FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2025732192> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2025732192 endingPage "276" @default.
• W2025732192 startingPage "257" @default.
• W2025732192 abstract "American Folk Art Museum, 45 West 53rd Street, New York, New York 10019. THE LABELING OF ARTISTIC CATEGORIES IS A MESSY BUSINESS. IN ART HISTORY departments, practitioners rely on boundaries of knowledge to divide courses into coherent entities, thus creating sub-categories, in which art historians then become specialists. A typical art history department of modest size might have five full-time faculty members who teach and do research in their own sub-genre of art history. For instance, an Americanist would probably not be expected to teach or do research in the area of Ancient Rome, and likewise, a modernist would be hesitant to teach medieval art, unless he or she was teaching the introductory survey class during a particular semester. Those who teach in art or art history departments know this information intimately, and those who teach in English, history, and other areas are also aware of this disciplinary fascination and promulgation of sub-specialization. The connection between discursive strategies within academic specialization and the social construction of artistic movements, such as folk art, has always been strong. Like other artistic categories, the definition of folk art has struggled through a number of semiotic shifts. Material culture scholar Kenneth Ames traces the problematic history of folk art by delineating five strains of thought that helped promote the [End Page 257] myth of folk art over the course of the twentieth century: (1) the myth of individuality, (2) the myth of the poor but happy artisan, (3) the myth of handicraft, (4) the myth of the conflict-free past, and (5) the myth of national uniqueness. 1 Ames contends that traditional writing about folk art lapses into these fabled constructions that limit our complete understanding of this art by creating half-truths and false notions. He sees this issue as a historic condition formulated through a strange but effective combination of jingoism and market forces that can be corrected through an analysis of folk material as a historical and sociological phenomenon. 2 The difficulty with Ames's worthwhile pursuit of myth shattering, based on his close reading of earlier folk art scholarship, is that while it might be possible to point out problems with past characterizations, the category of folk belies a straightforward definition. Folklorist Henry Glassie claims: Definitions of folk art presuppose alternatives. For there to be folk art there must be art that is not folk. Like Ames, Glassie signals the historical background that saturates past definitions of folk art: Folk art, it seems, is not fine art. The two are displayed in different galleries because they do not look good together. They are taught in different courses in the university, for their appreciation apparently requires different skills. Folk and fine art have been driven apart by scholarly custom, but their separation must bespeak more than class prejudice and academic inertia. 3 Glassie never gives a specific definition of folk art; his language remains abstract, but at one point he relates, If you want to define folk art in order to refine the feelings that the term stimulates, all you have to do is choose from among three different definitions of 'folk' (the nationalistic, the radical, or the existential), then from among three different definitions of 'art' (by medium, function, or process) and combine them. 4 This is not helpful in the process of searching for an exact definition, but Glassie's semantic study reiterates Ames's conjecture about the historical basis for semiotic flaws that have created an aura of myth and disjointed labeling around the term folk. Glassie wants to create new possibilities for the idea of folk art that do not limit its connotative scope. With this expansive approach toward folk art in mind, Glassie posits the radical definition of folklore—the more generalized cultural rubric that contains folk art, folk dance, folk writing and other forms of creative output—as a positive projection from..." @default.
• W2025732192 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2025732192 creator A5009574658 @default.
• W2025732192 date "2003-01-01" @default.
• W2025732192 modified "2023-09-30" @default.
• W2025732192 title "The Building of a Label: The New American Folk Art Museum" @default.
• W2025732192 cites W1529154046 @default.
• W2025732192 cites W1975126317 @default.
• W2025732192 cites W1998577160 @default.
• W2025732192 cites W2020427682 @default.
• W2025732192 cites W2069818811 @default.
• W2025732192 cites W2070458499 @default.
• W2025732192 cites W2075248835 @default.
• W2025732192 cites W2328194553 @default.
• W2025732192 cites W608513324 @default.
• W2025732192 cites W625967100 @default.
• W2025732192 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/aq.2003.0011" @default.
• W2025732192 hasPublicationYear "2003" @default.
• W2025732192 type Work @default.
• W2025732192 sameAs 2025732192 @default.
• W2025732192 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W2025732192 countsByYear W20257321922013 @default.
• W2025732192 countsByYear W20257321922014 @default.
• W2025732192 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2025732192 hasAuthorship W2025732192A5009574658 @default.
• W2025732192 hasConcept C107038049 @default.
• W2025732192 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W2025732192 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W2025732192 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2025732192 hasConcept C145746218 @default.
• W2025732192 hasConcept C153349607 @default.
• W2025732192 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2025732192 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2025732192 hasConcept C2777638717 @default.
• W2025732192 hasConcept C519517224 @default.
• W2025732192 hasConcept C52119013 @default.
• W2025732192 hasConcept C554144382 @default.
• W2025732192 hasConcept C85363599 @default.
• W2025732192 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W2025732192 hasConceptScore W2025732192C107038049 @default.
• W2025732192 hasConceptScore W2025732192C124952713 @default.
• W2025732192 hasConceptScore W2025732192C142362112 @default.
• W2025732192 hasConceptScore W2025732192C144024400 @default.
• W2025732192 hasConceptScore W2025732192C145746218 @default.
• W2025732192 hasConceptScore W2025732192C153349607 @default.
• W2025732192 hasConceptScore W2025732192C17744445 @default.
• W2025732192 hasConceptScore W2025732192C199539241 @default.
• W2025732192 hasConceptScore W2025732192C2777638717 @default.
• W2025732192 hasConceptScore W2025732192C519517224 @default.
• W2025732192 hasConceptScore W2025732192C52119013 @default.
• W2025732192 hasConceptScore W2025732192C554144382 @default.
• W2025732192 hasConceptScore W2025732192C85363599 @default.
• W2025732192 hasConceptScore W2025732192C95457728 @default.
• W2025732192 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2025732192 hasLocation W20257321921 @default.
• W2025732192 hasOpenAccess W2025732192 @default.
• W2025732192 hasPrimaryLocation W20257321921 @default.
• W2025732192 hasRelatedWork W2025732192 @default.
• W2025732192 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2025732192 hasRelatedWork W2776719977 @default.
• W2025732192 hasRelatedWork W2894642485 @default.
• W2025732192 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2025732192 hasRelatedWork W2905977607 @default.
• W2025732192 hasRelatedWork W3042812219 @default.
• W2025732192 hasRelatedWork W4292755616 @default.
• W2025732192 hasRelatedWork W4385495872 @default.
• W2025732192 hasRelatedWork W131176136 @default.
• W2025732192 hasVolume "55" @default.
• W2025732192 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2025732192 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2025732192 magId "2025732192" @default.
• W2025732192 workType "article" @default.