Ðóñ Eng Cn Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

Culture and Art
Reference:

The intangible heritage of folk art crafts

Semeritskaya Ol'ga Vladimirovna

ORCID: 0009-0003-8831-6826

Researcher of the Museum-Estate of Ostankino and Kuskovo

140127, Russia, Moscow region, village 10A Srednyaya str., Starkovo

semerinka@mail.ru

DOI:

10.7256/2454-0625.2024.3.70042

EDN:

UQMIFC

Received:

04-03-2024


Published:

04-04-2024


Abstract: The object of the study is the intangible heritage of Russian folk arts and crafts as a phenomenon of traditional culture. Special attention is paid to the object content of the intangible heritage of crafts, as well as the forms of their preservation and actualization. The research originates from the definition of the concept of the intangible heritage of folk arts and crafts. The concept of the bearer of the intangible heritage of crafts is formulated. The definition of the morphology of the intangible heritage of crafts is based on the analysis of the intangible part of the artistic, industrial, ethnocultural and religious heritage of crafts. An important part of the study is the analysis of modern practices for the preservation and actualization of the intangible heritage of crafts in order to develop optimal forms and methods. The importance of such a form of preservation and broadcasting of the intangible heritage of folk arts and crafts as museification is emphasized. The definition of the concept of intangible heritage of crafts and the structural analysis of this fragment of cultural heritage was carried out on the basis of recognition of heritage by systemic education. The scientific novelty of this study lies in the definition of folk arts and crafts as a phenomenon of traditional culture, the key component of which is tradition, objectified, first of all, in an immaterial form. For the first time, the definition of the concept of the intangible heritage of folk art crafts is given based on the analysis of historiography and legislative practice, and a morphological analysis of this type of heritage of crafts is given based on the generalization and analysis of the experience of its preservation and actualization. The intangible heritage of artistic crafts - the artistic and pictorial language of handicrafts, techniques and technologies for their manufacture and decoration, social ways of transmitting knowledge and skill, customs, way of life and lifestyle in the craft - are of high value from an informational and axiological point of view and need to be preserved and broadcast.


Keywords:

cultural heritage, intangible heritage, traditional culture, tradition, art heritage, industrial heritage, ethnocultural heritage, religious heritage, Folk arts crafts, updating the heritage

This article is automatically translated. You can find original text of the article here.

Folk arts and crafts of Russia are an actual phenomenon of modern culture. Crafts have a rich, diverse heritage in the form of a single integrated system of objects of artistic, industrial, archaeological, ethnocultural, religious, personal, architectural and urban planning heritage, formed as a result of industrial activities in the form of folk art [1]. The heritage of folk arts and crafts is holistic, systemic, multi-objective and is represented in material, intangible, natural and environmental terms. Such a broad understanding of the heritage of folk arts and crafts corresponds to the modern interpretation of cultural heritage as a system education [2].

Folk arts and crafts have a rich experience of study, which is generally limited to the art historical context [3, 4, 5, 6]. This has led to a narrow understanding of artistic crafts only as a form of existence of folk art, and the heritage of crafts as products of folk and decorative arts, which, in our opinion, significantly limits the information and value potential of crafts as an integral object of cultural heritage of Russia. In the post-Soviet period, folk crafts have become the object of historical research, where the issues of the economy of crafts, their socio-cultural characteristics, and ethnocultural originality are in the center of attention 7[7, 8, 9, 10, 11] and so on, which to a certain extent led to the expansion of the concept of crafts as a cultural phenomenon. A landmark precedent is the recognition of folk art crafts as the intangible heritage of Russia [12]. It seems important and relevant to study crafts in the broad context of cultural knowledge in order to reveal all their information and value possibilities as a phenomenon of culture and to include their multi-object heritage in modern culture.

Folk arts and crafts are a phenomenon of traditional culture, containing in their heritage centuries-old experience of perceiving the world and traditional spiritual values. Each craft product embodies the traditional ideas of a particular craftsman, who is part of a certain social, ethnic, confessional, professional group and is influenced by historically determined external socio-cultural, economic and socio-political influences. At the same time, any craft product is a product of production that has its own specific technical and technological features due to various external factors.

A significant part of the heritage of artistic crafts is represented in an intangible form. The intangible heritage of crafts, due to the specifics of its existence, needs special measures to identify, fix, preserve and update in order to preserve folk art crafts as carriers of the national cultural code and the basis for the continuous development of culture. 

