ANST - Documentation (wordy)

[Michael Tucker]

Greetings, all:

Good grief, Charlie Brown! I am overwhelmed by both the number and vehemence of
the opinions voiced since I posted my comments. In fact, there have been SO MANY
responses (over 50, with 15 of those from Mistress Gunnora Hallakarva, who
admits to holding the subject near and dear to her heart), that I'd like to
revisit my original point (I'm pretty sure I had a point in there somewhere <grin>).

An artisan recently said to me something like:
> "I'm an artisan. I make things. I make them in a period style, using period
> methods as much as possible, and with as much craftsmanship as I can."

Just a quick aside: this person holds an Iris, mostly for "making things". The
judge, who was NOT a Laurel and didn't know the artisan personally, probably (in
my opinion) didn't know this.

> "Someone beat me out who had entered a simple, crude piece but had wonderful
> documentation. That person wasn't an artisan, they were a scholar. They had
> done the research and published it well, but they were no craftsman."

Another aside: this was the "scholar"'s first entry. The piece was of a very
simple design (didn't require advanced workmanship skills) but was well done
within those limits.

> "I thought this competition was to choose the best *artisan*, not the best
> *scholar*."

The competition was a "prize" tourney for a barony, i.e. not to choose the
barony's titled artisan, but just to encourage interest in the arts and provide
a competition "for fun". NO DOCUMENTATION WAS REQUIRED.

+--o--+--o--+--o--+--o--+--o--+--o--+--o--+--o--+--o--+--o--+--o--+--o--+--o--+

Q: So, what happened here?

A: An ok piece WITH documentation beat an arguably better piece WITHOUT
documentation, even though no documentation was required.

Q: How'd that happen?

A: Without being to read the judge's mind, I don't know. But I *think* it's
because the documentation helped the judge to determine the authenticity and
craftsmanship of the winning piece.

Q: <gasp!> You mean...?

A: Yep. Even though no documentation was required, it INDIRECTLY determined the
winning piece, by helping the judge asess it's quality.

Q: What can we learn from this?

A: Whether we realize it or not, documentation provides the foundation upon
which a work is built. If you do the research first, then do the work to reflect
the research, then document both the research and your work, you can't help but
have a stronger finished product. Your documentation, however brief, both 1)
demonstrates that you did your homework, that this is an example of the times
and places we study; and 2) tells the judge what standard to judge your piece against.

+--o--+--o--+--o--+--o--+--o--+--o--+--o--+--o--+--o--+--o--+--o--+--o--+--o--+

For example: "This is a widget made by Lord Whosit. Widgets were made and worn
in Western Europe during the period 600-1600 AD. (I don't know why they quit
making them after 1600.) This widget is made like period widgets, except I used
copper instead of gold (I couldn't afford 5 pounds of gold) and I used power
tools instead of the more traditional fire-hardened sticks (I wanted to complete
the project in 1 week, not 10 years). See 'Widgets of the Middle Ages' pg. 25
for more information about widgets (photocopy attached)."

That's not much; but if I were judging this piece (and believe me, I don't know
much about widgets <grin>) it would tell me that this person at least did SOME
research. And if I DID happen to know that widgets were supposed to be made of
gold, I'd show some leniency for this copper example.

There's been MUCH discussion here these past two days, with many WONDERFUL
suggestions on how to do good documentation. But I think it boils down to this:

We might as well face it, documentation REALLY IS REQUIRED for a piece to be
fairly judged. So, let's not quibble about 5% or 10% or 20%. Just REQUIRE
documentation, and be done with it. Then, DON'T PUT A SCORE on the
documentation! Simply allow it to do it's job, to 1) demonstrate that you did
your homework, that this is an example of the times and places we study; and 2)
help the judge determine what standard to judge your piece against.

That way, judges don't fall into either of these traps:
a) Sheesh, that's ugly! Who would ever wear that? It can't be period; it looks
like something out of Flash Gordon! (Byzantine court gown, very carefully
researched and made)
b) Wow, this is lovely! Let's make it the winner! (stained glass of a schooner,
a sailing ship several hundred years out of period)

If someone wants to enter a thesis, complete with a 3-ring binder and 47 8x10
glossy photographs (with circles and arrows on the back), LET THEM. Hey, at that
point maybe they should just enter the research as a work unto itself. But don't
arbitrarily hold everyone to that standard. Like I said, just sit back and let
the documentation do it's job. Then you can concentrate on judging THE WORK,
rather than obsessing about THE RESEARCH.

There should still be a venue for artisans to show off their stuff without fear
of being harshly judged. Actually, there are several:
1) Make stuff for your own use, or give it away as prizes at events (you'll make
some autocrat either really happy <if it's good stuff> or really uncomfortable
<if not> <evil grin>).
2) Set up a table and "show" your work at a populace meeting (painters and
sculptors do this all the time). If you want feedback, put out comment cards. If
you don't, don't.
3) Sell your stuff. Let the buyer judge.
4) "Show" your work at "display only" events, like Laurel's Prize Tourney or
Tourney de Lyonesse. Again, if you want comments, invite them. If not, don't.

+--o--+--o--+--o--+--o--+--o--+--o--+--o--+--o--+--o--+--o--+--o--+--o--+--o--+

Now, all of that being said, I'd also like to clear up a couple of things for
those who may have wondered, or who seem to have made certain <ahem> assumptions
about me or the facts of my earlier post:

1) I have not yet tried my hand at the static arts within the SCA. I fight,
sing, dance, tell stories, and play musical instruments. I am a landed baron. I
have been a canton's chivalric champion (believe it or not; it was a *small*
event <grin>) and a barony's titled bard (a competition which was judged by a
panel of 3, NONE of whom were Laurels). But I have not yet entered any SCA Arts
& Sciences competition.

2) The comments I attributed to others really *were* said to me, by artisans who
really *did* experience what I related. I was attempting to be a Good Baron by
sharing those comments with you all, to see what you thought about them. I was
pretty confident I would find one or two of you with opinions on the matter. :-)
============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.