Folk art and artistic creation: terminology and ideological content

Disclaimer

The article below was originally written in the form of an undergraduate assignment for the Greek Open University in 2007, during a period when the author's academic skills were still under development. Although the quality of this article does not match the quality of later examples of the same author's work, it is written in a thorough manner and contains useful information to nowadays students and other readers with non-specialised knowledge; therefore, it has been proudly included on this website.

The reader needs to be warned that the original assignment, on which this article was based on, was written in Greek and was intended to be read by specialised academics. Despite the author's best intentions to present his essay in the clearest way possible, some points and arguments might still be lost in translation. The author recommends that for any unknown words or specialised vocabulary, the readers should refer to the web for additional information.

The author admits that the bibliography for this article is limited, matching the requirements of an undergraduate assignment of this level. The author did not include any additional bibliography during the translation of his work in English due to time and access limitations. It must also be noted that the original bibliography for this article was studied from translated copies in Greek; therefore, the page numbers suggested in the citations below match the page numbers of the translated copies and not the original volumes.

Introduction

This article discusses the definitions of folk art and artistic creation in relation to Greek music and dance. The paper is divided in three sections, which deal with three interwoven topics. The first section discusses the definitions of folk art and artistic creation; the criteria of such characterisations and the methodological problems in defining art typologies. The second section examines the contrasting bi-pole of ‘folk versus artistic’ in the formulation of group identity. It explains how this bi-pole is part of a broader system of opposite relationships, which are based on traditional and/or analytical norms. The third section discusses how folk art and artistic creation form cultural hierarchies, which are based on combinations of aesthetic and/or identity features. Furthermore, this section comments on the scholarly manipulations of the above definitions when characterising modern music and dance genres. The final section presents a summary of the issues under consideration and concludes on the relationship between folk art and artistic creation.

1. The definitions of folk art and artistic creation

1.1 Defining ‘folk’ and the characteristics of folk art

Any definition of folk art requires an understanding of the notion of ‘folk’ and its most characteristic features. The definition of folk is nowadays approached from two different perspectives. Firstly, there is the ethnological approach, which sees folk as a political entity. In 20th century terms, a folk would be a group of people forming a nation, which is based on a common language and common cultural values. Secondly, there is the sociological approach, which sees folk as a sub-group, which could be part of a larger political entity, such as the nation. In that sense, the group that is defined as folk, does not influence the ruling elites and the government's decisions; therefore, its art does not belong to the scholarly creations of the nation’s formal culture. Of course, the ethnological and sociological definitions of folk are based on the academic perceptions of Western scholars; therefore, they cannot be seen as unique and absolute. The two aforementioned approaches attribute to the folk, and to any form of folk art, three characteristic features: (1) a dependence on tradition, (2) a collective group character, and (3) the spontaneity and immediacy of its means of expression (Virvidakis 2003, 59).

Tradition relates to a total of standard identification features, which represent the community’s values and its style of artistic creation. Such features have been formed in the past and have been carefully preserved through time. In the modern context, they connect folk art with its historical past. Of course, this definition of tradition should not underestimate its creative forces, which are likely to abandon the static character of the past, and adapt in a constantly evolving historical environment. Folk art, whether this is folk music or folk dance, preserves and emits artistic elements and expressive motifs, as well as moral, religious, social and sensual values from previous times. The exact opposite of folk art is modern art, which suggests a dynamic cut between present and past (Virvidakis 2003, 60-61).

The collective group character of folk art contrasts with the personal character of high-art, which is combined with a ‘superior’, urban and more technical art culture. The folk artist is usually anonymous and acts as a representative of the broader group that is defined as folk; therefore, folk art is a commonly shared property of the entire folk group. In order to project the common beliefs and values of the folk group, the folk artist is willing to modify the artistic product against his/her own original inspiration, and fit it into the expectations of the folk audience. Furthermore, as time passes by, any form of folk art can be freely modified and adapted by any other folk artist. The original creation does not belong to any specific individual but has become part of tradition (Virvidakis 2003, 60-61).