According to the International Convention for the Protection of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of 2003, intangible cultural heritage refers to customs, forms of representation and expression, knowledge and skills, as well as related tools, objects, artifacts and cultural spaces recognized by the public as part of their cultural heritage. Knowledge and skills related to traditional crafts are identified among the objects of intangible heritage.

In Russian legislative practice, the concept of intangible ethnocultural heritage appears, the object of which, among other things, defines knowledge expressed in an objective form, technologies, skills and forms of their representation related to lifestyles and traditional crafts, realized in historically formed plots and images and stylistics of their embodiment existing in a certain territory (Federal Law of October 20 2022 No. 402-FZ "On the Intangible Ethnocultural Heritage of the Russian Federation").

Undoubtedly, the attribution of craft as a type of human creative activity to objects of intangible heritage is an important stage in understanding this significant part of cultural heritage. However, in our opinion, folk arts and crafts should be separated into a separate type of traditional crafts as an organizational form based on authentic centuries-old traditions of folk art culture. Traditional craft is a broad concept that combines various kinds of activities for the manufacture of products by hand, such as, for example, cooperage, knitting nets, felting wool, where there is no artistic component.

Folk arts and crafts are an organizational form of creating decorative and applied objects in accordance with the aesthetic ideas of expediency and beauty that have been formed over the centuries and based on the collective experience of craftsmen passed on locally from generation to generation. 

The allocation of folk arts and crafts into a special type of traditional crafts is important in the context of determining the forms of preservation and actualization of their multi-object heritage, including its intangible component. However, no substantive analysis of the intangible heritage of artistic crafts has been carried out so far. The intangible component of folk art crafts has repeatedly become an object of study, but exclusively in an art historical context: the artistic and stylistic features of products of the main folk art crafts (Gzheli [13], Palekh [14], Gorodets [15], Khokhloma [16] and others were subjected to art historical analysis based on formal stylistic and semiotic-hermeneutic methods etc.), which, of course, is a valuable research experience, but extended only to a part of the heritage of crafts - artistic heritage, while the heritage of crafts is represented by a system of heritage objects of various species and types. 

Intangible heritage is a valuable part of the cultural heritage of Russia, which has experience in scientific understanding and determining the forms and methods of its preservation and translation [17, 18, 19, 20, 21]. Today we understand intangible heritage not so much as an addition to the material heritage, but as an intangible component of culture [22, p. 52]. If at the very beginning of the identification and definition of this type of heritage, it was identified with folklore and forms of folk art, which was based on a narrow understanding of tradition only in an ethnocultural context, then the humanitarian approach is relevant at the moment, which is based on "emphasizing the human factor, invariably inherent in both artifacts and cultural practices, and cultural spaces" [23, p. 32].

One of the components of the intangible heritage of artistic crafts is the artistic and visual language of handicrafts, as well as the set of knowledge, values, norms that make up their content. Thus, traditional elements of painting or ornamental drawing of products of a particular craft are intangible objects of its artistic heritage, such as, for example: floral ornament and plot drawing of Gzhel majolica and white-blue porcelain Gzhel; painting "gingerbread", "grass" and "kudrina" Khokhloma; plot painting Gorodets; painting Sergievo-Posad, Polkhov-Maidanskaya and Semenovskaya matryoshka dolls; ornamental pattern of Vologda, Yelets, Balakhninsky lace, Krestetsky stitching, Gorodetsky and Torzhok gold embroidery, etc.

The decoration of handicrafts is always traditional, that is, it is perceived by craftsmen as a value that is carefully passed on from generation to generation, bringing modern interpretations and personal interpretations to it, carefully preserving and protecting it from alien external influences. The artistic and stylistic tradition of a craft was born, as a rule, from aesthetic ideas about beauty peculiar to the first masters of craft, who often drew inspiration from the samples of decorative and applied, most often ecclesiastical, art available to them. Thus, the painting of the Gzhel majolica was born as a result of the transfer to ceramics of the stylistic language of the Old Believer handwritten liturgical books of the Old Believers-Guslyaks, who settled Gzhel by the middle of the XVIII century; Khokhloma painting – as a result of the transfer to wooden household objects of iconographic techniques of plant painting on a golden background, etc.

