Re: Style? Folk Art vs. Traditional vs. Primitive
Roberta Zollner
very different from traditional/folk, which would tend to follow certain
designs for certain regions, and maybe use a lot of stylized or symbolic
designs.
Roberta in D
"Emilia" <emilia@(spam-so-)easy.com> wrote in message
news:419b7595$1...@news.tiscalinet.ch...
> Hi.
>
> I'm looking for applique designs (not for quilting actually but for a
> ceramic piece), a sunflower to be exact. But I'm having a hard time
finding
> something close to the one in my head.
>
> My question really is to help me with my search.
>
> Can someone please explain the differences between the following styles?
> For me they are the same... I'm sure I'm probably very wrong which is why
I
> can't find what I want.
>
> Primitive
> Traditional
> Folk
>
> Thanks.
>
> Emilia
Julia in MN
http://www.cimi.org/old_site/CHIO/deffolkart.html
http://www.dagandesigns.com/artwork.php
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/visual_arts/49597
Julia in MN
--
This message has been scanned for viruses by Norton Anti-Virus
http://webpages.charter.net/jaccola/
georg
> Can someone please explain the differences between the following styles?
> For me they are the same... I'm sure I'm probably very wrong which is why I
> can't find what I want.
>
> Primitive
> Traditional
> Folk
There's a lot of subjective feelings in this.
Personally, I view the traditional is what we think of when we think of
the quilts Grandma used to make- the easily named blocks, hand piecing,
hand stitching "old-fashioned" quilts. The Classic. Dear Jane is one
extreme end of traditional.
Primitive is tradional with less finesse. A 4-patch trimmed with
rick-rack, or 4 stitches or less per inch and scrappy, for instance. My
local farmer museum has a lot of this sort of thing- quilts made from
what they had. The crazy quilts in that collection are really
interesting- wool with cotton and the occassional nicer material and
feather sttiches.
Folk is the muddied colors, raw edges a lot of the time, huge buttonhole
stitched applique, and I half expect it to be stuffed with raffia.
(I don't like folk, but don't let my bias throw you off- some folks love
it. And usually, folk has the best privy jokes).
-georg
Pat in Virginia
Yep, the distinctions are subjective. I mostly agree on
your interpretation of traditional and primitive. As to
your definition of folk art? Nope, can't agree. I would
put your definition in with primitive. It can be
charming, it can be ugly. As can ANY art style.
To me, folk art tends to have certain cultural symbols
or styles unique to a region, community or sub culture.
These are usually passed down through generations.
Sometimes it is very tidy and controlled, sometimes
more loose. Pennsylvania German designs spring to mind.
The Hmong reverse applique also suggests folk art to
me. Those two are very neat and precise.
JMO ... hey I'm not an expert, but as usual I have an
opinion.
PAT in VA/USA
Bonnie
> Georg,
> Yep, the distinctions are subjective. I mostly agree on your
> interpretation of traditional and primitive. As to your definition of
> folk art? Nope, can't agree. I would put your definition in with
> primitive. It can be charming, it can be ugly. As can ANY art style.
>
> To me, folk art tends to have certain cultural symbols or styles unique
> to a region, community or sub culture. These are usually passed down
> through generations. Sometimes it is very tidy and controlled, sometimes
> more loose. Pennsylvania German designs spring to mind. The Hmong
> reverse applique also suggests folk art to me. Those two are very neat
> and precise.
>
> JMO ... hey I'm not an expert, but as usual I have an opinion.
> PAT in VA/USA
Hi Pat,
I do agree with you and add that the Cuna Indians molas are
also a great folk art style using reverse applique, they
definitely use bright fabrics and are not muddy at all.
--
Bonnie
NJ
georg
I would argue that the Cuna Indians molas are the Cuna Indians
tradition, and would not class that as folk art- but simply their
tradition. (And I'd probably like it that). Other traditions should be
called by their traditions. I do not class that as "folk art".
Pennsylvania German and Amish designs are their traditions. I don't
think of them as folk art. And any tradition may have a primitive form
of more basic utilitarian goods, that is not meant to be the best
needlework, but gosh it's functional.
