ANST - Re: Documentation (Gunnora Soapbox Alert - Looonnng!)

[Gunnora Hallakarva]

On the topic of A&S documentation, Michael Silverhands said:
<snip>
> Your raise an issue that has been the subject of (occasionally heated) debate:
> documentation for A&S entries. There seems to be a trend towards putting more
> emphasis on documentation than on the work itself.

There is growth in the Society as a whole.  Back 20 years ago, you could enter anything, just about, that was handmade, and expect to do well.

Over the past 20 years, though, we have grown in our knowledge and our skills as a Society.  Part of this is the desire to have everything look better.  Much more is the drive most
artisans have to better their own personal best.  But indeed a large part of this is the Order of the Laurels consistently pushing towards more authenticity.

We stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before.  It is no longer necessary to slave to document every particular of inkle weaving or tablet-weaving -- several generations of
SCA craftsmen have done so already, and newer craftsmen can work from existing documentation without having to prove that these technologies were period.

Do many people remember that the most awe-inspiring prize at the first or second Tournament of the Lions was a plain 1" wide maroon-red inkle-woven belt? It was the cutting edge of SCA
arts technology.  Today it almost takes a suit of Maximillian Plate to impress so highly -- but certainly we can be impressed by many things -- look last year at two of the most
impressive Gulf Wars A&S entries -- Raisa's herb garden and Corinne's Iron Age peplos dress.  Neither was flashy, but they had MILES of substance.

I will state flat out that you cannot win an Ansteorran competition with a beautifully documented piece of crap.  It isn't going to happen.  But if we have a perfect work that is
completely undocumented, and the competition rules state that documentation is *required*, then that piece cannot win no matter what -- and this is a situation I see all the time, and
it makes me want to gnash my teeth, because we would LOVE to award the prize to the perfect piece, but cannot without the documentation!

> An artisan recently put it to me something like this: "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.

As a judge, I point out that there are two kinds of people who enter A&S competitions:  the first group genuinely want feedback on how to improve their work, which is the reason we have
commentary at all.  Unfortunately, the SCA is also full of lots of people with bad self-esteem who only want a warm fuzzy and admiration for their effort.  I have had artisans tell me
to my face that they wanted constructive criticism, "Tell me how to make it better!" and when you give it, you find that in fact the artisan had only wanted praise and no information on
areas that could be improved, and had in fact assumed that praise would be all that was forthcoming.

This is a double-edged sword, and one of the griefs of being a Laurel.  I don't tear artisans down at random to make myself feel big -- I *know* what I'm good at, and I feel proud of
those things, and don't need to savage someone else to make me feel better about myself.  But neither am I a mind-reader.  If an artisan does not want constructive criticism, then they
need to avoid competitions and ONLY enter displays -- or else they need to speak up and say, don't criticize anything, just tell me what's good, I don't want to know what I can improve.

> But, lately, I can't even get a
> positive comment from the judges, let alone win a competition. All they want to
> talk about is my documentation (or lack thereof).

If documentation is a requirement of the competition, then you must have the documentation to do well.

I must say though, I have a hard time believing this comment in full.  The entire Circle of Laurels has been internally policing itself to avoid over-harsh critiques.  This is why
you'll see us judging in teams when possible, and we are all trying to use what good Mistress Siobhan FitzLloyd termed "the ham sandwich method of critique" -- some fluffy white stuff,
followed by a small amount of meat, followed by more fluffy white stuff (basically, sandwiching any negative between two positives).

You'll notice that the forms we're now using to judge with are 2-part carbonless.  this ensures NOT ONLY that the artisan gets a copy, but also that one copy gets reviewed by other
Laurels.  If an unreasonably harsh comment was made, for example, at the Gulf Wars A&S competition this past weekend, either Mistress Jehanne (static) or Mistress Ariella (performing)
would have addressed the issue with the Laurel in question and certainly made sure that one or more Laurels went back to the artisan and repaired any hurt feelings.

There are lots of considerations about art in competition that the Laurels are looking at:

(1) Is this the same tired artwork that you have entered in the last 15 A&S competitions?  It may have won rave reviews the first time round the kingdom, but no one is going to allow
you to "rest on your laurels" -- we expect artisans to grow and improve.  If we did not push artisans to continue to learn, grow, and produce new works, it would be like a parent who
praises their child when he or she learns to color, but who never encourages the child to learn to color inside the lines.

(2) Did you get rave reviews for your stuff when you had no awards, or just a Thistle, but now that you have an Iris you aren't getting noticed?

In a very real way, Irises are Laurel candidates.  They are the pool from which we generally find our new Laurels.  We do expect more from a Companion of the Iris of Merit.  They have
achieved a journeyman level of work in the SCA, so they will not receive as much praise for beginner-level projects -- unless they (a) take up a new artform and (b) let the judges know
that it is a completely new artform.