The religious heritage of crafts is an important component of the intangible heritage of folk art crafts. Artistic crafts were designed and developed during the period of traditional society, in the functioning of which religion played an important role, acting as "a certain structure-forming principle of the entire system of cultural relations" [24].

The confessional affiliation of the craftsmen largely shaped the way of life, customs, and way of life in the crafts, which, in turn, found expression in the artistic traditions of the craft art.

Crafts for the most part received registration in the peasant environment with the patriarchal way of life peculiar to the peasant class, a combination of pagan and Christian in the worldview, where "the rational was born as a result of the expediency of harmony with the world" [25, p. 16]. The materialized embodiment of such a worldview of the surrounding world were the northern paintings on spinning wheels, the shape and drawings of clay toys, the ornamental pattern of embroidery, patterned weaving, etc.

A significant part of the intangible heritage of crafts is the ethnocultural heritage of crafts, which contains the anthropological component of their entire volume – a set of unique socio-cultural values of the local community as a subject of the heritage of crafts, whose identity is determined by various ethnic factors peculiar to a particular area. Thus, the bearers of the tradition of fishing can act not only directly masters / artists of the craft, but also members of the local community living in the place of the existence of the craft, included in its socio-cultural space as a historical and cultural environment and reproducing the intangible heritage of the craft in the form of a characteristic way of life, mores, customs.

Kaluga embroidery, Vologda lace, Krestetskaya stitch, Gorodetsky and Khokhloma wood painting, Gzhel ceramics, Velikoustyug northern rabble, Rostov finifty, Zhostovsky trays, Palekh caskets are works of Russian folk and decorative and applied art. Part of the Tatar culture is a lumpy scan, gold embroidery, mortgage weaving, tambour embroidery; part of the Mordovian culture is the Tavlin toy, Mordovian embroidery; part of the Bashkir culture is patterned felts, applique on fabric and cloth; etc.

Various ethnic groups have their own special artistic traditions of patterned weaving, ceramics, metalworking, stone and wood, etc., and in each case their artistic and stylistic features are largely determined by distinctive ethnocultural traditions.

A key component of crafts as a type of human creative activity, as a form of reproduction of folk art culture, is tradition, which includes both heritage objects and processes, as well as methods of inheritance, social transmission mechanisms [26, p. 46]. In our opinion, ensuring its continuity is possible only with the preservation of traditional technologies and manufacturing techniques, as well as social mechanisms for the transfer of experience in the fishery, which, in turn, is also one of the most important intangible components of the heritage of crafts.

The technology of manufacturing products in the field is also an intangible heritage of crafts. Over time, technical improvement of the processes of manufacturing products was allowed in the fields (as, for example, in Gzhel, over time, there was a transition from wood-fired firing of ceramics, first to peat, fuel oil, and later gas and electric, grinding of porcelain mass – from manual and horse traction to machine). But the main technological features of production remain unchanged, with a large proportion of manual labor, with the traditional division and specialization of labor. Authentic Palekh jewelry boxes are made of papier-mache, which goes through the process of priming and drying for several weeks, and then they are painted with tempera according to the canons of Palekh painting and covered with oil varnish. Khokhloma products are turned out of wood, primed with a clay solution, covered with drying oil and tin powder, on a layer of which a vegetable pattern is made, varnished with linseed oil and tempered at high temperature in an oven.

Artistic crafts, especially in the pre–industrial period of their history, are the history of generations, families, through which knowledge and skills, traditions of craft, subtleties of craft, technical and artistic secrets of production were transmitted from the elder to the younger. In many organizational forms of fishing, it was the family that was and is still the organizational unit in the fishery (for example: Kargopol clay toy, Polkhov-Maidan fishery, gzhel of the pre-revolutionary and modern periods, etc.).

During the period of the development of crafts in the XX century, the national craftsman was replaced by a professional artist who received a professional art education. But his acquisition of specific skills of craftsmanship, technological and artistic features of the craft continued through the so-called podsadnichestvo to experienced craftsmen in production, learning "from under the hand", which ensured the continuous development of fishing traditions.

One of the varieties of the intangible industrial heritage of crafts can be called the so-called "sociofacts" [27, p. 100], such as working folklore, professional language, everyday traditions of workers, including family groups.

