(This follows a discussion on another forum. I hope that is ok)

1. Comparing "high art" to "folk" is apples and oranges.
2 Comparing flamenco to high art" or to "folk music" is confusing olives with apples with oranges
As I posted before, flamenco is closer to jazz than to either classical or folk music.

"High" art has lost its meaning. Post-ancient Greece, the first attempts to analyze "art" in the West was during the Enlightenment.[ Note that included in the discussion was the difference between defining "art" and defining "Good art"or "Great art". A distinction sometimes we forget when talking about , for example, flamenco fusion]]
You then (Romantic Period?)started separate "professions" of critics and aestheticians with their own theories of good and bad art. And the formation of official "Academies" that set "the" rules
In regard to painting and sculpture, such critics and aestheticians and Academies began to get "power" and make "rules"in the 19th Century. And painters began to "react" to those theories by producing art that didn't conform to those rules.
By the 20th Century it was almost seen by painters as their task to go against "rules" There was a conscious effort to break with tradition- Hence things like Cubism, Duchamp's "Fountain", and later on "Pop Art" So now, it is hard to say if Warhol's painting of a soup can is "high" art and, if so, is the label on the soup can itself "high art?"

Folk Music and Flamenco
In the beginnings of the 19th century during the Romantic Period , the word "folklore" was created . And Grimm and others started collecting folk tales
And classical composers got into folk music
Too, during this period of Romanticism, emotions were held to have as high a place as reason did in the Enlightenment. "emotion" implied "freedom"
And to the casual observer in that time, what culture embodied freedom more than that of the Gypsies?
So, combining these interests (folk and emotion and freedom) ,by the 1830's it became almost necessary for artists and intellectuals to go down to Sevilla to see the Gypsies dance their folk music. Sevillanas and canciones were the folk music of the Andalucians and could be heard all over the streets [and yes most Andalucians could do at least some palmas], but not so with flamenco which, at least cante jondo, was not so common "in the streets" . So first the foreigners went down to Sevilla and hired private juergas, but soon this "folk music" was so sought after that the cafes cantante arose.
(There, unlike with juergas, you could just buy a ticket and see and hear flamenco at scheduled times).

But also at this time there rose a recognition by growing numbers that flamenco was something special-not just a folk music . That singing cante at all, much less singing it well, required skills and talents that singing folk songs did not require. Post 1960s we are used to hearing names of "figuras" in what is now called "folk music" There weren't figuras in folkmusic in 19h century Spanish or Andalucian folk singing. But there were figuras in cante flamenco. And, unlike with folk songs, some created cantes that still bear their name. Famous cantaors and a tiny bit later famous guitarristas.
[By the way 19th century classical guitarist Julian Arcas was the teacher of Miguel Borrull Sr and might actually have been the composer of the "rondena" attributed to Ramon Montoya]

It wasn't only the recognition that not just anyone could do flamenco- that made people recognize it wasn't "just" folk music. It was also the "rigid" rules that flamenco followed -eg, compas; what exactly constitutes a "solea de Alcala;" general agreement about who was included into the circle of "good singers" It was also that those good at flamenco usually tried to make it their profession . (I don't think anyone at that time paid for Andalucian folk music except maybe pandas and other groups hired for public holidays) Too, unlike almost all folk music, flamenco is a solo art . Folk dance is usually done by pairs or groups of dancers. Pure baile is not. Same with singers (and in Spain, the formal distinction was made between singers in general -"cantador"s and flamenco singer "cantaor"s In baile "bailaors" as opposed to "bailadors"s. And, a bit later on, the special meanings of "purity" when applied to flamenco as opposed to way it is applied to food or folk music. (I have often said that Alan Lomax didn't understand the difference between folk music and flamenco. So when he went to record flamenco he recorded the oldest most wrinkly backwoods singers he could find. That may work for getting "authentic" Appalachian folk songs, but "authenticity" in flamenco is something different.)
As well, the interaction ("synergy")between singer and guitarist (when done well) became "profound" in a way that musicians playing for folk singers was not. {This may be partially due to the fact that flamenco grew up with the six string guitar as its instrument. Other instruments were available-violins, bandurrias, etc. and were used in folk music closely related to flamenco such as the folk fandangos and verdiales. But for flamenco it is and was the guitar (with its buzz)

Extremely interesting discussion. I agree that flamenco puro is different from any other music. Many compare it with the blues. I see no comparison other than both the old blues and old flamenco are both the music of a group of people considered inferior by the ruling class of their era. Music born out of deprivation, humiliation, and degradation with musical roots no doubt from other influences, but the final resulting music being truly unique.

Manos (Sam)
First, flamenco was not solely a Gypsy creation. As in other countries, the Gypsies who have a long tradition of being musicians, transfrormed local music. Flamenco is based almost entirely on Andalucian music. You don't find flamenco being done by Gypsies outside of Spain.
Second, it wasn't Gypsies alone that created flamenco. In the pre-flamenco-form days (early 16th century) you see pre-flamenco forms like chaconas and sarabandas and zerembeques done by "classsical" composers, by the people in general, (especially the romance with its solea por bulerias compas) and by the gitanos Even "early on" in "real" flamenco you see gachos like Silverio Franconetti being important, still later, the transformation of folk forms into flamenco (malaguenas, fandangos) included much work by gache such as Chacon.
In the "very" Levante, I wonder if gitanos were at all an important influence in creating mining cante like tarantas

I don't think the comparison with blues quite fits. I still think flamenco is close to jazz. Like with jazz, you need really good performance skills to do it well (or perhaps do it at al- the ordinary nongitano in Andalucia probably cant sing siguiryas, and likely neither can the average gitano from the North of Spain. Flamenco,like jazz, is much more complex than the blues
Even the attribution of "authorship" to cantes seems to bring flamenco to a higher level than folk. Siguiryas de El Planeta, Siguiryas de Manuel Torre, etc
Jacinto