Heritage, Volume 8, Number 3, Summer 1990 Page: 17
30 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.View a full description of this periodical.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Properties-later subsumed under the Agency for Cultural Affairs.
It was built to include a large kabuki theater and a small theater
for bunraku, Japanese music and dance and folk theater arts. In
1977, a third theater was created to be used by popular
entertainers-storytellers, jugglers, comedians, mime artists, and
minstrels. The National Theater also houses the Laboratory for
Research on Traditional Entertainments, as well as the Actors and
Musicians Training Section. Two other national facilities have
opened in this decade: the Bunraku Theater in Osaka (1983) and
the National No Theater in Tokyo (1981). Audiences have grown
for the traditional theater arts, and in the case of bunraku, the
audience is comprised of a large number of young Japanese.13
The Japanese government's decision to combine cultural
preservation and arts promotion into a single agency has resulted
in the creation of a complex organization with a myriad of goals.
Funding for the agency has increased dramatically in the past two
decades. Preservation programs have generally consumed about
two-thirds of the agency's budget. While the traditional arts are not
the only forms protected and encouraged, they are of special
concern. In fact, it has been charged that the cultural agency has
been considerably more successful at preserving and providing
access to the arts than supporting artistic innovation.14
Nevertheless, the public seems strongly in favor of support for the
traditional arts. I'n a public opinion poll of young people conducted
by the Asian Cultural Centre in the early 1970s, 73 percent
surveyed believed that work for preservation of traditional forms of
culture should be furthered more actively.15
While parallels can be found between the early development of
preservation legislation in the United States and Japan and in the
buildup of arts funding in the 1960s, the United States is several
decades behind Japan in governmental programs for the
preservation of traditional culture.16 The call for the incorporation
of concern for intangible traditional culture into cultural resource
management in the 1983 Cultural Conservation report was a radical
idea for some preservationists in the United States, though it had
long been part of Japan's preservation policies.
One of the questions that the 1983 American Folklife Center
report raises is whether or not intangible cultural resources can be
protected with the same mechanisms that we use to preserve
material items. Should we have, for instance, a register of
intangible cultural resources similar to the National Register of
Historic Places, a program which might work in a way similar to
Japan's designation of "important intangible cultural properties"
and their "Holders"? The Cultural Conservation report came out
against such a listing, arguing that the "dynamism of living cultural
forms effectively limits the usefulness of strategies which depend
on listing, honorific or otherwise."'7 Rather, the report recommends
broader programs of documentation.
Not all folklorists would take the same stand against a register
system. In 1986, California became the first state to address folklife
resources, tangible and intangible, in its state register program.
According to a report from the California State Historical
Resources Commission, "both folk cultural events (a Portuguese
Holy Ghost Festa, Chinese New Year's Parade, a particularly fine
and local 4th of July celebration) as well as cultural 'living treasures'
(a Pomo basket weaver, Serbian tamburitza master) which meetspecific and rigorous criteria, may now be nominated to the State's
Register of Historical Resources."'8 The American Folklife Center,
itself, in its 1986 report on folklife and land use in New Jersey's
Pinelands National Reserve, recommended a "folklife designation
process" in which "municipalities devise a register of designatedfolklife sites, districts, buildings, skills, events, people, routes,
artifacts, and other facets related to traditional lifeways that
planners and educators should be aware of."'9
On the national level, the closest thing to a register (though
not designed for that purpose), is the National Heritage Fellowship
Awards granted by the National Endowment for the Arts/Folk
Arts Program. Every year since 1982, twelve to seventeen folk and
traditional artists have been honored. Some state folk arts programs
have similar designations. For instance, the North Carolina
Arts Council offers a master folk artist award. In the mid-1980s,
prior to establishing an annual award recognizing folk artists aind
folk cultural advocates, the Board of Directors of the Bureau of
Florida Folklife Programs examined the legislation that established
the Japanese "Living National Treasures" program.20
The National Heritage Fellowship differs in a number of ways
from Japan's Living National Treasures Program. The Heritage
Fellowship is a one-time award accompanied by a modest cash
grant, not a lifetime designation.2' There is no comparable designation
of the traditions themselves in the National Endowment for
the Arts program, as there is in the Japanese recognition of
intangible cultural properties. While the Japanese system strictly
limits the type of traditional artists recognized (since the art form
must first be registered as an important intangible cultural
property), it does give primary recognition to the tradition rather
than the individual, an arrangement that might be favored by some
American folklorists concerned with the ironies of creating a star
system within folk tradition. Finally, while the Japanese
registration of important intangible cultural properties does give
recognition to significant local traditions, there is still a sense in
this preservation policy of affirming a unified national heritage. On
the other hand, the National Heritage Fellowship is very much
concerned with recognizing the diversity of traditions within the
United States. Every year the list of honorees is a judicious
selection of representatives of Anglo-American, AfricanAmerican
and Native-American traditions, as well as the traditions
of a variety of other cultural groups, including the most recent
immigrants from southeast Asia. The 1987 list of recipients
included a split ash basketmaker, a Hispanic-American tinsmith,
a blues pianist, and the first Japanese-American recipient, a kabuki
dancer from Los Angeles. The choice of Kansuma Fuj ima, a woman
kabuki dancer, shows the recognition of change within tradition by
American folklorists. In Japan, women traditionally do not
perform in the kabuki theater.
While folklorists in the United States may disagree on the
effectiveness of a register or honorific awards to folk artists, other
types of public sector activities bear similarity. to the Japanese
cultural conservation programs. The training of young artists has
been a concern in both countries. The National Endowment for
the Arts/Folk Arts Program offers grants to individuals to study
with master artists or artisans as well as grants to states to set up
apprenticeship programs. Perhaps the greatest emphasis of public
sector folklore programs in the United States has been the public
presentation of folk arts. Festivals, the most common form of
presentation, take place at the local, state, regional and national
levels. The Smithsonian's Festival of American Folklife has set the
standard for folklife (as opposed to folk revival) festivals. Alongwith featuring the traditions of a state, occupations, and NativeAmerican
or ethnic group, the Smithsonian festival often features
the traditions of another country.
At the 1986 Smithsonian Festival of American Folklife,
American folk artists were given an opportunity to meet
HERITAGE * SUMMER 1990 17
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
Texas Historical Foundation. Heritage, Volume 8, Number 3, Summer 1990, periodical, Summer 1990; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth45427/m1/17/: accessed April 23, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Texas Historical Foundation.