 It is worth noting that today the preservation and protection of part of the intangible heritage of folk arts and crafts (in terms of artistic and artisanal heritage) is in the sphere of state interests. Thus, the Federal State Budgetary Institution "State Russian House of Folk Art named after V.D. Polenov" is systematically working on the formation of the Federal Register of Intangible Cultural Heritage, which records the techniques and technologies of certain types of crafts. Also, the products of folk arts and crafts are subject to control for compliance with their historical stylistic traditions through the activities of artistic expert councils of folk arts and crafts at the regional and federal levels.

The ideal conditions for the preservation and actualization of the intangible heritage of artistic crafts are existence in a natural environment through the continuous development of a living culture of folk art craft, where the bearers of tradition – directly craftsmen or members of the local community – constantly reproduce it.

In a situation of partial or even complete extinction of the commercial culture of a particular trade, loss of its existing state, it is possible to revitalize, reconstruct and/or model [28, p. 56] certain objects of the intangible heritage of crafts, such as technologies and/or techniques for manufacturing commercial products using the artistic and visual language of a particular crafts, rituals, holidays and other ethnocultural traditions.

Common ways of representing the tradition of crafts are workshops on creating / decorating/ painting products in the tradition of a particular craft, as well as festivals at the places of crafts, reconstructing the tradition of fairs, trade fairs, etc.

The broadcasting of the intangible heritage of crafts can take place both at the place of existence of crafts, and outside it, directly by the bearers of the tradition of crafts or by people who have mastered it. Of paramount importance in this case is the problem of ensuring the authenticity of the broadcast heritage. In the case of broadcasting the intangible heritage of crafts by the bearers of the tradition of fishing, the problem is only as an accomplished act, that is, it is purely subjective. In the absence of a genuine bearer of the tradition of fishing, the problem of the authenticity of the broadcast heritage acquires a cultural and ecological character.

Only a museum, whose institutional activity is based on scientific theories of documentation, thesaurus and communication, can provide the heritage with the opportunity to broadcast all the cultural, symbolic meanings that they carry. The museum, with its scientific approaches to the preservation, study, presentation and broadcasting of heritage, provides it with the opportunity to perform its functions as effectively as possible to ensure the continuous development of culture. However, it seems difficult to protect the object form of the intangible heritage and ensure high-quality translation of the meanings that carry them in the conditions of a collection museum. A museum specialist cannot become a genuine bearer of the tradition of the craft, but he is able to ensure its authenticity at the time of broadcast through its study and development and act as an intermediary between the heritage and the museum visitor, being in this case the keeper of the tradition. 

In our opinion, a comprehensive environmental museification of the craft in the territory of its traditional existence with maximum inclusion in all museification processes of the local community as a carrier of the tradition of the craft provides great opportunities for preserving and updating the heritage of folk art, including its intangible component. The new quality of the museumified environment created in this way seems capable of producing conditions for the constant reproduction of the traditions of the craft, objectified mainly in an immaterial form. This method of preserving and updating the heritage of crafts still needs theoretical understanding and practical testing.

The intangible heritage of artistic crafts – the artistic and pictorial language of handicrafts, techniques and technologies for their manufacture and decoration, social ways of transferring knowledge and skill, customs, way of life and lifestyle in the craft - has high informational and ontological value both as a component of the entire volume of the heritage of crafts as an integral system education, and as the most important basis for intergenerational development folk art crafts. Identification of objects of the intangible heritage of crafts, their fixation, representation, maintenance of their living condition, and in case of loss of tradition – their revitalization, reconstruction and modeling – this is the necessary set of measures to preserve and include in modern culture this significant part of both the heritage of crafts and the cultural heritage of the peoples of Russia as a whole.

