge to bring it forth are not necessarily present.
As valid as the endeavour to ‘bring forth’ a particular vision or feeling through the means of artistic expression may be, ultimately, I would think that if an artist fails to define a coherent ‘language’ of his own throughout his or her career, and if it is merely an occasional pass-time, or the mere repetition of techniques, stories and themes passed down, it will be more difficult for it to reach beyond the status of ‘Art Brut’. Furthermore, if Folk Art is indeed something that is transmitted and repeated from generation to generation where does that leave the ‘emotion, energy and spirit’ people definitely yearn for in Art and which, surely, must be imbued with life?
I am certain, though, that many lovely such objects may be found, precious even, to those who’ve come upon them. Why let the market dictate what they are worth?
on Thursday, December 20th, Ellen said
Mark-
I truly did not mean to catagorize your, or anyone else's art or to pigeonhole it. I simply meant that the "real folk artists" focused on what they experienced every day (I think) and their feelings about what they saw. This does not preclude other genres of art from being expressive vehicles for images of mountains, streams, etc. I paint "my" mountains in NH and "my srteams," but I certainly would not call myself a folk artist. Nor, after seeing your wonderfully expressive paintings (many times), would I call you a folk artist. I am also THRILLED that indeed, the foggy world in which we live can allow us to express ourselves though art, opinions and a sharing of the journey! Happy 2008!!!
on Thursday, December 20th, Mark said
Ellen,
I am very influenced by the environment around me, the woods, streams and farms and I paint them and through my work express my feelings and thoughts about it all, not just about the environment but also about life in general. So then, is what I create 'folk art'? I do not mean for the question to sound flip or confrontational but rather that if what you say is true then all art (other then that which is created for stricktly monotary reasons) is or could be 'folk art'. I guess though, just as the question of what is art, the question of what is folk art has very foggy lines as well. How strange and wondeful that a subject such as art, created and loved by people who have or can have such strong opinions, can dwell in such a foggy state.
on Thursday, December 20th, Ellen said
All my life I have admired folk art because I am genuinely interested in the cultures and attitudes of communities of people: their daily lives, feelings and influences. Today, in an ever shrinking global community, many ideas and circumstances overlap and I find that sometimes the "edges" of folk art are no longer distinctive (I'm not talking about the "rip-off folk art" that is mass produced), but people are still influenced by their environment: mountains, rivers, etc. And they often react to experiences/feelings as they did thousands of years ago: loss, love, friendship. And they paint about it. It is facinating to look at lives through REAL folk art if one can find it.
on Wednesday, December 19th, Mark said
Eileen,
Big business controls much of all the art world if not directly, by example. This is why it is very important for artists to take more control over thier own careers as much as possible and work through other venues aside from dealers and galleries. I am not saying we should not use dealers and galleries but we need to be more proactive in promoting our own work. This coming from one who hates the business side of art, LOL.
on Tuesday, December 18th, eileen doman said
Ok, I am "self taught" and have been painting for 15 years, started at my kitchen table. I now have a studio and "teach" which I like to call to inspire what already exists in the soul. I had an irresistable urge to paint since I was very young, most of my work is autobiographical. My point on this blog is that I have been involved with the NY art market during the 90's. They launched and squashed me at the same time. As far as I am concerned there is no explanation, label or term for someone who just just starts creating as a need to do so. I see the "folk art" and "outsider" market as big business and the folk art museum influenced solely by the ny art dealers and what they deem as collectable.
Although I am grateful for my early beginning in 1994 with a solo show at ricco/maresca, it also burst my bubble regarding the compassion for artists that gets stomped by business and dealing.
As always the art "movements" are often coined by dealers as a marketing ploy.
on Tuesday, December 18th, Brad Michael Moore said
Everyone here has valid points. As Walt has said before, I believe, no artist today can create art that is not in some fashion derivative of other's art they've been exposed to. Indeed, native art from the South Pacific, and most all regions, from Africa to Alaska was easily identifiable because the artisans lived in closed societies and followed the customs brought down through the generations of their families. It is indeed difficult not to be influenced by the Internet anywhere in the world today - entrepreneurs and large corporations are giving away laptops computers to the most improvised children in the world - portable wireless units being produced, now in the millions, and distributed worldwide spreading the seeds of technology and the power of images. I think, there were many a folk artist, in the day, who were very smart, very savvy, and very committed to the influences of their regional lore. Now everyone's gene pool and been breeched - so to speak. True folk art should continue to gather attention and follow in the footsteps the same as antiquities. And as such, art someday might be designated as either pre and post radio wave, pre and post Internet - the same as we now have the divisions of analog and digital, institutionally instructed, and self-taught. Whatever way an artwork comes into being - to be successful, it was still have to pass the mustard of the age old eyes of it's beholders...
on Monday, December 17th, Mark said
The term "Folk Art" is now a commercial term. If it looks primitive it must be folk art.
My feeling is that true folk art is that which is created by a person who has a strong desire to create regardles of thier trainning or lack of it. They haave a desire to create what is in thier mind and heart, uninfluenced by the art world and other artists. This generaly happened because the "folk artist" had little or no exposure to the art world and its trends. Tho there are a few places in the world where this may still be true, (this is also what causes folk art to have a look specific to a particular region)in this computer age it is shrinking fast and folk art will either be no more or will be redifined as I think it is being done so now.
Which brings me back to my original statement about looking "primitive" as that is what most think of (the uneducated most) when they think of folk art. So many craft stores now sell what looks to be folk art, massed produced, guess where, China and other places.
So what is to happen to true folk art? Is it now to be decimated by mass production or is it to become a trained, well thought out genre of art, not unlike other schools of art influenced by the world rather then a region? Maybe it is a natural evolution as the world grows smaller.
on Monday, December 17th, Andrew said
I tend to regard folk art as being that which is produced without considering any large market. It reflects most purely the cultural background of the artist who produces it. As Chris says, schooled or unschooled doesn't matter any more, because the artist is working on his appearance rather than on work he's producing, becoming the superficial image of what he wants others to perceive him to be rather than making objects that indicate truthfully what he is. As a social element, this falls right in line with people creating personalities for themselves online while never actually meeting the people they communicate with. In such a setting, a man can pretend to be a woman, or a fast food clerk can pretend to be a lawyer. The social element has not flourished, since eye to eye contact has taken a back seat, but the use, or manipulation of, language is now more important than ever.
on Monday, December 17th, Chris Mohler said
Folk art was the 90's. With the advent of Facebook and Myspace, the movement in art today is towards a social ionosphere. Folk art actually cared more about the condition of the artist and environment than the object and not about the talent or training of the artist. The concern of folk art was (is) of a social significance.
So being that it is after Folk art, the relevance of schooled or unschooled, just doesn't matter anymore. What has been furthered, is the social aspects. Today's young artists also care nothing really about talent. They have been raised in the era of political correctness and can't utter a criticism of an artwork if they had to. Thus, with education and talent stricken from the prerequisites of art, the remaining element has flourished, the social element.
I recently came across the website for the American Folk Art Museum which, although provides plenty of nformation and history of American folk art, left me with more questions than answers. Although I had a general idea of what Folk Art was before visiting the museum’s website, I had not really considered the place of folk art in the current art market and the circumstances that have resulted in a revival in the interest of Folk Art. The generally accepted definition of Folk Art is hand crafted artworks created by individuals that have had little or no formal artistic training that reflect the culture, tradition and heritage of a particular and identifiable social group. I find this definition to be a bit broad and unclear so I did some further research on the definition of the term "folk" which resulted in several meanings most of which are relevant to the definition of Folk Art. 
