Question for Gerald:

1. From “Art” Gerald states that westerners came to believe that only them have the ability to produce “the only truly inspirational art.” Whether other culture’s works can be called as art need to through western elite’s judgment. My question is it has been passed decades since Gerald write this paper, is that situation changed？If the superiority complex that came from colonizlization of “primitive” lands has already been replaced by other elements? If so, who has the right to determine what art work it is right now?

2.At the end of the paper, Gerald says although art can be explained by skill, it is still has broad content. “Others” such as folk are still deemed as art. That’s because if we narrow down the limits, it will cause “dislocation of our own postmodern malaise.” My question is is that folk still be called as art only because if not it will dislocate our history. Are there other reasons for folk to be called as “art?”

Question for Hufford:

1. In Hufford’s Context, he says “Orientations and evaluations guide interpretation, enhancing the distinction between events while highlighting their interrelations and orchestrating participation in the narrative event.” My question is although the orientations and evaluations could provide the context for the narrative and narrated events, is that sometimes too subjective? Labeling the narrative event a first, the author will direct the audience’s attention, so that audience will only follow the path that the author paves.

2.In the paper Hufford stats that “the challenge for folklore is to amplify its “stylistic and ideological polyphony” in ways that shatter the unreceptive surface of dominant discourse.” My question is when we are doing the field work in Beijing, what is the best way to demonstrate the art form? How to provide context information for the art? providing history background or letting people talking about, which method is suitable for our work?

Question for Barron:

1. From Barron’s paper, “folklore involves intervention in the lives and institutions of a community, with an inevitable impact upon the traditions that are documented and presented.” My question is when we are doing the document for ChinaVine project, what is the intervention? By analyzing the page visit rate for the Chinavine.org, and other social media’s followers we can easily “calculate” the impact of Chinavine project for American. However, the effect for Chinese artists is unclear. I want to know what’s the beneficial did the Chinese artists get.

2.Another question is as Barron says objectification in the course of studying or presenting another culture can be both good and bad. If using objectification a good way to represent art works that we will document in Chinavine’s fieldwork? I think it is more complicate for Chinavine to interpret and demonstrate the art works, because there is language issue there.