References
1. Semeritskaya, O. V. (2021). Folk art crafts of Russia as an object of cultural heritage. Vestnik of the St. Petersburg State Institute of Culture, 2(47), 83-89.
2. Klimov, L. A. (2011). Cultural heritage as a system. Questions of museology, 1, 42-46.
3. Saltykov, A. B. (1962). Selected scientific works. Moscow: Sovetskiy khudozhnik. 
4. Vasilenko, V. M. (1974). Folk art: selected works on folk art of the 10th-20th centuries. Moscow: Sovetskiy khudozhnik. 
5. Nekrasova, M. A. (1983). Folk art as part of culture: theory and practice. Moscow: Izobrazitel'noye iskusstv.
6. Boguslavskaya, I. Ya. (Ed.). (1981). Creative problems of modern folk art crafts. Leningrad: Khudozhnik RSFSR.
7. Istomina, E. G. (1997). Small industry of the Moscow region in the second half of the 19th – early 20th centuries: (Historical and geographical aspect). History of the study, use and protection of natural resources of Moscow and the Moscow region. Moscow, 189-195.
8. Savina, L. N. (1993). On the history of the production and existence of copper artistic casting in the 19th – early 20th centuries. Russian copper casting, 1, 48-50.
9. Polyulyakh, A. A. (2015). Factor of origin and nature of development of small-scale pottery production in Gzhel at the end of the 15th – first third of the 20th centuries. Muscovy: materials and research on history and archeology, 8-35.
10. Kartashova, M. V. (2018). Handicrafts of the Russian Empire in the last third of the 19th – early 20th centuries. (1872-1917). Statistics, localization, government support. Nizhny Novgorod: Quartz.
11. Dine, G. L. (2020). Toy – lessons of ethnoculture. Essays, expedition diaries: 1993–1997. Sergiev Posad.
12. Musina, R. R. (2022). Folk artistic crafts as part of the intangible cultural heritage of Russia. Encyclopedia of the intangible cultural heritage of Russia: Dedicated to the Year of the Cultural Heritage of the Peoples of Russia. Moscow: Heritage Institute, 368-384.
13. Yakimchuk, H. A. (Ed.). (1959). Art of Gzhel. Moscow.
14. Nekrasova, M. A. (Ed.). (1990). Palekh: The Art of Ancient Tradition. Moscow: Sovetskiy khudozhnik. 
15. Arbat, Yu. A. (1970). Russian folk painting on wood. Moscow: Izobrazitel'noye iskusstvo.
16. Emelyanova, T. I. (2009). Khokhloma painting. Nizhny Novgorod: Litera.
17. Belugina, G. K. (2011). The problem of updating intangible cultural heritage. Yaroslavl Pedagogical Bulletin, 2, 287-290.
18. Mastenitsa, E. N. (2017). Intangible heritage as an object of museumification: theoretical and methodological foundations. Culture in the Eurasian space: traditions and innovations, 1, 79-85.
19. Kimeeva, T. I. (2019). Attribution of objects of traditional cults as a method of preserving objects of intangible cultural heritage. Museums, libraries, archives as centers of modern source studies, 7, 177-183.
20. Glushkova, P. V. (2019). The role of authentic objects of intangible cultural heritage and neotraditions in the formation of ethnocultural identity. Culture in the Eurasian space: traditions and innovations, 1(3), 67-71.
21. Prokudina, D. A. (2022). New approaches to the presentation of intangible cultural heritage. Vestnik of the Moscow State University of Culture and Arts, 6(110), 127-135.
22. Klimov, L. A. (2012). Museum in the Preservation and Presentation of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. St. Petersburg: State University of Culture and Arts.
23. Mastenitsa, E. N. (2022). Museum and cultural heritage: “material signs of immaterial relations”. Scientific notes (Altai State Academy of Culture and Arts), 3, 28-35.
24. Kopanev, V. N. (2001). The social and organizational role of religion in traditional cultures. Modern philosophy as a cultural phenomenon: research traditions and innovations, 7 [DX Reader version]. Retrieved from: http://anthropology.ru/ru/text/kopanev-vn/socialno-organizacionnaya-rol-religii-v-kulturah-tradicionnogo-tipa
25. Nekrasova, M. A. (Ed.). (1983). Folk art of Russia: Folk art as a world of integrity. Moscow: Sovetskaya Rossiya.
26. Kaulen, M. E. (2012). Museumification of the historical and cultural heritage of Russia. Moscow: Eterna.
27. Sankova, A. S. (2022). Industrial heritage: towards the development of classification. Vestnik of St. Petersburg State Institute of Cinematography, 3(52), 97-101.
28. Kuryanova, T. S. (2012). Museum and intangible cultural heritage. Vestnik of Tomsk State University, 361, 55-57.

First Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The author submitted his article "The intangible heritage of folk art crafts" to the magazine "Culture and Art", in which a study was conducted of the totality of the intangible characteristics of objects of traditional art in Russia and measures for their preservation and translation. The author proceeds in the study of this issue from the fact that folk crafts are a phenomenon of traditional culture, containing in their heritage centuries-old experience of perceiving the world and traditional spiritual values. Each craft product embodies the traditional ideas of a particular craftsman, who is part of a certain social, ethnic, confessional, professional group and is influenced by historically determined external socio-cultural, economic and socio-political influences. The relevance of this study is due to the need to preserve objects of historical and cultural significance for future generations in order to prevent the loss of cultural identity, as well as the need to regulate this process. The theoretical justification was the works of such domestic researchers as Semeritskaya O.V., Mastenitsa E.N., Klimov L.A. and others. Unfortunately, the article lacks an analysis of the scientific elaboration of the studied issues, which makes it difficult to draw a conclusion about the scientific novelty of the study. The author has not carried out a bibliographic and content analysis of the scientific literature devoted to the research topic. The methodological basis of the research was an integrated approach, including general scientific methods of analysis and synthesis, as well as socio-cultural analysis. The author relies on the definitions of the intangible cultural heritage presented in the International Convention for the Protection of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of 2003 and in Federal Law No. 402-FZ of October 20, 2022 "On the Intangible Ethnocultural Heritage of the Russian Federation". The author considers the allocation of folk arts and crafts into a special type of traditional crafts important in the context of determining the forms of preservation and actualization of their multi-object heritage, including its intangible component. The author proposes to separate folk art crafts into a separate type of traditional crafts as an organizational form based on authentic centuries-old traditions of folk art culture. The author systematizes the components of the intangible heritage of artistic crafts, which the author includes: the artistic and visual language of handicrafts, as well as a set of knowledge, values, norms that make up their content; the confessional affiliation of the masters; the anthropological component - a set of unique socio-cultural values of the local community as a subject of the heritage of crafts, the identity of which is due to various, peculiar to a particular area, ethnic factors; tradition, which includes both heritage objects and processes, as well as methods of inheritance, social mechanisms of transmission. The author proposes a set of measures for the preservation and inclusion in modern culture of the intangible heritage of artistic crafts, which includes the identification of objects of the intangible heritage of crafts, their fixation, representation, maintenance of their living condition, and in case of loss of tradition – their revitalization, reconstruction and modeling. The author pays a special role in these processes to museums, which have developed practices and scientific approaches to the preservation, study, presentation and broadcasting of heritage, which gives them the opportunity to perform their functions of ensuring the continuous development of culture as effectively as possible. In conclusion, the author presents a conclusion on the conducted research, which contains all the key provisions of the presented material. It seems that the author in his material touched upon relevant and interesting issues for modern socio-humanitarian knowledge, choosing a topic for analysis, consideration of which in scientific research discourse will entail certain changes in the established approaches and directions of analysis of the problem addressed in the presented article. The results obtained allow us to assert that the study of mechanisms, methods and methods of preserving and broadcasting the intangible component of traditional cultural objects is of undoubted theoretical and practical cultural interest and can serve as a source of further research. The material presented in the work has a clear, logically structured structure that contributes to a more complete assimilation of the material. An adequate choice of methodological base also contributes to this. However, the bibliographic list of the study consists of only 9 sources, and does not contain fundamental scientific works on the studied problem, which is clearly insufficient for generalization and analysis of scientific discourse on the studied problem. Nevertheless, the author fulfilled his goal, received certain scientific results that made it possible to summarize the material. It should be stated that the article may be of interest to readers and deserves to be published in a reputable scientific publication after these shortcomings have been eliminated.