Folk art is characterised by spontaneity in relation to its content. Spontaneity translates as the absence of rationality and the projection of unproven beliefs, as for example, the legends for the deeds of heroes in demotic songs. Spontaneous art contrasts with the orthological structure of high-art, although the division between these two is highly controversial. In modern Greece, folk art may be seen as irrational; however, the livelihood, the freedom of expression and the lack of style regulations in its creative spirit, have made folk art as admirable as high-art. It must be noted that recent artistic movements of ‘high’ or ‘urban’ Greek art, such as Surrealism and Modernism, not only adopted, but almost worshipped the features of folk creation, particularly in the representational arts (Virvidakis 2003, 60-61).

1.2 The definition of artistic creation

Artistic creation is characterised by literacy and contrasts with folk art, at least in relation to its traditional oral legacy. The artistry of artistic creation associates with the presence of written sources; the recording of artistic prototypes according to linguistic or other semiological codifications; and, the prevalence of methodological rules, which facilitate access to the original artistic material. In the case of music, for example, the recording of songs in a notation system with codified metrical rules, is an element of literacy that characterises artistic creation. In the case of dance, the development, recording and practise of codified kinetic forms are elements of literacy and artistry. In general, the elements of artistry offer better potential for the quickest spread of an artistic genre within the community and better teaching perspectives in art-education. On the other hand, such elements of artistry undermine the immediacy of the artist’s creative expression and alter the conditions, under which the viewers perceive the art product. In relation to the latter, artistic creation is accessible to, and understood by, a fraction of the society, with is ‘literate’ enough to consume it (Virvidakis 2003, 60-61).

It must be noted that the above features, which determine the nature of artistry, are by definition subjective. Western ethno-musicology and ethno-choreology tend to characterise as ‘traditional’ or ‘folk’ some music scales and dance forms of Indian or Islamic origin; at the same time, the means of expression of Indian and Islamic art, when recorded in the Western context, they become literate and they are regarded as ‘artistic’. Another paradox, pointing towards the problematic relationship between artistry and folk relates to the perception of Byzantine ecclesiastical music in modern Greece. Although Byzantine music is eponymous, artistic and literate, it is nowadays characterised as ‘traditional’, which is unlikely to be true according to the definition of folk genres. The same confusion is noted in contemporary artistic-folk Greek music, which consists of a real genre, but its nature cannot de defined based on the above definitions (Virvidakis 2003, 62-3).

Finally, common experience has shown that the recording of folk music in Western semiotics, as well as the execution of folk music by Western codification and metrical rules, does not necessarily convert folk music into artistic creation; instead, the music is still defined as traditional or folk based on acoustic criteria.

1.3 The correlation between personal and communal identity in folk art and artistic creation

The above discussion has already suggested that any approach towards the definition of folk art and artistic creation is subjective. This subjectivity generates another problem in the correlation of the two genres. Folk art is believed to represent a form of public or community-focused expression, while artistic creation is believed to be a private or deeply personal from of expression. Even if this is true, the examination of both forms of art within the Western urban context is insufficient and fragmentary.

Western culture is characterised by Pluralism, which translates as variability and multiplicity in the means of modern artistic expression. Modern urban life has placed emphasis on personal forms of art, which offer the artists the freedom to express their own personal values and other projections through their work. As a result, the communal element of traditional or folk art has been significantly reduced. In the modern context, art is eponymous, private and based on personal experiences. The way this private art is expressed is likely to touch the community’s feelings; however, this condition does not necessarily convert private art to folk art.

The character of modern Greek music and dance is nowadays believed to be communal based on the fact that such products are consumed or practised by groups of people. The consumption of art or the participation of a group in music or dance events does not necessarily mean the alignment between the artist and the consuming group. This is particularly true in relation to traditional Greek music and dance, which can depend on the character of the folk artist, whether composer or performer. By contrast, the communal character of modern artistic creations can depend on a variety of social, political, anthropological or even psychological factors (Virvidakis 2003, 63-4). For example, there might be social groups, which communicate through a specific form of music, which is the personal creation of a specific artist; however, the audience could use this type of music in combination with specific dress-codes and attitudes to express mutual political views, which might not necessarily match the views of the artist.

