ANST - Documentation (wordy)

[Dory Grace]

Good Baron Michael wrote:
>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>).

You're not foolin' anybody y'know.  ;->  Can't swing a documentation-cat
around without waking up a few opinions.  But you *knew* that, and probably
sat back and grinned the whole time knowing how deeply many of us would
swallow the bait. <g>

in a further set of logical deduction, you posit:

>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.

Bingo. Not to mention that learning and sharing in all venues is a win-win
situation for all involved.

But then you come to the conclusion of:

>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's been discussed. Believe me, all kinds of areas and nooks and
crannies of wonder and dissention get discussed when the topic of
documentation comes up. Let me explain my own personal reasons for
supporting both requiring *and* scoring documentation. First, it's a valid
way of educating people on what elements are expected (ie considered
required) in order to have at least minimally acceptable documentation.
Giving documentation quantification of scoring helps it to be taken
seriously; people tend to give more attention to something they can quantify. 

Besides, where do you draw the line? If an artist provides no
documentation, do you disqualify their entry? What about the entrant who
had met 70% of minimal required documentation? Do you disqualify them, or
go on and judge their entry with no thought to the inequities that might
arise? 

As another thought, it's a bit harder, as a judge, to give concise feedback
without a standardized template. We're trying to meet a lot of needs here
and, frankly, when I'm judging *I* don't always remember all the points
that need to be covered. Standardization of documentation requirements and
scores helps make sure all bases are covered. 


>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.

Right now I believe the general expectation for standard documentation is
one page with all the "what it is, how it was done then, how I did it,
where I deviated from period, and why" info, one page to list the
references, plus a photocopy or two (preferably in color) of similar period
exemplars. Most of us don't have the time or necessarily the inclination to
read a thesis or look at 47 8x10 color glossy photograph (especially the
ones with the paragraphs on the back explaining what each one is ;-> ).
That kind of work should be entered as a research paper, and the item
should be entered with a one-page summary covering the above "what it is,
etc," info with a note to see the research paper if the judge is so inclined. 


>There should still be a venue for artisans to show off their stuff without
fear
>of being harshly judged. Actually, there are several:<snip>

All excellent suggestions. As well, there's not one thing wrong with going
up to people and saying, "hey, look what I'm doing! Is this neat or what?!"
We like seeing folks' work outside of A&S competition/display venues as well.


>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. :-)

You were being a very Good Baron indeed. 

Aquilanne


Dory Grace***The Inkwell
Austin, TX

"No matter where you go, there you are."
============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.