(3) What kind of A&S competition is this?

At Laurel's Prize Tournament (LPT) we hold a body of work *display* -- this means no score sheets, no numbers, and usually lots of praise and encouragement.  It also is probably the
most prestigious arts event in Ansteorra -- but if you want to turn the Laurels' heads, you have to really shine, because the caliber of work is so very high.

At themed competitions, there may or may not be official scoring, but entries which do not conform to the theme cannot win.

At any competition in which the rules clearly state that documentation is required, if you are lacking documentation it doesn't matter what you made or how wonderful it is, you cannot
win.

Furthermore, if the only comment this artisan is getting is that his documentation is lacking, WHY hasn't he sought out one or more of the Laurels and asked us to help him (or her) with
the documentation to MAKE it acceptible?  This is my particular field of expertise.  But we have lots of excellent folks in the kingdom that can assist with this:  Mistress Mari ferch
Rathyen in Bjornsborg, Mistress Emilie (sorry, I know I butchered the spelling), Mistress Stella in Elfsea, Mistress Rose Cathan and Master Geoff Cathan in Stargate,  Mistress Clare in
Bryn Gwlad, Master Liu Jian in Shadowlands, are just a few. It is OUR JOB to help you with this sort of thing -- but again, we are not mind readers!!  You have to want it bad enough to
come and ask.

I am always available to help ANYONE with their documentation.  I may not be expert in your artistic field, but I most certainly can help you make your documentation better.

> 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.

In order to accurately assess this statement, I would have to see the works in question.  But I will also point out that we have more than one or two artists who have an inflated sense
of their own abilities.  What you think is wonderful may not be so wonderful when examined by experts in the field.

There *IS* a creative element expected and allowed in SCA competitions, but we expect that where entries deviate from medieval practices and materials that this will be documented and
explained. But no amount of documentation can help someone who is using blatantly modern techniques and in blatantly modern styles, or who is creating fantasy items that had no analoges
in the Middle Ages or Renaissance.  You may make the best Klingon uniform ever sewn, but it belongs at a con, not in the SCA.  Cross-stitch pictures such as those commonly found in kits
(even when the artist designs them themselves) may not be well-received, most especially if they use a non-period or fantasy design, non-period choice of threads and colors, and so
forth.  I *do* except beginners entering their first A&S competitions -- when I know someone is new, I take extra pains to encourage them in their work -- Mistress Elizabeth Poulsdottir
did that for me at my first Kingdom A&S, and it has kept me active in the SCA arts ever since.

> I thought this competition was to choose
> the best *artisan*, not the best *scholar*. If someone isn't qualified to
> recognize quality period craftsmanship when they see it, why are they judging?"

But did you really use quality period craftsmanship?  It doesn't take much in the way of documentation -- *EVERYTHING* you need can be placed on a 5x8 index card.  But if you can't
manage the minimum documentation, then chances are quite good that what you've done is more fantasy than period art.

I have STRONGLY suggested to all my apprentices that they do the research FIRST before ever starting a project.  There's nothing more painful than looking at someone's convoluted
documentation that tries to prove that some item that they dreamed up really could be period.  If you took a little time to just read a bit before you started, it would be much easier
to document the piece afterwards.

I have a hard time believing that any person absolutely cannot do documentation at all.  Why?  Because here is ALL that is needed:

(1) What is it?  (i.e., 15th Century Hatbox for Reticulated Headdress)

(2) What was the medieval exemplar?  How was this done in period? (this can be a photo of one or more surviving artifacts, it can be text quoted from a reputable source).

(3) How did you make the item?  (Describe your techniques and materials.  Do not B.S. the judges -- we know gold paint from gold leaf:  "I wanted to hot-stamp gold into the designs on
the leather as was done in period, but I do not have access to the necessary tools.  Instead, I have approximated the appearance using gold paint.")

(4) Explain where you deviated from the medieval originial, and why.  Especially explain incongruities, modern appearance and techniques, and so forth.  (For example, on the reticulated
headdress, the original was a 15th century piece, but was ornamented with Book of Kells knotwork.  "The reason was that this item was a commissioned piece of work, and that was the art
that the patron asked for." -- Which is a perfectly acceptible explanation).

(5) List your sources.  Use a standard style guide, such as Turabian, MLA, APA, etc. (all of which are available on-line for free) to make sure that you include the right information.
The order doesn't matter so much, so long as all the data is there.

Any additional information may be attached to the back of the documentation listed above.

How hard could this be?  Not very, if you aren't trying to document something that didn't exist in the period, or something that you made up that "feels" medieval *to you*.