1.4 The division between divine and cosmic in folk art and artistic creation

Western culture is characterised by secularisation and the gradual loss of affiliation with religious life, at least in relation to the traditional Christian context of the previous two centuries. This situation has created a hiatus in artistic production, where art and religion do not communicate to the same extent they once used to. In Greek music and dance, the traditional division between divine and cosmic is currently manifested as a division between ‘folk’ and ‘artistic’. Nowadays, the religious elements of the Greek tradition are taken for granted, and are then intentionally connected with folk art. Furthermore, it has been socially established that the break between traditional and modern art, simultaneously consists of a break away from the divine or supernatural elements of folk creation. This attitude is not always right and requires some constructive criticism. Modern Greek music and dance are not exclusively cosmic; instead, the divine elements, which are borrowed from tradition and religion, are preserved through language (e.g. words and expressions in rural demotiki) and other traditional means of artistic expression (e.g. Byzantine music scales).

In the Greek context, in particular, the justification of divine elements within tradition and folk art is even more insubstantial compared to any other form of artistic production. On one hand, the formal Christian Orthodox tradition survives through folk art, which often incorporates elements of ecclesiastical art. On the other hand, folk tradition carries pagan elements from ancient Greek religion, which are even present in Christian Orthodox artistic expressions. Even more, some cosmic elements of ancient Greek music and dance have become traditional components of folk art, although these were once condemned by the Christian Orthodox Church (Virvidakis 2003, 64-5). A typical example describing this paradox is ancient Greek dance forms, which were once condemned as unscarred by the Greek Orthodox religion; However, in the ancient Greek pagan religion, dance was an essential element of religious expression. Next to ancient Greek dance forms, pagan religion was characterised by phonetic music. In the early Christian Orthodox context, the latter was converted to chanting and retained its sacred character as a traditional and divine element of ecclesiastical expression. Although dance was completely expelled from Christianity, phonetic music was adopted and adjusted in comparison to its original form in pagan worship, to serve the new religious traditions over the last two millennia.

2. Folk art and artistic creation in the formulation of group identity

Folk art and artistic creation have different social functions, particularly in the Western context. The 21st century is characterised as an era of individual expression; therefore, defining means of group expression differs significantly in relation to the definition of ‘folk’ based on the ethnographic and sociological characteristics discussed earlier. In fact, the definition of group expression can depend on a variety of features that are irrelevant to tradition. A modern approach towards group expression discusses issues of group identity.

The identity of a social or cultural group can de described as a sum of common characteristic features, which define a specific framework of group communication. The artistic identities, including those of music and dance, are parts of broader group identities, whether social, cultural, political or other. The features of group identity are based on a structured hierarchy and they also differ in relation to the viewpoint of external observers or other groups. The definition of the identity of a cultural group based on its cultural products is therefore subjective, and often the result or common beliefs, mutual interpretations and group conventions (Lekkas and Grapsas 2003, 166-7).

The differentiation between folk art and artistic creation is based on their identity features, which follow a structured hierarchy of contrasting bi-poles. Such bi-poles are generated by human intellect in the form of conventional definitions, which are called norms. Human intellect is divided into empirical and analytical, and the former precedes the latter. In that sense, the empirical examination of the external phenomena produces traditional norms, while the analytical examination of the surrounding environment produces analytical norms (Lekkas and Grapsas 2003, 168-9).

The division between traditional and analytical norms extends further, into a series of contrasting bi-poles, such as ‘communal or personal’, ‘traditional or modern’, ‘folk or artistic’, etc. As expected, the identity features of folk art are defined according to traditional norms. These include a sacred and almost religious repetition of popular beliefs of the broader community; an emphasis on public life, together with conservatism, spontaneity, orality and amateurism. Any art produced to be ‘folk’ belongs to the community and its people; therefore, folk art exists, is based on and depends on community participation. On the other hand, the identity features of artistic creation are defined according to analytical norms. The most important one is private expression, which is guarded as the artist’s own sacred right, while emphasis is placed on private life, modernity, careful design, analytical education and professionalism. The art that is produced to be ‘artistic’ is nowadays considered to be high-art, literate and personal (Lekkas and Grapsas 2003, 170).