Of course all of these definitions ARE subjective. I think of folk art
as what most of the folks try to sell in craft fairs. I also tend to
think of folk art as a lot of money spent to look like stressed junk
when real antiques look better preserved. Again, that's my bias. I was
raised going to a lot of craft fairs and my gram pointing to these
things and calling them junk. (My gram and mom also firmly encouraged me
to believe that it's not a Proper quilt unless it'sall done by hand too-
but I've learned to broaden my prospective a great deal, and have done a
lot by machine too!)I can appreciate the time and effort in folk, but
most of the time, it is simply not my aesthetic taste. I apologize if
this is offensive.
-georg
Pat in Virginia
of stuff at craft fairs is junk; even some stuff at
Museums is junk! Yes, the work of the Cuna Indians, the
Pennsylvania Germans, the Amish, etc. is specific to
their respective traditions. I still think they all
belong in the broader category of folk art though. It
is work that is specific to their traditions or folk.
In Germany there is a category of wearing apparel that
is called Tracht Mode. Loosely defined, that is Folk
Style Fashions. It is fine quality and workmanship, NOT
primitive by any stretch of the imagination. I still
think the 'rough' look is primitive and the finer stuff
of a specific culture is folk art. We can agree to not
agree on this and still be posting buddies, right?
Have a pieceful day! PAT in VA/USA
georg
> Heck George, I don't find your opinion offensive. Lots of stuff at craft
> fairs is junk; even some stuff at Museums is junk! Yes, the work of the
> Cuna Indians, the Pennsylvania Germans, the Amish, etc. is specific to
> their respective traditions. I still think they all belong in the
> broader category of folk art though. It is work that is specific to
> their traditions or folk. In Germany there is a category of wearing
> apparel that is called Tracht Mode. Loosely defined, that is Folk Style
> Fashions. It is fine quality and workmanship, NOT primitive by any
> stretch of the imagination. I still think the 'rough' look is primitive
> and the finer stuff of a specific culture is folk art. We can agree to
> not agree on this and still be posting buddies, right?
> Have a pieceful day! PAT in VA/USA
Of course!
It's a discussion after all, and not a competition as to who should be
feeding whom to Polly's gators!
:)
-georg
Butterfly
keep having the misfortune of finding : (
I keep hoping that I can 'weed them out' by feeding Miz Polly's gators..then
we will only have the competent ones left.
Butterfly
"georg" <theg...@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:sRnnd.548$AL5...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Pati Cook
give some opinions.
Primitive is more childlike and "rough" looking, think Grandma Moses
style.
Folk is more regionalized, like Penn. Dutch hex signs or Southwest
Indian.
Traditional is a little more formal. Best example I can think of is
Baltimore Album, or things that have been around for a while and are
more "universal".
All can be very well done, or pieces of "crap". Skill and price
are not involved in the definitions. Much of "traditional" probably
started as "folk" but spread and was more formalized into a
"tradition". Much "folk" is the traditional style of the area or time
in which it started. And there is much blurring of the lines, especially
between folk and primitive. Most of the penny rugs and the wool
applique is folk, some is primitive.
Not sure this helps any, but I do think that we need to understand
that the quality of the work is not the defining thing, but the style is.
Pati, in Phx.
Emilia wrote:
>Hi.
>
>I'm looking for applique designs (not for quilting actually but for a
>ceramic piece), a sunflower to be exact. But I'm having a hard time finding
>something close to the one in my head.
>
>My question really is to help me with my search.
>
>Can someone please explain the differences between the following styles?
>For me they are the same... I'm sure I'm probably very wrong which is why I
>can't find what I want.
>
>Primitive
>Traditional
>Folk
>
>Thanks.
>
>Emilia
>
>
georg
> Not sure this helps any, but I do think that we need to
> understand that the quality of the work is not the defining thing, but
> the style is.
> Pati, in Phx.
That's very true, and I agree. Some primitive pieces have some very fine
stitching indeed, but the materials used and style are what make it
primitive.
-georg