The Emergence of Forgotten American Folk Artists

Abstract

discovery came in the 1920's, but the initial passion for its collection cooled noticeably after World War II.1 Its current rediscovery is tied to the mid-1970's burst of national pride that accompanied the bicentennial celebration when once again the glories of traditional creativity were trumpeted and once more high praise was lavished upon the art of the common man. Yet despite this double dose of excitement over folk art, its creators remain anonymous, obscure, and forgotten. In some cases this is to be expected, for all that remains as a testament of their existence is an unsigned and unclaimed carving or quilt. In other cases when biographical details are available, they are thin and scattered, yielding little other than the most general sense of an artist's personality. It is only rarely that folk artists from the past or the present leave behind the documentary materials needed to reconstruct their life histories or to facilitate an analysis of their creative intentions. It would appear, then, that folk art study might become a depopulated discipline focussed more on art than folk, more on works than lives, more on things than persons. This is a condition that once pervaded all folklore scholarship, when folklorists devoted themselves almost exclusively to the study of tales and songs.2 In the 1960's, when American folklorists expanded their view of tradition to include items of material culture, the artifact also became a subject for consideration. But it was also during the 1960's that a concern for cultural context was included on the folklorist's agenda. This intellectual move was accompanied by a shift of attention from isolated aspects of culture such as tale and song texts to whole performances and events. New studies were published which presented tellers as well as tales, singers as well as songs, and artists as well as artworks. The new 'folkloristics' that emerged from this academic transformation has focussed more attention on folk artists and has consequently helped to increase the general awareness of folk art's creators.3 We could say, then, that folk artists are emerging now because more scholars seem to care about them to an extent not seen before. But the simple revision of perspective will not in itself guarantee adequate consideration and understanding of folk artists. This is because the definition of folk art remains so problematic.4 There is still, after fifty years of haggling, no public consensus in America about what folk art is and what works it includes. Consequently there is no certainty about who is a folk artist and who is not. It is critical, then, for those who would ask that proper and deserved credit be given to folk artists to answer one crucial question-What is folk art? The answer, I think, will be found by accepting a tacit assumption of the new