Despite the above approach, traditional and analytical norms cannot fully define any and every single form of art. Furthermore, they cannot fully define any and every single socio-cultural group that produces art. Art products are likely to combine doses of analytical and traditional elements, which are distributed unequally, unevenly and unconventionally. Furthermore, art products are likely to fall under the norms of specific groups or communities; however, they can also be rated on a quality scale. For example, high-art is named after its attachment to certain analytical norms, which are scholarly defined. Mass-culture, on the other hand, which is scholarly identified by the absence of analytical norms, is in reality a degradation of high-art with the addition of traditional elements. In that sense, it is literally impossible to define pure ‘folk’ art, or pure ‘artistic’ creation. Traditional norms tend to impose specific types of group identity on cultural products, while analytical norms tend to colour these art products with elements of creative aesthetics (Lekkas and Grapsas 2003, 171-3).

In conclusion, folk art and artistic creation cannot be precisely defined based on their identity features. The problem is that they both combine traditional and aesthetic features, which constantly change in relation to the cultural context, the scope of each art genre and the cultural hierarchies of the social groups consuming the art products.

3. Expressions of folk art and artistic creation in Greek music and dance

3.1 A combination of aesthetics and identity

As noted above, music and dance are artistic expressions that combine traditional elements of group identity and analytical elements of aesthetics. Furthermore, such elements appear in combinations, and the proportion of these elements does not follow specific rules. Although each artistic product can be seen as unique in relation to its means of expression, this general rule also has some exceptions. Art products can inspire a sense of belonging to the consuming groups; therefore, they can be used to construct group identity. In that specific case, art receives the form of pure ideology. Another extreme example is the exclusive interest of art in aesthetics, which can be noted in the ‘art for the art’ movement. In that case, the artistic creation is a product of pure aesthetic value, undressed on any form of identity or sense of social belonging.

Most commonly, art is a mixture of identity and aesthetics, and art products feature on a graded scale, which defines cultural hierarchy. Presuming that identity is the most basic component of traditional art, then the first step of the traditional hierarchy is taken by the folk artist. The folk musician or dancer utilises his personal talent to create an artistic product; however, the actual creation belongs to a group of people, which welcomes the folk artist as its own member. If aesthetic elements are embedded into folk art, then the product is usually treated a ‘mass culture’, which is perceived as an undermined form of folk art. If further aesthetic elements are introduced into folk art, then folk art is no longer ‘folk’; it becomes ‘enlisted art’ for mass consumption. In this case, the ‘folk’ artist is a constructed persona, promoting products that are specifically designed for certain types of consumption (Lekkas, Zografou and Grigoriou, M., 2003, 223).

A similar cultural hierarchy is noted when the first step of the grated scale is taken by aesthetics. In this scheme, artistic creations differ in relation to their proportions of literate and/or aesthetic elements. This leads to a constructed hierarchy, which consists of scholarly defined artistic groups, schools or broader movements. A typical reflection of this hierarchy is in ghetto music, which is seen as the complete opposite of elite music. In such cultural hierarchies, the perception of the audience changes according to its education, which is acoustic in the case of music and kinetic in the case of dance. Furthermore, the depth of this education becomes evidence of artistry for each art genre. If elements of identity infiltrate this aesthetically-defined hierarchy, the system is significantly undermined and there appear issues of maintaining aesthetic quality. This leads to new art genres, such as ‘high-art’, which is defined as a literate art that is also popular. Had this genre been more traditional and less literate, it would have fallen under the definition of ‘mass culture’. A Greek example of popular high-art is the ‘classicising’ music compositions noted in modern Greek cinema, particularly from the 1970s onwards. Finally, if additional elements of group identity are introduced into the aesthetic mixture of high-art, its aesthetic value is undermined further. In the case of music and dance, in particular, art products become selected from, and promoted by, groups of followers. Such fans are treated as statistical populations of art consumers, the tendencies of whom are defined by the laws of the open market. The modern music industry is a typical example of degraded high-art, which produces further confusion: music hits are seen as successful based on their popularity and sales; however, in terms of group identity, these are neither folk nor artistic (Lekkas, Zografou and Grigoriou, M., 2003, 223).

