The house for Sorbian folk art: institutional change in Sorbian folk art after 1989/90

ABSTRACT

The Sorbs are a Slavic people in East Germany who were recognized as a national minority during the GDR period. They were given certain special rights such as Sorbian language teaching, and received institutional support. In this context, in the decades after the Second World War, a differentiated organizational structure was systematically constructed in the field of Sorbian cultural work. The social changes after 1989/90 led to a profound transformation of this structure and among the actors involved. Established and institutionalized forms of cultural work were dissolved rapidly, e.g. folk art groups usually linked to schools or publicly-owned companies, such as choirs, dance groups or textile circles. In order to absorb these dissolution processes, new sponsorships often emerged, usually in the form of registered associations. In this article, we explore these developments using the example of the House for Sorbian Folk Art (1956-1995), which was a central hub of Sorbian cultural activity. On the one hand, we address questions about the house’s activities regarding to the preservation and promotion of ethnicity. On the other hand, we examine developments after the political turnaround, whereby we focus on the changing approaches to cultural heritage and the impact of its dissolution on the contemporary promotion in the field of Sorbian cultural work.

KEYWORDS:

• Sorbian minority
• cultural security
• institutional completeness
• institutional change
• folk art
• multiple transformations

Disclosure statement

There is no potential conflict of interest.

Notes

1. Compare the contribution of Maren Hachmeister, in this volume, about the aid organization Volkssolidarität in the GDR, for which there was also no equivalent in the FRG, which is why it had to reinvent itself institutionally in order to continue to exist.

2. Compare the application of the concept to the transformation of the creative sector among the Sorbs by Theresa Jacobs in this volume.

3. The essay was written while the authors were embedded in projects dealing with cultural heritage and resilience strategies in the Sorbian minority context, cf. “Sorbian folk culture:” Strategies of opening up and communicating cultural heritage as a resource of cultural resilience; Cultural diversity as an innovation and resilience factor in the transformation process towards sustainability.

4. Founded in 1952 as the Central House for Amateur Art, later for Folk Art and from 1962 for Cultural Work of the GDR, cf. Mohrmann (2016), 135.

5. At the end of the 1950s, the cultural policy of the GDR finally developed from cultivating folk art and tradition to socialist cultural work that was intended to deal primarily with current economic and political issues (Kühn 2015, 23). The first Bitterfeld conference in the spring of 1959 attempted to involve production workers in artistic activity. Under the slogan “Take up your pen, comrade, socialist German national culture needs you!,” new circles of writing, painting and music-making workers were founded en masse. The “Bitterfeld Way” was intended to finally realize the socialist concept of culture (Kühn 2015). In all cultural productions and performances, a connection between art and life was envisaged, the differences between artists and workers were to be abolished, and artistic and ideological development was planned for all areas of “creative work” (Kühn 2015). At the 2nd Bitterfeld Conference in April 1964, the educational and ideological character of the folk art movement was foregrounded. Folk art creation should serve the socialist formation of the personality and educate the people aesthetically and politically after their work (Meißner 2022, 64).

6. For essays on the topic, see e.g. (Nedo 1951, 1958).

7. Annett Bresan’s (2002) monograph on the life and work of Paul Nedo provides vivid information about his importance.

8. “Wukaz naměstnika ministra za kulturu NDR wo załoženju Instituta za ludowowuměłske slědźenje a Domu za serbske ludowe wuměłstwo jako wotnožki Instituta za ludowowuměłske slědźenje we Wojerecach. Institut ma wudźěłać wědomostne zakłady ludoweho wuměłstwa při wobkedźbowanju tučasnych potrjebow we wuskim zwisku z wuměłsko-metodiskim dźěłom Centralneho domu za ludowe wuměłstwo.” (Decree by the deputy of the Minister of Culture of the GDR on the founding of the Institute for Folk Art Research and the House for Sorbian Folk Art as a branch of the Institute for Folk Art Research in Hoyerswerda. The institute is to develop the scientific basis for folk art while taking into account current needs in close connection with the artistic-methodological work of the Central House for Folk Art) (Jenka 1972, 69).

9. In 1977, five regional folklore centres were founded: the Mecklenburg folklore centre for the three northern districts of Rostock, Schwerin and Neubrandenburg; the Harz folklore centre for the districts of Magdeburg, Halle and Erfurt; the Thuringian folklore centre for the districts of Erfurt, Gera and Suhl; the Vogtland/Erzgebirge folklore centre for the districts of Karl-Marx-Stadt and parts of the Gera district. In addition, the Sorbian Folklore Centre was established for the Lusatian Sorbs in the districts of Dresden and Cottbus. These centres, docked onto district cabinets for cultural work, were to promote the development and use of cultural heritage – as part of socialist cultural policy. This was decided by the secretariat of the SED Central Committee in February 1977. The “Measures for the Promotion of Popular Artistic Creation” were then implemented by the Council of Ministers (cf. Moritz 1991, 15).

10. Cf. on festivals of Sorbian culture Annett Bresan (2014, 478).

11. In the 1994 concept by Tschernokoshewa et al. the dissolution of this department had been recommended. The Domowina should concentrate above all on cultural-political tasks and not on cultural-practical work. For the latter, competence should lie with the Centre of Sorbian Culture.

12. For more information on the festival see https://www.domowina.de/en/membership/member-associations/festival (Accessed 26 September 2022).

13. Cf. https://www.serbski-institut.de/forschung/zentrale-vorhaben/inwertsetzung-des-immateriellen-kulturerbes-im-deutsch-slawischen-kontext/ (Accessed 26 September 2022).

14. Cf. the explanatory video: What is Sorbian cultural heritage? doi:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DO-CkKMjj_Q. Accessed 26 September 2022.

15. For more information on the academy see https://niedersorbische-kulturakademie.de/kulturakademie/ (Accessed 26 September 2022).

Additional information

Funding

This publication was created in the framework of the research project “Multiple Transformations. Social Experiences and Cultural Change in East Germany and East Central Europe before and after 1989” (2020-2022), supported by the Saxon State Ministry for Higher Education, Research, Culture and Tourism (SMWK). The endeavour was financed through tax resources in accordance with the budget adopted by the parliament of Saxony.

Notes on contributors

Ines Keller

Ines Keller/Kellerowa has been a cultural studies scholar at the Serbski institut/Sorbian Institute in Bautzen since 1992. Her main research interests are cultural heritage, traditional clothing and regional customs in a multi-generational perspective. She has published various works on German-Sorbian interculturality and on the cultural impact of post-war German displacements and regional structural changes.

Fabian Jacobs

Fabian Jacobs has been a research associate at the Department of Cultural Studies since 2008 and at the newly established Department for Regional Development and Minority Protection since 2022 of the Serbski institute/Sorbian Institute. As part of his PhD at Leipzig University, he worked with a Roma community in Romania. His main areas of research in the field of comparative minority studies are cultural landscapes, cultural security and endogenous development strategies.