OCR Text |
Show Such an interpretation of folk architecture, while convenient, remains problematic, for it is necessarily built on stereotypes of both folk culture and Mormon society and deals only marginally with the buildings themselves. Houses become what they should be, rather than what they actually are. If the study of folk housing is to be used effectively to tell us something about nineteenth-century Utah and thus transcend a nostalgic antiquarianism, thorough description must replace broad generalization. This collection of articles on Utah folk art can provide a forum in which to begin a new and systematic study of Utah folk housing. While this essay cannot be exhaustive and is itself a generalization, it can highlight several of the key aesthetic principles operative within the folk building tradition. Questioning the design assumptions which account for the house's appearance can illuminate meaningful clues in the architectural and historical puzzle. Folk, Architecture, and Art Folk objects have consistently been denied aesthetic merit. In a 1952 study of Utah architecture, David Winburn voiced a widely held opinion that the early Mormon homes were "in most cases so simple and unostentatious that it may be, in speaking of most of them, 'architecture' is too dignified a term to employ, since the term implies a conscious attempt toward artistic expression."4 The recognition of a particular folk aesthetic is impeded by the feeling-deeply rooted in our western consciousness-that art is isolated in the progressive and elite segments of society. We are unaccustomed to the idea that the university-trained architect and the folk builder grapple with similar design problems. Their solutions may be different-one striving for innovation, the other inherently conservative-but both are united by the common desire to produce an attractive finished product. No builder consciously rejects the right to artistic expression. All artifacts-and this includes pioneer dwellings-are shaped with an eye for the aesthetic.5 If folk buildings today appear starkly utilitarian, they are nevertheless discourteously relegated to a rigid craft category. Eulogies to good craftsmanship, however well intended, inherently circle back to exaltation of the pragmatic at the expense of the artistic. In such a scheme, craftsmen become insensitive machines that blindly crank out useful objects with no thought to outward appearance. In one study of a Mormon village, Cindy Rice points to this seeming incompatibility between folk and style: "The Mormon style house, with its austere lines, symmetry, and primarily brick or rock construction imparts a feeling of permanence and purpose but not frivolity."6 38 |