Mary Hufford’s article on the study of expressive culture asserts that we cannot reflect on the flow of events that we are involved in while we are trying to be observers. We can only reflect on events which have occurred in the past. Contextualism requires us to “shift from absorption in a conjured world to abstract reflection upon it.” (532) This is true to the extent that events occurring in the past allow us the opportunity to examine them closely in a place of relative quiet and outside of the event we witnessed. Recording an event or taking field notes and then reflecting upon them at a later time allows for the analysis of notes to reach the individual researchers conclusions. I am thinking specifically of videorecordings where the fieldworker can capture the event and then closely examine it for detail at a later date. However, with the size and abundance of current technology that can capture good footage on portable materials like a cell phone how would fieldwork benefit from sharing the material examined with the people being recorded in the moment it is being recorded? What would the benefits be of examining material while we are in the “conjured world” since this would this allow for the input of the people practicing the behavior being captured in the setting it is being captured in?

Hufford notes the importance that folk practices have in creating identity, which must be situated in people, places and events as well as historical discourse. She notes the importance that historical discourse has in constructing a social world. (538) The larger framework means that individual practice is not only important for the individual but also for a sense of understanding a larger social sphere around the individual. Since this is my first time doing fieldwork from an etic perspective I am thinking about how the framework around an individual’s practice would best be constructed. The individual creating the work will have their own understanding of how their work fits into a historical perspective and the community around the individual will also have an understanding of the historical importance of the artisan’s work which might differ from the artisan’s perspective. I am wondering to what extent we should incorporate each of these perspectives.

Robert Baron’s article calls attention to several problematic elements of the discourse about public folklore and the presentation of folk artists. He states that public folklorists engage in a dialogue with the communities they represent in order to accurately frame that communities practices. (64) He suggests the evolution of this process might lead to the role of the folklorist being diminished as self-determination in a community is enhanced. The role of the folklorist could be interpreted to take the behaviour of a community and present it in a way which is accessible to outside viewers. However Baron also notes, when he sites van Buren, that greater agency might be reserved for some members of the community and not others when they are interacting with folklorists. This speaks to the question of who gets to represent heritage and tradition to people outside of the practicing community. Baron states that objectification can either be good or bad based on “whether the relationship is morally correct, occurs in a context of mutual respect, and allows for the agency of those who we represent.” (86) I think it is very important to think of who is speaking for the community. When we are doing fieldwork how can we be careful to include the voices of those who might not usually be able to speak for themselves and also respect the values of the community we are working with? The lessening of the folklorist’s role might be occurring as more communities are offered opportunities to speak for themselves, but there are still voices that need to be considered and drawn out of many communities. What methods can we use to advocate for this in the groups we are working with?

Baron suggests the term objectification must be viewed differently than it is viewed is discussions about media and feminism. He suggests that communities might be objectified but they can struggle to present their traditions on their own terms by advocating for their own agency. Even when communities are confronted with hegemonic practices they will still have methods for dealing with these practices. Baron also states “On stage, traditional artists are performing in a special space that serves to validate and legitimate their art.” (72) Are there ways to present folk art and folk music in ways that are more in line with the traditions of the specific performers and artisan’s that rely on the systems of valuation within those communities to legitimate the practice? Validation does not always have to occur through the definitions of success used in Western models, although they can assist artists in gaining visibility in certain forums.

Pocius states the goal of studying art from a folkloristics perspective is to “construct as accurately as possible the categories of art of those we study and to determine how art is assessed by that culture.” (414) For instance is the “best” art something ordinary or something that expresses the exceptional skills of the individual artist? As Pocius mentions this can lead to attempts to analyze art from a culturally relativistic perspective which can be problematic. When we are thinking about the material objects we will be analyzing in our fieldwork our discussion can be informed by the dialogue between art and craft in the contemporary American art scene. The resurgence of certain crafts (weaving, knitting and fiber arts to mention a few) and the dialogue between these crafts and art forms (such as painting, sculpture etc.) has brought this dialogue to the forefront of discussions about contemporary art. What is the boundary between art and craft? As this boundary becomes blurred in some ways (commercially) and more distinct in others (the dialogue about what is art and what is craft conceptually) what direct effects is this having on the practitioners of certain crafts? I would be interested to incorporate their perspective on how the artisan’s work fits into the market for craft and for art.

Pocius mentions that art is situated in a particular way based on the group being studied. Is it considered “esoteric, limited or collective” (425) within the group being analyzed. A group arrives at a certain consensus and the individual artist manages the dialogue about this consensus in their artwork. So is artwork some expression of the individual, which should be understood only as a process this individual engages in, or is it reflective of a standard of cultural norms within a community. (426) Does the artisan view their role within the community as changed as the role of traditional crafts changes within specific society?