3.2 Modern characterisation tendencies in Greek music and dance

Modern characterisation tendencies in Greek music and dance demonstrate the above-mentioned dichotomy in relation to the proportions between traditional and aesthetic elements in the art genres. Nowadays, market consumerism seems to have established full control over the arts, which has generated a debate in relation to the quality of the artistic products. The scope of art production is seen as the maintenance of quality in conjunction with the commercial exploitation of the artistic products; still, this approach is totally theoretical. In praxis, there are different manifestations of the relationship between quality and commercial exploitation. The so-called Elitism, for example, is treated as the guardian of high-art and high aesthetic values. Elitism aims in ‘upgrading’ what is regarded as low or medium-range audiences; it employs artistry to educate people in literate arts. On the other hand, Pluralism does not bother with the education of the audience and never uses stereotypical labels such as low, medium and high-art. Instead, Pluralism accepts the individual aesthetic value of every form of artistic expression, as well as the audience’s wish to consume according to its own will. In Pluralism, folk art and artistic creation are likely to co-exist, communicate with each other, or even isolate themselves at will. Finally, Popularism adjusts art production and promotes an aesthetic median according to the principles of marketing. In this case, the confusion is even worse than before: artistry is used to express folk genres, and folk identity becomes the mutual element of all artistic creations (Lekkas, Zografou and Grigoriou, M., 2003, 223).

Summary and Conclusions

The characterisation of art products as folk or artistic is problematic and subject to several interpretation issues. Folk art is normally characterised by traditionality, communality and spontaneity; by contrast, artistic creation is characterised by individuality and formality, particularly when recorded by literate means. Such features are always under negotiation, and practically, there can be forms of artistic expression combining the above features in various proportions, cancelling the boundaries between folk and artistic.

A more precise discussion on the bi-pole ‘folk or artistic’ requires the examination of group identities. Certain bi-poles encountered in music and dance, which can be summarised as ‘folk or artistic’, ‘sacred or cosmic’, ‘oral or written’ and ‘communal or individual’, are only parts of a broader system of contrasting definitions. Such definitions are created according to the traditional or analytical norms of human intellect. The sense of belonging, which is essential part of any form of identity, derives from traditional norms. On the other hand, aesthetics derive from analytical norms.

The problem of the above approach is that the labelling of art products is subject to numerous interactions. Art products result as cultural mixtures of identity and aesthetics, represented in different proportions. These proportions define the position of the art products on a graded scale, which produces cultural hierarchy. Furthermore, the art products that participate in such cultural hierarchies can be re-arranged in art-genres, the labelling of which is equally subjective as the labelling of their constituent art products.

Whatever the approach, the definition of folk art and artistic creation remains subjective. Western Pluralism promotes a simultaneous interaction, counter-exchange, commercialisation and marketisation of cultural products; therefore, any labelling of folk art and artistic creation is temporary. Some could argue that such labelling is just a modern taxonomic convention, which is constantly under negotiation (1).

Bibliography

Lekkas, D. and Grapsas, N., 2003, ‘Identity issues: elements of analytical, abstract and applied reviewing’, in Lekkas, D. (ed.) Arts II: Review of Greek Music and Dance, Volume I, Dialectic Correlations – The Theory of Greek Music, Patra: Greek Open University, 115-211.
Lekkas, D., Zografou, M. and Grigoriou, M., 2003, ‘Special topics of theoretical consideration and dialectics of music and dance’, in Lekkas, D. (ed.) Arts II: Review of Greek Music and Dance, Volume I, Dialectic Correlations – The Theory of Greek Music, Patra: Greek Open University, 215-46.
Virvidakis, S., 2003, “Dialectic contradictions and compositions in philosophy and the history of arts’, in Lekkas, D. (ed.) Arts II: Review of Greek Music and Dance, Volume I, Dialectic Correlations – The Theory of Greek Music, Patra: Greek Open University, 51-82.

Notes

1. The summary and conclusion section represents the author’s views at a time of personal development. When the original paper was first written back in 2007, the author had no intention to discuss Greek music and dance by standing between relativism and nihilism. The paper was only meant to challenge several popular beliefs of that time on modern Greek music and dance, which manipulated academic terminologies and produced confusion by false-labelling Greek art products. In later years, the author realised that the production of definitions and categorisations is just a taxonomic tool. Such definitions and categorisations are based on two opposite approaches: the emic approach, which follows the viewpoint of the cultural group under consideration, and the etic approach, which is based on the viewpoint of external observers. In that sense, all aforementioned definitions and categorisations are the product of academic intellect, which generally follows the etic approach.