INTRODUCTION
In 'Who owns Folklore?' (Simply Australia Issue 9), Graham Seal raises some important and challenging issues. He asks the question: "Is it possible - and desirable - to establish a basis for valorising, conserving and developing Australian folklore of place in the same way that environmental, built and moveable heritages are valued, conserved and developed for the national benefit?"
My familiarity with heritage suggests that it would be possible. Whether it would be desirable is another question. To answer that question, Seal and/or others would need to determine
- a) whether the work necessary to achieve his goal is warranted and
- b) the extent to which the status quo can be altered without causing harm.
History is littered with actions that were meant to fix one problem but caused another. The introduction of cane toads and camels comes to mind, as does public liability insurance and its impact on recreational activities. Attempts to derive income from cultural resources can also create problems. So, with a view to assisting Seal and others to assess his concept in terms of its feasibility, desirability and possible outcomes, this article looks at issues associated with the use of stories and images. It does not pretend to offer answers. It merely puts forward a personal opinion formed during several decades of involvement with history and heritage. The comments that follow will give others insight into my perspective.
Seal's reference to folklore of place caught my attention because I am interested in:
- How folklore informs research, writing and political agenda;
- How the transmission of folklore changes its content; and,
- How the lines between folklore, history and oral history blur as people discuss and interpret the past.
My interest in folklore relates to my interest in the history of Australia's North-West. I spend a lot of time, both as a consultant and as the honorary coordinator of the Kimberley Historical Sources Project, collecting and analysing data relevant to the North-West. In 1986, I established the Project as an extension of my honours and post-graduate work at Murdoch University. Since then, without any outside funding, it has brought together a vast amount of local studies material. I draw on that material to contribute information to publications and to cultural heritage documentation and signage.
In all of my work I try to gain the best possible understanding of past events by blending together snippets of folklore, oral history and historical data. Before any writing is done, a lot of analysis takes place to ensure that the folklore snippets enrich and inform, rather than distort, the material into which they find their way. Other historians do similar work but few are likely to look for folklore with the intention of trying to verify it or sift germs of truth from it.
Given the above, this response to Seal's discussion paper should be seen to come from someone who has a vested but largely non-commercial interest in a small segment of folklore. None of my comments should be seen to relate to such things as craft, costume, fairs or live performance. Those things can certainly be linked to folklore of place but their management calls for an approach that differs from that relevant to stories and images. My objective in writing this response is simply to show that the imposition of fees for the use of a cultural resource can have a negative as well as a positive impact.
|
