In the end, there were corridos and frybread (Awndrea Caves)

Camp and Lloyd outline some critical issues with presenting folklife festivals in their article “Six Reasons Not to Produce Folklife Festivals.”  In particular, these authors take to task the educational intent of folklife festivals, claiming that, in the end, people are not educated enough or, most importantly, in the right ways at such events:  

This is not to deny any validity to the educational claims of those involved in such a campaign, but is rather to point out, again, that folklife festivals, despite their claims to the contrary, are generally perceived as events of "communal"entertainment and social intercourse, rather than as events of lasting educational value (Camp and Lloyd 8).

What comes out of communal entertainment and social discourse, if not some form of learning?  This article never defines what the authors mean by “educational.”   I would agree that many people go to folk festivals to entertain themselves and fulfill their gastronomic desires.  I myself had such a moment of bliss this weekend when I tried frybread for the first time.  But, I feel Camp and Lloyd are using an outdated and overly formal understanding of the word “education” while simultaneously devaluing the “communal” experiences of a folklife festival.  Why is the social discourse which happens at such festivals not of “lasting educational value?”  Just because something is perceived as “entertainment” does not mean the audience learns little to nothing from the experience.  Nor does it mean that this new knowledge, whether it be of the History of the Buffalo Soldiers or the performance of a traditional Japanese drums troupe, will fall so easily out of the heads of every single visitor.  Camp and Lloyd display a simplistic understanding of audiences of folk festivals as well as a simplistic understanding of learning and education. 

Without directly saying such, Camp and Lloyd imply that presentations at folk festivals are not “authentic” enough, partially because the audience will not understand that such arts and performances are taken out of their “authentic” contexts.  Basket weavers are taken out of their regular daily context and food is consumed without connection to the stories of why it is important.  Maybe I am being overly sarcastic, but that seems pretty obvious to me.  Though some people believe general audiences are that slow on the uptake, I doubt the general festival goer above the age of ten believes that how a food or activity is presented at the festival is exactly how it is performed in daily life.  An unfortunately loud few may labor under this misapprehension, but I feel Camp and Lloyd underestimate festival attendees with an elitist educational air to their discussion.  I feel they also misunderstand and underestimate the purposes the individual presenters have in showing their cultural heritage to others through the festival format.  I believe Camp and Lloyd are correct about how a particular festival format has developed.  Some new creativity in format and structure could be positive; this does not mean that nothing is gained by the contemporary structure.

The social discourse is what is important to me.  Our culture does not treat everyone equally and 

perhaps seeing a traditional art performed by a particular ethnic group offers a safe opportunity 

for interaction that individuals may not otherwise have in their daily lives.  The opportunity of 

interaction, a fairly safe opportunity at that, seems paramount to me.  Through watching the first

half of the Corrido Contest, I learned a lot about the history of the corridos.  This was

information that I could possibly have found in a book if I were so inclined, but here I had the

opportunity to hear original corridos sung, including one about a horse who really did win his

race.  What I mean by safe is that political barriers to interaction amongst groups are put aside.  

The interaction is, unfortunately, one sided for the most part.  But it is cultural interaction that

could influence the world perceptions of the festival presenters as well as those of the festival

goers.  Before listening to some of the history about the corridos, I had no idea that political and

national events of consequence were incorporated into the songs.  This new knowledge

further pointed out the interactions practitioners of folk arts have with the world around them,

whether or not that world accepts them as equal.  While I knew, of course,  that ethnic groups interact 

with the culture of their national society as a whole, I had not quite thought of it in this:  of how the 

very songs that people write and sing reflect a wider context than just one's own life.  It amuses me 

that I would be surprised.  Bob Dylan, Woody Guthrie, Joan Baez, and a hundred others responded to

movements of the time.  Why not the historical and contemporary writers of the corridos? :)  I feel 

happy in this new knowledge, as though one of the proverbial scales has fallen from my eye.  Could I 

have gained this knowledge from a book?  Sure, but I could not have heard the timbre of the singer's

voice or heard the response of the audience.  My reception and subsequent understanding of this 

cultural practice, corridos, is richer and less likely to leave me than information I received in a more

formally "educational" context.

A little note on Cantwell: 

I like the idea that “culture is essentially imaginative” (Cantwell 4).  I feel Cantwell counteracts Camp and Lloyd well, despite the fact that I hate his overly flowery writing style.  In Chapter 5, when he becomes obsessed with the white Panama hat, my attention refuses to focus.