Second Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The subject of the study, as the author indicated in the title of the article ("Intangible heritage of folk arts and crafts"), submitted for publication in the journal Culture and Art, is the intangible heritage of folk arts and crafts of Russia in its entirety as an element of the national cultural heritage. Accordingly, a certain set of folk arts and crafts is the object of study. The author rightly notes that art history and ethnographic research have made a significant contribution to determining the importance of folk art crafts and highlighting their intangible component (traditions, customs, techniques and technologies, aesthetic canons and ethical principles of organizing individual and collective activities). We can agree with the author that limiting the study of folk art crafts exclusively to an art historical context entails a one-sided attitude towards heritage objects of an intangible nature, such as: ways of broadcasting artistic and production experience, family traditions, special ways of organizing artistic and production activities, etc. However, the author's unequivocal statement that "many objects of the heritage of folk arts and crafts are still beyond the comprehension of the scientific community and are not included in modern culture as its valuable resource" looks poorly substantiated and unfounded. The reviewer draws attention to the fact that such a statement simply does not make sense and can be considered as a theoretical oxymoron, as a sophistic argument devoid of theoretical perspective (if you believe Plato, Socrates easily coped with such judgments). To justify the lack of theoretical attention to the part of cultural heritage, it is necessary to present arguments: at least, give examples of heritage objects of folk arts and crafts that are still beyond the comprehension of the scientific community and are not included in modern culture as its valuable resource. But if such examples are given in a scientific article, then the same article will refute this judgment. It turns out something like "Socrates is lying, saying that Socrates is lying." Most likely, the author wanted to say that there are still many unresolved issues in the Russian theoretical discourse on the problems of preserving the intangible heritage, therefore, he draws the reader's attention that "the preservation and actualization of the intangible heritage of fishing through museification is important and necessary even when fishing lives a full-fledged continuous life of a living phenomenon of traditional culture." But if we agree with the author's thesis that "the identification of objects of the intangible heritage of crafts, their fixation, representation, maintenance of their living state, and in case of loss of tradition, their revitalization, reconstruction and modeling" seems to be a necessary set of "measures to preserve and include in modern culture this significant part of both the heritage of crafts and in In general, the cultural heritage of the peoples of Russia", one can agree, is more difficult with museification. Since museumification does not imply the preservation of a living intangible heritage — the direct practice of folk crafts. This aspect of the intangible heritage of folk arts and crafts (living heritage) is mentioned by the author in passing in substantiating the relevance of the topic, but is not considered separately. The reviewer emphasizes that if techniques and technologies as part of the intangible heritage can be described and museified, then the practice of "deception", for example, i.e. the transfer of live experience "from under the hand", dies as a result of museification. A difficult problem, indeed, is the withering away of those socio-cultural factors in modern society that stimulated the development of traditional artistic crafts of the peoples of Russia. First of all, they include economic and economic factors: with a change in the economic structure, not only the technologies of fishing change, but also their economic feasibility is lost. Already in Soviet times, traditional fishing was displaced from the purely economic sphere with a change in lifestyle and remained mainly in the field of creative leisure. As the author noted, in some cases, the industrialization of folk crafts replaces the living heritage with professional artistic and design activities. Although by the efforts of enthusiasts, many crafts are not only preserved in authentic forms of creative activity, but are also being revived and reconstructed. In this regard, according to the reviewer, the museification of the intangible heritage of folk crafts only partially and unilaterally solves the problem of its preservation. Authentic creative workshops of living folk crafts, organized with the support of enterprises of the souvenir industry, tourism, gallery and event industry on the basis of additional education and creative leisure programs in close connection with the scientific, methodological and organizational capabilities of creative unions of artists, museums, libraries, houses of culture and houses of folk art, could well contribute to the preservation of traditions. Thus, the subject of the study, in the opinion of the reviewer, is disclosed by the author somewhat one-sidedly. Although, of course, the author has the right to defend his own point of view, and provided that the contradictory judgment is corrected, the oxymoron, the article can be published in a scientific journal. The author does not pay special attention to the methodology of the study, although his criticism of one-sided art criticism and ethnographic approaches indicates an attempt to culturologically generalize the value of the intangible heritage of Russian folk arts and crafts. The specific methodological recommendations of the author, expressed in the conclusion of the work, follow from the generalization undertaken. The relevance of the topic, as noted above, the author tried to justify the lack of attention of scientists to the problems of preserving the intangible heritage of folk arts and crafts. In general, the arguments presented on the relevance of the topic are quite sufficient and convincing. The scientific novelty of the work lies in the recommendations presented by the author as a result on the museification of the intangible heritage of folk arts and crafts and complex technologies for its preservation. The reviewer notes that the recommendations made are generalized and require further elaboration. The result presented by the author is of a debatable nature and is valuable only within the framework of continuing theoretical discussions. The style of the text as a whole, with the exception of the oxymoron indicated above, is scientific. The structure of the article follows the logic of the author's presentation of the results of scientific research. The bibliography generally reveals the problematic field of research, although it does not fully reflect the state of scientific and theoretical discourse on the problems of preserving the intangible heritage of folk crafts (there has been little publication in the last 3-5 years, and there is no analysis of foreign scientific literature on the problem at all). In order to fully comply with the description of the literature with the requirements of the editorial board and GOST, there are not enough indications on the volume of pages of the mentioned books. In addition, in some cases, commonly used abbreviations of the place of publication are used, and in other appropriate cases, a full indication (for example, "Moscow:" and "Moscow:") is used, which does not comply with GOST. An appeal to opponents can be considered correct if the false statement expressed by the oxymoron described above is excluded from the text. The article is of particular interest to the readership of the magazine "Culture and Art" and after a little revision can be recommended for publication.

