Rahvaesteetika – nähtavaks kujustatud mõte ja kogemus
The article raises a question as to how to implement the imagination of a researcher in the study of tangible cultural heritage, using the example of Kristjan Raud and Ants Laikmaa, artists who worked at the beginning of the 20th century, and their art theory related and pedagogical standpoints. The...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | Estonian |
| Published: |
Eesti Kirjandusmuuseum
2010-04-01
|
| Series: | Mäetagused |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.folklore.ee/tagused/nr44/summatavet.pdf |
| _version_ | 1811314980269588480 |
|---|---|
| author | Kärt Summatavet |
| author_facet | Kärt Summatavet |
| author_sort | Kärt Summatavet |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The article raises a question as to how to implement the imagination of a researcher in the study of tangible cultural heritage, using the example of Kristjan Raud and Ants Laikmaa, artists who worked at the beginning of the 20th century, and their art theory related and pedagogical standpoints. The observation focuses on how the texts, written by these artists a hundred years ago, attempt to understand folk aesthetics, folk art practice, oral and tangible folklore, and identify these with the experience of creative process of professional art. The article highlights the viewpoints and opinions which affected the creative work of K. Raud, and were used by the artist to learn and study the mindset of the authors of tangible heritage. A closer look is taken at the specific problems encountered by the artist upon the interpretation of cultural heritage.Folk aesthetics comprises individual fantasy and creativity, expressed by way of oral and visual poetry, which is based on the creative process taking place as an outcome of the synthesis of the hierarchical stratifications of shared experience within the surrounding environment and the community. When attempting to treat folk aesthetics in the light of the professional knowledge and skills of an artist, we can investigate the creative process launched by individual fantasy and creativity, expressed by way of oral and visual poetry; as an outcome of such creative process, new ideas and artefacts with idiosyncratic details may be generated within the traditional community, upon the individual interpretation of shared knowledge and experience.An artist, when looking for reciprocal relations between heritage technologies, oral folklore and human creative fantasy, would not come across an artefact but instead, the mindset of the author thereof, and the nuances concerning the process of making the artefact. The hardest task of a creative professional is to learn to see the worldview and the empirical experience of the creator of the artefact, individual fantasies expressed by way of the process of creation, and collectively shared ethical and aesthetical values.Indeed, from an artist’s and practitioner’s viewpoint, this remains to be one of the most problematic aspects in the study of contemporary creative work, as it is extremely difficult to research experiential knowledge and tacit knowledge of tradition bearers.The study of the variability of the relationships, regarding individual creative experience and Estonian tangible heritage, reveals an opportunity to understand the relevance of empirical fieldwork and experiential knowledge of an art professional, byway of the written works and opinions expressed by Kristjan Raud, a thinker and awakener at the beginning of the 20th century, in noticing and interpreting these relationships.Kristjan Raud, in his process of creating tangible works of art for Kalevipoeg was convinced, relying on his personal experience, that the creative pursuit of artists, in getting to the core of the people’s mental world, is a long-term process which demandsdelving into the matter. In addition to the practical value of the artefacts, the artist paid a lot of attention to the understanding of the mental experience of the relevant creators, and to the description of the creative process. He associated folk aestheticswith the professional creative process, and compared the opinions and observations, generated on the basis of folk art, with his education in fine arts, obtained in different places of the world, his personal convictions and creative experience. His method of fieldwork, elevated interest towards the creative work with regard to folk aesthetics, and also his experience obtained by way of living in the traditional environment helped him in discerning connections between folk aesthetics and professional art practice, which, in turn, enabled him to analyse, from an artist’s standpoint, the processeslaunching human fantasy and creativity. As an initiator of the artefact collection in the Estonian National Museum, and an art teacher, he founded a base for an effective study method the aim of which was to gather creative inspiration within a fieldwork situation, and to find relevant subject matters from within folk aesthetics in order to rely on these in professional art creation.Thus, relying on K. Raud’s written works and artistic pursuits, it is possible to state that similarly to a professional artist and his/her individual creative process, the tools for the author of folk art also comprise his or her body and personal space – feelings, reminiscence, experience, emotions, generated by the external environment by way of different senses (olfaction, hearing, tactile perception, vision, etc.) and the idiosyncratic norms and experiential examples intrinsic of a culture. Relying on my fieldwork experience, I can state that the feelings and experience, which are difficult to be put into words, are transferred within a community by way of certain commonly accepted non-verbal creative practices and means of expression, which are significantly more easily noticeable and understandable for a researcher with a professional art education background as non-verbal self-expression and the transmission of tacitknowledge with artistic devices is one of the most important tools for a creative art practitioner.Thus, the study method devised by Kristjan Raud and Ants Laikmaa provides several new opportunities for learning the living tradition in fieldwork situation, and, upon the interpretation of folk aesthetics, the method helps to re-appreciate and render value to the messages expressed by way of related heritage technologies, oral heritage, human creative fantasy, and the creative process. Rather than only assuming effective details from folk aesthetics, stylise them and combine them with the different elements of cultural heritage and contemporary art practice, it would be expedient todelve into the matter and work at the idea level of folk aesthetics, with the base texts of oral and tangible folklore. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-13T11:22:11Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-6b4c66f016cd408289e13dce9f846b5e |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1406-992X 1406-9938 |
| language | Estonian |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-13T11:22:11Z |
| publishDate | 2010-04-01 |
| publisher | Eesti Kirjandusmuuseum |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Mäetagused |