> This simple tale illustrates what I see as a growing problem in A&S judging, and
> with A&S competitions in general. I have personally witnessed scenarios such as
> the one described above, where stunning works of craftsmanship only got comments
> like this: "Needs better documentation", with absolutely *no* mention of the
> quality of the piece.

Are you certain it wasn't a case of "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all"?

As a group, the Laurels are working together to put together kingdom-wide judging classes -- we want not only prospective judges to attend these classes, but the artisans who will be
judged as well.  I think most artisans do not have a clue about how much work and consideration goes into judging.

There are times when all I have time to write is a single sentence -- but in such a case I always leave my email address and my phone number.  It is rare to have an artisan contact me,
nonetheless.  But when you have 300 items in the hall to judge (or even 30, and only 1 hour to do it in, which is more typical) what you can do in the way of commentary is VERY limited.

ALSO, let me point out that the Gulf Wars selection process this past weekend was a situation in which the Laurels were asked NOT To spend lots of time making comments, but to include
contact information for the artisans instead.  If anyone has any questions, they need to contact the judging Laurel and ASK!!

Also, if an artisan gets a "no comment" or just gets slammed for no apparent reason, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ARTISAN TO ASK ABOUT IT!  If you can't find the Laurel, ask the person who
organized the competition to help you find them. If you don't know the event organizer, ask the local A&S minister, the seneschal, the baron, or ask any Laurel.  If you are too
upset/shy/passive aggressive/whatever to speak to the judging Laurel by yourself, talk to one of the Laurels that you DO know about the problem -- almost any of us is more than willing
to find out what happened and why, or to go with you to speak to the judging Laurel by way of moral support.

> I don't know why this is the case, unless maybe the Laurelate is "on campaign"
> to improve documentation, and so is emphasizing it in order to solve a problem.

We have been on this campaign for the last 30+ years.  It isn't anything new.

> Maybe, in some competitions, the workmanship is too good across the board to
> judge a winner, and so the documentation is being used as a "tie-breaker".

Sometimes it's impossible to decide.  When we get a pair or group of items that are very similar, we will look for some combination of:

(1) most period techniques
(2) most period materials
(3) relative difficulty
(4) best documentation

> Maybe
> judges feel they are too pressed for time to write positive comments, they only
> have time to point out areas that need improvement.

This should NOT currently be happening.  The Circle as a whole is stressing the ham sandwich critique described above.  If you get slammed in an A&S competition, COME TALK TO US ABOUT
IT!!

> Or maybe it's this: many of
> us who are called to judge are not qualified to judge the work, so we latch onto
> what we *do* understand: the supporting documentation.

I cannot think of how many times I have been stuck as the only judge at some event.  Any Laurel should be able to determine quality craftsmanship, but if the artform is one that I don't
practice, then I do have to refer to the documentation.  Most Laurels have a pretty wide base of general knowledge about the period (for that matter, most peers are supposed to) so we
can generally do a fairly good job of judging given documentation.  If I don't know, and can't figure it out, I'll snag an expert -- be it another Laurel, or anyone else on site who
practices the art.  If you can't find an expert, you punt.  I'll often refer an artisan to one of the other Laurels who COULD actually help them.

> Like I said, I'm not sure what the cause of this trend is. It's probably many
> factors, including those I mention above. But I would ask judges to remember to
> write down positive comments as well as negative. At any given competition,
> we're going to have plenty of first-time competitors. If we want them to enter a
> *second* time, we need to remember they are human, and very vulnerable to harsh
> criticism.

And they need to remember that Laurels are not clairvoyant.  If they note on their documentation or entry form that this is their first competition, or first time to try a given art,
then we *CERTAINLY* take that into consideration.  Then, too, the Circle as a whole has been known to jump all over a Laurel who was harsh to a new artisan.

> And it seems to me that the work, not the documentation, should
> determine the lion's share of the points. Documentation should get only a small
> part of the score, in order to differentiate between otherwise masterly examples
> of the artisan's craft.

I don't think "a small part of the score" is appropriate at all -- we are a medieval and renaissance group, therefore arts should be more than vaguely medieval or renaissance arts --
and how else can this be determined than via documentation?

On all of our judging forms right now, we have set documentation at 20% of the total, which means that the work HAS been getting the "lion's share" (80%) of the points.  The breakdown
is generally something like this (Mistress Jehanne can correct me as needed):

20% Documentation
20% Period Materials
20% Period Techniques
20% Craftsmanship
20% Overall Impression

At last summer's Laurel Retreat we created standardized judging forms for the kingdom, there are slight differences between Performing Arts, Static Arts, and Scholarly Research, which
are the three different forms.

