ANST - A&S - does utility count?

Mike C. Baker kihe at ticnet.com
Sun May 9 12:14:38 PDT 1999


More on utility vs. art vs. judging, quoting / responding to
>Ld. Charles de Bourbon
>apprentice to Mistress Charla

> I am afraid Your Excellency that I must disagree, I am by no
> means an expert judge, but I have done my faire share of
> judging competitons with and without Laurel guidence.
> Yes, you will lose a bit if the workmanship of the box (or
> in my case, doublet) is not superior.  But, that falls under
> the catagory of Workmanship/ Technical skill or Authenticity
> of Techniques with a max of 5 points to be deducted for each.
> The majority of the point deductions will be lost due to
> inadequate documentaion.

With some apologies, Ld. Charles, I must take direct
exception to these claims for at least three separate
reasons:

Not everyone uses the judging forms that have so
recently been adopted (and which HAVE improved
the level & quality of feedback / eveness of
judging in most/many cases)

Not every judge pays attention to the documentation
actually presented, or even looks at more than a few
words and POSSIBLY any bibliography.

Even of those who use the form and read the
bibliography, there are still substantial occasions
where neither can be applied with "normal"
fairness because there is a particular / specific
theme for a given competition which overrides
any of the judging criteria associated with the
recently-adopted point scale.

Look: the point scale is a great tool, but it is only
one tool and it makes some assumptions that
may just not be applicable to any given venue
of competition.  I'm not at all comfortable with
using it as the primary basis for performance
pieces that are creations of the artist, as
opposed to the presentation of a pre-1600
composition -- and seriously question how
"authentically" we can apply the strictured
criteria to even those.  No time machine,
therefor I have no way to form a reliable
opinion as to the sounds and mannerisms
actually & specifically applicable to a scop
in AD800, even if the attempt is made in
the original language and not in more modern
translation.

> Again, this goes back to the documentation mentioned
> earlier...all you have to do is justify why you did what you
> did, and most judges will be satisfied.   eg. "I put this pictish
> design on my belt buckle, even though it is not in the same
> time period as the buckle design, because I prefered it to
> other designs I have seen."  It simply shows that you are
> aware of your art as it is applied to it's medieval or
> pre-medieval counterpart.

> If a judge still knocks you for it, then there's nothing more
> you can do except move on and accept judging is subjective
> at best.

No, there is something else, and HE Bors has been doing
just that for some time already.  As a judge of performers
from time to time, I do likewise:  I don't care how good the
documentation is, IF the _performance_ is what is to be
judged, I will make my final rankings based primarily
upon the actual presentation.

Allow me to stress that this in no way implies that I have
any less respect for a well-documented presentation.

I *like* documentation.

But any lack of performance acumen and the ability to
hold and please -- or appropriately instruct -- an audience
are shortfalls in skills which no presence or lack of
documentation can overcome, or make that much worse.

> Again, documentation....documentation....documentation

Ld Charles, how many times does one hear this chant
only to see solid documentation of variant views rejected
out of hand without fair consideration before the energy
is not there any more?  There ARE more forms of joinery
in box-making than dovetailing alone.  There are extant
examples of such.  There are examples of poetic forms
which are not accepted to the modern eye or ear of the
average judge because they have not been encountered
previously.  Even with documentation, will they be
judged equally with a well-performed, easily-authenticated,
sonnet penned by Wm. Shakespeare?

> >> Same story with leather work.  I have a Thistle in casting and
in
> leatherwork -- my ability and technique haven't changed over the
> years, but the judging has. <<
>Of course it has, it would have to to remain competitive A&S wise
with the
>other kingdoms of the known world.

Problem:  the increasing height of the bar is being administered in
many cases by individuals admitted to the highest ranks under
earlier, less-restrictive conditions.  Regardless of anything they
might do, there is still going to be a level of distrust that there
isn't
some degree of protecting privilege at work.  (*I* know better, or
think I do, but it is hard to overcome perceptions deeply rooted
in past experience.  The relatively recent apparent opening
of doors long thought welded shut has helped in this matter.
I, indeed, have seen Hell freeze over!)

> PS  Judges are not monsters out to get people,
> they are learning too.

Yes, this is sometimes difficult to remember.

It is harder to do so after every report of insensitive
commentary, inattention to actual details presented,
and apparent resistance to / direct refusal to
accept differing points of view presented in
documentation.  Add to this consideration of
incidental factors of the presentation becoming as
important as the item actually being offered, and
there are still areas where the system itself is still
open to realistic & valid criticisms.

OK, I'll switch hats one moment:  now for a moment
from Die Teufeln Advokat.   There *IS* at least one
venue (other than performance) in which the presentation
should certainly be a relative factor, and that is in the
"body of work" format.  For some specific types of
artwork, a tasteful drapery, non-horizontal presentation,
or differing presentation of documentation may enhance
the effect being attempted.

[hat-switch again] But for single-item entries, or display
areas that are no more than a table under a tent with
little or no windbreak and potential clouds of dirt (anyone
else hear about the situation for judging calligraphy at
Estrella this year?), vertical display of a portrait or
framed item of illumination or calligraphy is actually
inappropriate.  However, the current wisdom is that
they "must" be vertical for maximum points / acceptance.

Mike C. Baker
SCA: Amr ibn Majid al-Bakri al-Amra
"Other": Kihe Blackeagle (the Dreamsinger Bard)
My opinions are my own -- who else would want them?
e-mail: kihe at ticnet.com OR kihe at rocketmail.com


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



More information about the Ansteorra mailing list