Cantwell’s book and Charles Camp and Timothy Lloyd’s article both ask folklorist to critically reexamine the way folklife is presented, whether in museums or folklife festivals. However, I have a few issues with Camp and Lloyd’s “Six Reasons Not to Produce Folklife Festivals.” While I understand the authors’ argument that “folklife festivals become self- contradictory in that they attempt to present an educational event in a form which has never been viewed by its audience as educational,” I take issue with their narrow definition of the educational experience (Camp and Lloyd, 7). Again, I will reference a discussion conducted in my historiography class over the educational/historical value of “physical” reenactments for participants and their audiences. The debates were largely carried out in the texts we read for the course, which included R. G. Collingwood, Joan Scott, and Jerome de Groot. Collingwood would have seen little educational value in “physical” reenactments as an exercise in history as he considered the only appropriate reenactments to be those that reenacted thoughts that informed historical action (Collingwood saw all history as the history of thought). This view of how to practice history (whether you agree with him methodologically or not) relegates the role of historical understand to professional historians and neglect the role of amateurism. In my mind, this issue related to the Camp and Lloyd’s criticism that the folklife festival often makes claims to an educational experience in and entertainment format. To some extent this is a valid criticism, as both reenactments (usually of war) and festivals can present a misleading view of historical events (as an objective truth) or folklife, respectively. I think it is important to take these issues with folklife festivals into consideration when producing one, but we have to be careful that as scholars we don’t alienate a public that does learn from folklife festivals. It is true that folklife festivals, perhaps treated like a fair or entertainment, could mislead individuals in their understanding of what folklife is but produced carefully I see no problem with public education being seen as fun. As for reenactments, the audiences and participants are often people with varying degrees of appreciation and understanding of history, who don’t want a Ph.D. in history, but are willing to engage in a learning experience, however misleading it may be.
Folklife festivals are no different. This past weekend, Tucson Meet Yourself exemplified a folklife festival done exceptionally well. TMY addressed my of the concerns of Camp and Lloyd in its very conception. This festival was conceived as a fun educational experience about Tucson folklife. In what I imagine was an attempt to reduce the “otherness” folklife festivals display for audiences according to Camp and Lloyd, TMY allowed individuals to explore part of a culture of which they are a part. You would have to work extremely hard not to have an educational experience in such a festival. Perhaps you tried a new food that represented and ethnic community that you had not previously acknowledged as contributing to Tucson life. Regardless of the fact that food venders resemble the food venders at fairs, a supposedly non-educational forum, you have still learned more about folklife. The issues that Camp and Lloyd raise are to be taken into consideration, but until they provide an alternative form of public folklife education or specific program for the folklife festival they are promoting a view of the public educational experience that is esoteric. I am not disagreeing with Cantwell's attempt to understand the folklife festival experience itself and his book is an important contribution to understanding knowledge reproduction and presentation. I just take issue with the way Camp and Lloyd presented their criticisms of folklife festivals.
No comments:
Post a Comment