> Of course, that requires us to find judges for our
> competitions who can tell whether an 80% perfect gown is better than a 90%
> perfect sword, or a 70% perfect lute. I know; that's a *very* tall order!

We do not judge apples and oranges.  For any item , we look at "how good an example of this type of item is this entry" -- the modern metaphor is the dog show, in which animals compete
against a breed standard.

The Circle hopes to eventually build a set of general guidelines for many fields within the arts to help artisans know what things we look at when we judge.  For instance, if you're
judging a woven belt, you would want to see period materials woven in a period way, you'd want to look for even selvedges, even tension in the piece, no "dropped" threads, and so forth.

"Russell Husted" <husted at hotmail.com> said (in response to Michael Silverhand's comments)
> I would like to see two kinds of A&S. I would like to see an artisans
> competition as well as the A&S as it currently is. I do many periodish
> crafts that I have no way to document, much less wish to waste massive
> amounts of time on doing documentation for my less important endevours. <snip>

If it's "periodish" it probably belongs in a fantasy society's A&S, not in the SCA. Tolkein is "periodish".  So are elf costumes.

If the materials are period, and/or construction methods are period, and/or final apperance is period, and similar items existed within period, then chances are that you could actually
document it -- IF you cared to bother.  For example, I put together a reliquary casket in the Northern European style that used polymer clay to simulate the ivory (due to cost and
conservation issues) and which used my own original artwork, which was done in a period style with period themes. This is perfectly documentable -- I could cite many examples of similar
caskets (with photos), and many examples of similar designs on carved objects.  The item as it stood was EMPHATICALLY not period -- PVC modelling clay isn't even remotely period!  But
the apperance, the techniques in construction, the remaining materials, and the style WERE period.  The piece did not exactly reproduce a period piece, but any ivory craftsman in early
Northern Europe would have found the artwork used reasonable and appropriate.

I suspect that a lot of people kvetch and moan about documentation because they did the project for fun or because it was something they thought would be "neat" and then decided later
to enter this widget in A&S. DO THE DOCUMENTATION FIRST!! SAVE BITCHING ABOUT IT LATER!!  You'll be happier if you do.

> Bards do not document their work, because much
> of it is new-I wrote my story in this style because...<snip>

This is just not true.  Some VENUES do not require a bard to produce documentation -- Kingdom Eisteddfodd comes right to mind.  But it SHOULD -- it's a disgrace that we can choose a
kingdom bard who won based on performing filk (My opinion - your mileage may vary).  And Kingdom A&S and Gulf Wars Performing Arts DO REQUIRE bardic (and other performing arts, such as
dance) to be documented.

> I am not discuraged from A$S and will enter them again, but there are
> many arts I enjoy doing that I will never enter into an A&S as long as
> documentation is needed. My chainmail is chainmail, my cardweaving is
> cardweaving, but I am just doing a craft. I do not want to documetn it,
> unless I am doing something real speacial. There are many masters of
> these and many other crafts, and I claim no level of mastery in them. I
> just love to do them, but will not enter them in anything, because there
> is no forum forum for just an artisan.

But the idea that you can't simply and easily document this stuff is just not very logical.  Ask around and find others who are doing these crafts -- and ask if they'll share their
basic documentation with you.  Then start from there and adapt it to your project.  In the SCA, we all stand on one another's shoulders.  For that matter, I bet you can find *more* than
adequate starter documentation on the web -- see Thora Sharptooth's webpage, or Phialia's String Pages for the cardweaving, and I *know* that I've seen at least three or four good
webpages on chainmail.

The point is that you do not have to be a master researcher to do documentation, nor the Lone Ranger.  Get the basics on paper.  Then get someone else to read the stuff for spelling,
grammar, and ask them to tell you what they thought that it meant -- that's the fastest way I know of to find out if your documentation is conveying the correct message.  There is no
cardwaving project that cannot be quickly documented, and without putting in scads of effort - 20 years of SCA craftsmen have done the work already, all you must do is to use it and
apply it to the current project.

Furthermore, once you've done documentation once, *SAVE IT* -- then all you have to do is modify it slightly for your next related project.  Many people keep a general ring binder of
the background documentation for their project -- then on a card or sheet of paper, they list the "What I did on THIS project" portion, and refer the reader back to the notebook.

Of course, there is another fallcy in the statement above -- no one is ever required to enter an A&S competition -- LPT is a display venue, so is Tournee de Lyonnesse.  Look for
displays, and go to those -- documentation is almost always optional (but strongly encouraged).  The joy of LPT for people who don't like competition (or documentation) is that it's
non-adversarial -- you get to speak to the judges face-to-face, so you ARE your documentation.

::GUNNORA::

============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.