ANST - A&S Judging Suggestions

[Dennis and/or Dory Grace]

Hi Scipio, Aquilanne here.


You wrote: 
>Are we having fun yet?  :)

I don't know about you, but when we're talking A&S I always enjoy myself. ;->

I wrote:
>>Documentation is ideally short
>> but concise, maybe a page or so, plus bibliography/references/pictures. 

and:
>> I can't speak for other Laurels/judges, but the lion's share of work for
>me
>> in judging is the actual consideration of the entry itself along with the
>> thought and care I feel necessary in order to give a decently considered
>> score and commentary. Documentation merely speeds up that particular
>> process for me by giving me an idea of how much time and knowlege the
>> entrant has invested in her/his entry.

and you wrote:
>So what you are saying, if I may as I wish to cause no offense to you, my
>lady, is that the only way to judge someone's entry is to actually have it
>in front of you.  The research paper and documentation are nice, but don't
>significantly contribute to your judgment of the submission.

No offense taken. Communication is not always as clear as one might hope it
is, is all. 

First point: documentation and research papers are two totally different
creatures. Documentation is justification and support for an entry; a
research paper is the *entry itself*, and serves as it's own
"documentation." Research papers are generally quite a bit longer than
documentation and can, and should, be distributed to the appropriate
parties and judged well before the A&S event so that the judges can take
the time they need to give them a close read and give quality commentary.

Documentation, on the other hand, needs to accompany its entry and ideally
is rather short (a page or so plus reference material) and concise. The
degree to which documentation contributes to my judgement of an entry
varies with *my* level of expertise in any given area. If I'm judging an
AoA scroll with 15th century illumination and calligraphy, my attention to
the documentation is only cursory--I just check to make sure the entrant
has done their homework, see how far back their involvement goes
(hand-ground or Windsor Newton, etc), and any justification of use of
non-period materials or techniques. In this case I'm not looking to the
documentation to educate me, as this is my area of expertise, though I do
look to see that it covers the bases enough so that someone not as familiar
with scriveners arts can use it as a guideline and be able to give useful
feedback. Documentation is necessary, and gives us information we need to
properly evaluate an entrant's overall understanding and involvement with
an entry, but is a totally separate entity from the entry itself. I can't
properly judge a scroll from a photo; photos can be deceptive. Some of the
things I look for in scriveners arts don't necessarily show up well in
photos, especially the average non-professional photography most of us
engage in, since it's not likely most folk will be willing to lay out the
bucks to have their pieces professionally photographed. And having looked
at and handled actual medieval manuscripts as well as facsimile
reproductions, I can tell you that even then there are things that don't
always translate well into photographic medium. So yes. I feel a real need
to see the real McCoy in front of my very eyes.


>The judges themselves have admitted they don't know everything about every
>art & science practiced in "period."  I took this to mean that
>documentation in support of one's submission could conceivably be as
>important, if not more important, than the submission itself.  That
>documentation proves not only that you have done your homework, but that
>you are prepared to be judged by whomever happens to take on your project.


Now, if I have merely a cursory familiarity with an area, then I look to
the documentation to educate and inform me so that I may better judge the
entry. But I also judge the documentation separately from the entry.
Someone may have done a tremendous amount of homework yet threw an entry
together with little thought to workmanship, or a person may have entered a
piece displaying towering virtuosity in workmanship and aesthetic appeal
yet give less than adequate documentary back-up for it. You need both: a
strong entry *and* adequate documentation.

(As a side note here, perhaps it would be a very good idea to have some
classes on documentation, as well as those classes on judging, in order to
help educate folk on the idea of targeting "audience" with their
documentation.)

>And if what I said about documentation and research is true, even in the
>smallest sense, then you must judge the documentation of the project before
>judging the project itself.

It doesn't matter which you judge first or second or last. If the
documentation is strong, it's strong. If the entry is strong, it's strong.
Each does not necessarily hinge upon the other, being separate things.

>The actual craftsmanship that went into the
>project is what will separate the winner from the finalists.  The
>submitter's skill with his or her hands is the crowning achievement to the
>effort he or she put into the project -- the documentation is the
>foundation upon which that achievement was made.  In my opinion, of course.

You think? I could draw before I ever knew what an acanthus leaf was. I
could do calligraphy before I had a good understanding of its period
development. I have a college degree in ceramics, but I'm just now getting
around to doing some research into period ceramic materials and techniques.
OTOH, I've heard and read about period stained glass and mosaics and
dyeing, and though I've never done any of them, I could document any one of
them. You see what I'm saying? The two things--the documentation and the
artform--are two separate things; one does not necessarily provide
foundation for the other, but both are necessary to achieve excellence in
the re-creationist format we're working within.

>You have to choose a winner, don't you?  To do that, you must "weed out"
>the less-worthy entries.
>
>On the tourney field, this process of "weeding out" the less worthy (in
>terms of skill, of course) has worked rather well for selecting kings,
>princes and champions.  You start with a set number of entries, play them
>off against each other until there are only a handful left, and then select
>a winner from the finalists.

In the SCA, contenders for the Crown, both accomplished and aspiring
fighters, contend for crown on the same day in the same place. We owe our
artisans, both accomplished and aspiring, the same courtesy.


>  This sort of thing is done from elementary
>school essay contests up through the Olympics.  It does not prevent the
>"losing" (for lack of a better word) entries from being displayed, it just
>prevents them from bogging down the competition, and taking precious time
>away from the overworked judges.

Tell you what,if I had been eliminated from a competition long-distance, I
doubt very seriously that I make an effort to display my "losing" entry at
the event. I have a hunch I wouldn't be alone in that sentiment.

As to precious time and overworked judges, there are some other e-threads
wafting about addressing suggestions as to how to better design A&S events
so as to make them more positive experiences for everyone involved. 


Aquilanne
(tickled that we finally have an upgraded email program that lets me
actually *have* my very own sig line! ;-> )
Dory Grace--The Inkwell
denouncer of Tytvylus & warrior crone
amazing at mail.utexas.edu
============================================================================

To be removed from the Ansteorra mailing list, please send a message to
Majordomo at Ansteorra.ORG with the message body of "unsubscribe ansteorra".