In Creating Our Own; anthropologist Zoila S. Mendoza explores the early-twentieth-century development of the ldquo;folkloric artsrdquo;mdash;particularly music; dance; and dramamdash;in Cuzco; Peru; revealing the central role that these expressive practices played in shaping ethnic and regional identities. Mendoza argues that the folkloric productions emerging in Cuzco in the early twentieth century were integral to; rather than only a reflection of; the social and political processes underlying the development of the indigenismo movement. By demonstrating how Cuzcorsquo;s folklore emerged from complex interactions between artists and intellectuals of different social classes; she challenges the idea that indigenismo was a project of the elites.Mendoza draws on early-twentieth-century newspapers and other archival documents as well as interviews with key artistic and intellectual figures and their descendants. She offers vivid descriptions of the Peruvian Mission of Incaic Art; a tour undertaken by a group of artists from Cuzco; at their own expense; to represent Peru to Bolivia; Argentina; and Uruguay in 1923ndash;24; as well as of the origins in the 1920s of the Qosqo Center of Native Art; the first cultural institution dedicated to regional and national folkloric art. She highlights other landmarks; including both The Charango Hour; a radio show that contributed to the broad acceptance of rural Andean music from its debut in 1937; and the rise in that same year of another major cultural institution; the American Art Institute of Cuzco. Throughout; she emphasizes the intricate local; regional; national; and international pressures that combined to produce folkloric art; especially the growing importance of national and international tourism in Cuzco.Please visit the Web site http://nas.ucdavis.edu/creatingbook for samples of the images and music discussed in this book.
#2639671 in eBooks 2009-09-02 2009-09-02File Name: B00EHFS6PK
Review
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful. Reforming the English languagehellip;By John P. Jones IIIhellip;before it became the worldrsquo;s language.George Bernard Shaw was an Irish playwright who wrote ldquo;Pygmalionrdquo; in 1912. He would win the Nobel Prize in 1925. He was a polemist and a gadfly; challenging much conventional thought. He opposed both organized religion and vaccinations. More people are familiar with this play thanks to the musical My Fair Lady which is largely based upon its central themes; though ldquo;the rain in Spain stays mainly in the plainrdquo; is never in the original work.Pygmalion is the first name of Professor Higgins; an insufferable; arrogant academic prig. He has developed quite a skill; which he demonstrates throughout the play: identifying someonersquo;s place of origin by their accent. He claimed to be able to spot someonersquo;s birthplace within London to within two miles. As for reforming the English languagehellip; and many others would no doubt agree; particularly those who have learned it as a second language: he advocated the use of phonetics.The good professor decides to conduct an ldquo;experiment.rdquo; During a rainstorm; he meets a Cockney flower girl on the streets. He is so proud of his skills; that he is confident that he can teach her ldquo;properrdquo; English (as well as manners) so that in six months; she can pass herself off as a ldquo;lady.rdquo; Lisa Doolittle is the flower girl; and she does want proper diction lessons in order to better herself. But she does have a mind of her own; and shows it; objecting to the callus way that she is treated; as merely a pawn in Professor Higginrsquo;s experiment. There are several supporting characters; such as Professor Higginrsquo;s mother who largely supports Ms. Doolittle in the conflicts. Meanwhile; her dad; a dustman; sees direct monetary gain in this experiment; not in improving his daughterrsquo;s social status; but in hitting the Professor up for a ldquo;fiver.rdquo;The play is left open-ended. In fact; Shaw devotes the last 10% of the work to speculating on the best possible outcomes after the experiment is concluded; including if it would be best for Ms. Doolittle to marry the Professor; purportedly a confirmed bachelor. Shaw notes: ldquo;rsquo;When you go to women;rsquo; says Nietzsche; lsquo;take your whip with you.rsquo; Sensible despots have never confined that precaution to women: they have taken their whips with them when they have dealt with men; and been slavishly idealized by the men over whom they have flourished the whip much more than by women. No doubt there are slavish women as well as slavish men; and women; like men; admire those that are stronger than themselves. But to admire a strong person and to live under that strong personrsquo;s thumb are two different things.rdquo;Sensible sentiments even; that resonate more than a century later. And I must consider the difficulties of enunciation in another language; and trust I would be able to find a better teacher that the ldquo;goodrdquo; Professor. 5-stars; for Shawrsquo;s work.0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Hard to swallowBy HHI cant say that I enjoyed these plays very much. I find Ibsens characters to be unbelievable; especially one of the shining stars of his fame and accomplishments; Nora Helmer of "A Dolls House". I guess what I find most obnoxious about these characters is the speed with which they do things; which could be blamed on the necessity of story and play-writing; or it could be that the characters do not show significant glimmers of what they are to suddenly and so surprisingly become. Nora; for example; is this flitting; domestic plaything (thus the title) for nine-tenths of the play; unable to see her own mistakes and the seriousness of the looming catastrophe ahead. Then; all of a sudden; she is a most advanced; thoughtful; determined individual; come to drastic acts with absolutely no passion and able to express her inmost feelings and will to her husband without missing a beat. Irsquo;ve been in arguments and they donrsquo;t go like that.Ibsen said of his own work that his plays only just pose questions; they dont make statements. I myself donrsquo;t buy Ibsens assessment for a second. It is historically interesting that he considered his plays questions; but they are very clearly works of value statements and modes for societal change (which is exactly what they became). With lines like ldquo;If Irsquo;m ever going to reach any understanding of myself and the things around me; I must learn to stand alonerdquo;; would you honestly believe his plays are unbiased vignettes; wondering about human nature; and nothing more?2 of 2 people found the following review helpful. Bad formatting for Kindle.By Linda McCombeI gave this one star as the formatting for Kindle was very; very bad. It was all over the pages in boxes; ran off the pages and left blanks in the story. Story is a classic; but this version is awful.