| spelling | doaj.art-6b4c66f016cd408289e13dce9f846b5e2022-12-22T02:48:47ZestEesti KirjandusmuuseumMäetagused1406-992X1406-99382010-04-0144728Rahvaesteetika – nähtavaks kujustatud mõte ja kogemusKärt SummatavetThe article raises a question as to how to implement the imagination of a researcher in the study of tangible cultural heritage, using the example of Kristjan Raud and Ants Laikmaa, artists who worked at the beginning of the 20th century, and their art theory related and pedagogical standpoints. The observation focuses on how the texts, written by these artists a hundred years ago, attempt to understand folk aesthetics, folk art practice, oral and tangible folklore, and identify these with the experience of creative process of professional art. The article highlights the viewpoints and opinions which affected the creative work of K. Raud, and were used by the artist to learn and study the mindset of the authors of tangible heritage. A closer look is taken at the specific problems encountered by the artist upon the interpretation of cultural heritage.Folk aesthetics comprises individual fantasy and creativity, expressed by way of oral and visual poetry, which is based on the creative process taking place as an outcome of the synthesis of the hierarchical stratifications of shared experience within the surrounding environment and the community. When attempting to treat folk aesthetics in the light of the professional knowledge and skills of an artist, we can investigate the creative process launched by individual fantasy and creativity, expressed by way of oral and visual poetry; as an outcome of such creative process, new ideas and artefacts with idiosyncratic details may be generated within the traditional community, upon the individual interpretation of shared knowledge and experience.An artist, when looking for reciprocal relations between heritage technologies, oral folklore and human creative fantasy, would not come across an artefact but instead, the mindset of the author thereof, and the nuances concerning the process of making the artefact. The hardest task of a creative professional is to learn to see the worldview and the empirical experience of the creator of the artefact, individual fantasies expressed by way of the process of creation, and collectively shared ethical and aesthetical values.Indeed, from an artist’s and practitioner’s viewpoint, this remains to be one of the most problematic aspects in the study of contemporary creative work, as it is extremely difficult to research experiential knowledge and tacit knowledge of tradition bearers.The study of the variability of the relationships, regarding individual creative experience and Estonian tangible heritage, reveals an opportunity to understand the relevance of empirical fieldwork and experiential knowledge of an art professional, byway of the written works and opinions expressed by Kristjan Raud, a thinker and awakener at the beginning of the 20th century, in noticing and interpreting these relationships.Kristjan Raud, in his process of creating tangible works of art for Kalevipoeg was convinced, relying on his personal experience, that the creative pursuit of artists, in getting to the core of the people’s mental world, is a long-term process which demandsdelving into the matter. In addition to the practical value of the artefacts, the artist paid a lot of attention to the understanding of the mental experience of the relevant creators, and to the description of the creative process. He associated folk aestheticswith the professional creative process, and compared the opinions and observations, generated on the basis of folk art, with his education in fine arts, obtained in different places of the world, his personal convictions and creative experience. His method of fieldwork, elevated interest towards the creative work with regard to folk aesthetics, and also his experience obtained by way of living in the traditional environment helped him in discerning connections between folk aesthetics and professional art practice, which, in turn, enabled him to analyse, from an artist’s standpoint, the processeslaunching human fantasy and creativity. As an initiator of the artefact collection in the Estonian National Museum, and an art teacher, he founded a base for an effective study method the aim of which was to gather creative inspiration within a fieldwork situation, and to find relevant subject matters from within folk aesthetics in order to rely on these in professional art creation.Thus, relying on K. Raud’s written works and artistic pursuits, it is possible to state that similarly to a professional artist and his/her individual creative process, the tools for the author of folk art also comprise his or her body and personal space – feelings, reminiscence, experience, emotions, generated by the external environment by way of different senses (olfaction, hearing, tactile perception, vision, etc.) and the idiosyncratic norms and experiential examples intrinsic of a culture. Relying on my fieldwork experience, I can state that the feelings and experience, which are difficult to be put into words, are transferred within a community by way of certain commonly accepted non-verbal creative practices and means of expression, which are significantly more easily noticeable and understandable for a researcher with a professional art education background as non-verbal self-expression and the transmission of tacitknowledge with artistic devices is one of the most important tools for a creative art practitioner.Thus, the study method devised by Kristjan Raud and Ants Laikmaa provides several new opportunities for learning the living tradition in fieldwork situation, and, upon the interpretation of folk aesthetics, the method helps to re-appreciate and render value to the messages expressed by way of related heritage technologies, oral heritage, human creative fantasy, and the creative process. Rather than only assuming effective details from folk aesthetics, stylise them and combine them with the different elements of cultural heritage and contemporary art practice, it would be expedient todelve into the matter and work at the idea level of folk aesthetics, with the base texts of oral and tangible folklore.http://www.folklore.ee/tagused/nr44/summatavet.pdfAnts LaikmaaEstonian National Museumfolk aestheticsfolkloreKristjan Raud |
| spellingShingle | Kärt Summatavet Rahvaesteetika – nähtavaks kujustatud mõte ja kogemus Mäetagused Ants Laikmaa Estonian National Museum folk aesthetics folklore Kristjan Raud |
| title | Rahvaesteetika – nähtavaks kujustatud mõte ja kogemus |
| title_full | Rahvaesteetika – nähtavaks kujustatud mõte ja kogemus |
| title_fullStr | Rahvaesteetika – nähtavaks kujustatud mõte ja kogemus |
| title_full_unstemmed | Rahvaesteetika – nähtavaks kujustatud mõte ja kogemus |
| title_short | Rahvaesteetika – nähtavaks kujustatud mõte ja kogemus |
| title_sort | rahvaesteetika nahtavaks kujustatud mote ja kogemus |
| topic | Ants Laikmaa Estonian National Museum folk aesthetics folklore Kristjan Raud |
| url | http://www.folklore.ee/tagused/nr44/summatavet.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT kartsummatavet rahvaesteetikanahtavakskujustatudmotejakogemus |