Aloha,
On 1/16/2006 at 10:00 PM Sabina Magliocco wrote:
>Lomax, who was a purist and considered revivals and
>revitalizations to be "fakelore," would have been horrified had he known
[about the Neo-Pagan use of his material].
And here we have it!
A notion like *fakelore* implies a critical apparatus of some sort that
(some) academics and scholars use to determine authenticity and
legitimacy--
for example, Padstow May Day is *folk-lore,* Berkeley May Day is
*fake-lore.*
Sabina mentioned the Berkeley May Day re-construction based in part on an
ethnographic film being seen by one of the film's creators as *fakelore.*
The
question that immediately popped into my mind was what if some Broadway
producer did a show *Oss, Oss, Wee Oss--The Musical* based on the same
film.
Would that musical also be considered *fakelore*? For the same reasons?
Would a new versions of one or more of the May Day songs and dances?
Jacqueline lists some characteristics of Murray and her work, among them
a generally non-historical or a-historical approach. Non-academics may
make a-historical use of academic resources--for instance, developing
pastiches of folk customs from different periods and regions side-by-side.
Is the academic critical judgement of both uses equivalent? Or does some
extra critical notion inform judgements of non-academic uses?
I'm asking list members to contribute various attributes of this critical
apparatus that includes notions like *fakelore* and similar ones from other
disciplines and specialties.
>We don't, however, get to decide how our work is used once we put it out
>there.
I agree. Just to be clear, in my earlier post, I wasn't asking about
authorial
or specialist control of academic resources. I was asking about how and
with
what critical concepts academics might evaluate non-academic uses of those
resources.
Musing OMG! They Encultured Me When I Wasn't Looking Or Listening! Rose,
Pitch
<<My sources are unreliable, but their information is fascinating.>>
--Ashleigh Brilliant: Brilliant Thoughts
|