Third Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The outstanding Russian literary critic V.G. Belinsky once remarked: "Russian history is an inexhaustible source for every dramatist and tragedian." Indeed, the history of the native past is represented by outstanding figures of science and culture, which in modern conditions is an indispensable element of "soft power". In the context of increased attention to national culture from both the state and society, it is important to turn to the study of folk arts and crafts. These circumstances determine the relevance of the article submitted for review, the subject of which is the intangible heritage of folk art crafts. The author sets out to define the intangible ethno-cultural heritage, analyze the components of the intangible heritage of artistic crafts, and also show the possibilities for preserving and updating the heritage of folk art crafts. The work is based on the principles of analysis and synthesis, reliability, objectivity, the methodological basis of the research is a systematic approach, which is based on the consideration of the object as an integral complex of interrelated elements. The author also uses a comparative method. The scientific novelty of the article lies in the very formulation of the topic: the author seeks to characterize the intangible heritage of artistic crafts. Considering the bibliographic list of the article, its scale and versatility should be noted as a positive point: in total, the list of references includes up to 30 different sources and studies. The source base of the article is primarily represented by album materials on such crafts as Gzhel, Palekh. Among the studies attracted by the author, we note the works of O.V. Semeritskaya, L.A. Klimova, R.R. Musina, T.S. Kuryanova, which focus on issues of cultural heritage. Note that the bibliography is important both from a scientific and educational point of view: after reading the text, readers can turn to other materials on its topic. In general, in our opinion, the integrated use of various sources and research contributed to the solution of the tasks facing the author. The style of writing the article can be attributed to a scientific one, at the same time accessible to understanding not only to specialists, but also to a wide readership, to everyone who is interested in both the cultural heritage of Russia in general and folk crafts in particular. The appeal to the opponents is presented at the level of the collected information received by the author during the work on the topic of the article. The structure of the work is characterized by a certain logic and consistency, it can be distinguished by an introduction, the main part, and conclusion. At the beginning, the author defines the relevance of the topic, shows that "the intangible heritage of crafts, due to the specifics of its existence, needs special measures to identify, fix, preserve and update in order to preserve folk art crafts as carriers of the national cultural code and the basis for the continuous development of culture." The author draws attention to the fact that "traditional elements of painting or ornamental drawing of products of a particular craft are intangible objects of his artistic heritage, such as, for example: floral ornament and plot drawing of Gzhel majolica and white-blue porcelain Gzhel; painting "gingerbread", "grass" and "kudrina" Khokhloma; plot Gorodets painting; Sergiev Posad, Polkhov-Maidanskaya and Semenovskaya matryoshka painting; ornamental pattern of Vologda, Yelets, Balakhninsky lace, Krestetsky stitching, Gorodetsky and Torzhok gold embroidery, etc."It is noteworthy that, as noted in the reviewed article, "today, the preservation and protection of part of the intangible heritage of folk arts and crafts (in part artistic and industrial heritage) is in the sphere of state interests"", for example, the State Russian House of Folk Art named after V.D. Polenov is systematically working on the formation of the Federal Register of Intangible Cultural Heritage. The main conclusion of the article is that "the intangible heritage of artistic crafts – the artistic and pictorial language of handicrafts, techniques and technologies for their manufacture and decoration, social ways of transferring knowledge and skill, customs, way of life and lifestyle in the craft - has a high informational and ontological value and as a component of the entire volume of the heritage of crafts as an integral system education, and as the most important basis for the intergenerational development of folk arts and crafts." The article submitted for review is devoted to an urgent topic, will arouse readers' interest, and its materials can be used both in training courses and as part of cultural heritage preservation activities. There are small comments to the article: for example, there are typos in the text ("industrial heritage"). However, in general, in our opinion, the article can be recommended for publication in the journal "Culture and Art".