ANST - A&S - does utility count?

[Fopdejour1 at aol.com]

In a message dated 5/9/99 8:32:56 PM !!!First Boot!!!, kihe at ticnet.com writes:

<< 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)<<

No, unfortunantly you are correct, however unless we, the A&S community, push 
to get others to use these forms, there will never be any type of standard 
set.
 
 >>Not every judge pays attention to the documentation
 actually presented, or even looks at more than a few
 words and POSSIBLY any bibliography.<<

Again, I agree with you, and my question is...Why are they judging?  Even if 
I see a piece of costuming or beadwork that I could judge without ever 
looking at the documentation, I still read it.  It's my responsibility as a 
judge.


 >>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.<<

True, themed events are the exception, but, they are the exception NOT the 
rule.   For example, I am running Twentieth Year A&S, and we are not using 
the judging forms because our object is to get the judges in and out as fast 
as we can.  Stasya suggested that so the judges won't be obligated to spend 
their whole day judging. "In and out"...that's our motto!!!!  Again, this is 
the exception, not the rule.  In most competitons the Laurel's judging form 
can be used, barring a few exceptions.
 
 >>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.<<

Performance is not one of my major fields of endeavor, so I have no opinion.  
However, what you say seems to make sense.  I have heard that there is 
another "tweaked" judging form comming out for the performing arts.  But, we 
were addressing static arts, not performing, in the previous posts.  
Obviously if differences in performing arts is important enough to warrant 
it's own "tweaked" version, then one cannot cross apply methods of judging.  
One would assume anyhow.
 
 > 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.<<
 
Yes, but that is the difference between performing and static....you are 
being judged on something you are creating or performing at that very point.  
Performers are demonstrating their technique and talent right there for the 
judges.  That is the inate difference between Static and Performing arts.  
	In static, we don't have the opportunity to watch the 
seamstress/tailor sew the garb or the metal worker forge the metal....The 
documentation becomes indispensible to a static judge to gage the complexity 
of an item they most likely will not be familliar with.  I wouldn't feel I 
had done the artisan justice if I had not judged by their documentation.  
Now, don't get me wrong...There is plenty of of leeway for other things to be 
considered.  Documentation is just what is stressed.  
 

>>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 here you are applying a method of judging in which there is difficulty 
cross-aplying.  How can one equate holding an audience's attention by a 
performer to...say a piece of pottery?  Does the pottery hold the Judges 
attention, it may or may not...that is not the issue, the issue is the 
quality and complexity...which is demonstrated in their documentation.


 >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?<<

I have heard that chant many many times, and ya know I have even run into a 
variance of the exact example you mentioned.  However, I just improved my 
documentation and went on.  One would hope that if it is adequately 
documented any variance would be accepted just as the usual, so long as the 
usual was well documented too.  That is an issue of faulty judges, not the 
uselessness documentation.

 
 > >> 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.<<

Perhaps you are right, but I think "many cases" is an overstatement.  

  >>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.<<
  >>
 
Yes this is true....why?  Because in very large competitions one wants to be 
the one to catch the judges eye.  I would assume that is why the 
Presentation/ Display is built into the forms.  Not to belittle artisans with 
crummy displays, but to help them improve for the possible time in the future 
where they may be competing for attention of judges.  In static you need a 
flashy display to "merchandise" your entry, to give the judges the "come 
hither."  Even if it is a single item entry, it needs to be attractively 
displayed.  Think about Laurel's Prize Tourney....so many entries....so  very 
very little time!!!!


Charles  ( looking for a shield to await the next barrage)
============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.