Visual argument in intercultural contexts: perspectives on folk/traditional art.

• Author: Roberts, Kathleen Glenister
• Position: Essay

In a germinal 1996 issue of Argumentation and Advocacy, communication scholars established that images can argue. Among the theoretical foundations put in place was the following:

So far, we have suggested three prerequisites for a satisfactory account of visual argument: we must accept the possibility of visual meaning, we must make more of an effort to consider images in context, and we must recognize the argumentative aspects of representation and resemblance. (Birdsell & Groarke, 1996, p. 8)

The 1996 debate on visual argument in Argumentation and Advocacy also generated multiple opportunities to consider visual argument in diverse fields of communication. The present essay brings together these initiatives, considering how visual argument fits within intercultural issues and also meditating on the specific qualities of visual argument as proposed by Birdsell and Groarke (1996). Their attention to context, in particular, informs the present essay. Context and identity issues may be addressed by any kind of visual or art form but are especially central to folk/traditional art. Within anthropology, folkloristics, and material culture, folk and traditional arts have been theorized deeply over the past 20 years. Contextual, communicative, and identity issues are particularly well defined. This essay examines folk art as a unique framework for visual argument, especially in intercultural contexts.

Ten years ago, Birdsell and Groarke (1996) and Blair (1996) effectively contested Fleming's (1996) misgivings about visual argument. Folk art theory and practice may further solidify visual argument's status. To this end, a secondary goal of this essay is to address Fleming's (1996) objections to visual argument. Folk art's lessons for intercultural communication also are explored.

My analysis proceeds in three stages. First, I explain what is meant by folk art and briefly review theories that inform current scholarship. These theories of folk art also are placed in dialogue with perspectives on visual argument. Once the relationship between folk art and visual argument is clear, a case study of Blackfeet beadwork from 1895 to 1935 is undertaken.

Finally, some concluding questions and possible implications of folk art and visual argument are offered.

ART, COMMUNICATION, AND VISUAL ARGUMENT: THE RESPONSE OF FOLK ART

The title of this essay conflates folk and traditional arts because the term folk art may be misconstrued. By folk art I do not mean the American style of painting popularized by Grandma Moses. Nor do I mean so-called "outsider art" or the art of "peasants." By folk/traditional art I do mean the particular genre of human creativity that emphasizes artistic process, cultural tradition, and limited individualism. This definition derives from a body of literature in the disciplines of folklore, anthropology, and material culture. Like folklorists, folk/traditional arts scholars take as their unit of analysis the performative creativity that occurs on vernacular levels. Folk/traditional art often is the art of "everyday" and, although folk art's creation requires particularly gifted and talented individuals, it often is also the art of "everyone."

What does it mean to say that folk/traditional art emphasizes "artistic process, cultural tradition, and limited individualism"? Creativity's role in folk art is unique because it must engage certain limits of the art form. Theories of folk art explain the dialectic between creativity and limits within process, tradition, and community. I will consider each of these elements in turn.

The first element of folk art theory concerns process. A folk art object is easily identifiable because it belongs to a genre, and generic categories for folk art (beadwork, sweet grass basket, etc.) are established through processes of creation. Beadwork ceases to be "beadwork" if one uses a glue gun instead of needle and thread. A sweet grass basket will fail to be a basket if the would-be artist has not learned how to make the bottom first. The object ceases to be "folk" if an individual artist radically changes the process or form of the art.

This idea of process has other implications as well. Although it is not my purpose to contrast folk art with fine art per se, very often the artist's approach to process will place the artifact at some point on the artistic spectrum between "folk" and "fine." To study folk art, one prominent scholar says, one should "begin not with artifacts that are precious because we covet them but with a human being in the instant of creation" (Glassie, 1986, p. 269). Folk art is so named because of the value placed on human creation. The process should require skill, so that appreciating a folk art piece is to appreciate the artist as well as the art.

The idea of process also implies that the means of achieving the art form, and the means of passing on this knowledge, is more important than the artifact (Toelken, 2003, p. 202). In this sense, folk art eschews cultural preservation, recognizing instead that culture is always performed and always lived. Folk art emphasizes two processes: how folk art objects should be engaged by everyday life, and how their methods of creation should be taught and learned. This doesn't mean that some folk art isn't worthy of hanging on a museum wall, or that everyone can learn equally well how to make a beautiful folk art piece. But it does mean that folk arts are representations of long artistic traditions still very much alive in certain communities. As Glassie (1986) notes: "Art, like etiquette or language, must first be apprehended in terms of its own tradition" (pp. 272-273).

Indeed, tradition is folk art theory's second significant element. Tradition can be said to be a part of process because folk artists by definition value hand crafting over mass production. Traditional expectations regarding form also define folk art. Tradition refers to conventions shared within a community. But, mostly, it means a sense of precedent. Folk art process and form can change somewhat: Creativity can bring new characteristics, until the art's boundaries have been eradicated. No longer the traditional folk art form from which it emerged, at this point it becomes a new genre.

This sense of tradition as convention helps connect folk art to visual argument, in which "there is no grammar, just signs and symbols: conventionalized images" (Blair, 1996, p. 25). For folk art to communicate and argue, it must remain confined within its traditional boundaries. Otherwise it is no longer conventional and, therefore, also no longer folk art. Because folk art does have boundaries and conventions, however, folk art and fine art have different relationships to visual argument. Blair (1996) doubted the argumentative potential of some images: A painter, for instance, cannot be certain that his audience will "get" the message in his visual argument (p. 28). Fleming (1996) posed this problem in even stronger form, as I will discuss momentarily. Folk art's third element--community--however, ameliorates their concerns.

Community is an apt synonym for culture, but both are imperfect terms. Community and culture are, obviously, equally significant for folk art and fine...