ANST - A&S - does utility count?

Gunnora Hallakarva gunnora at bga.com
Mon May 10 00:03:21 PDT 1999


Baron Bors said:
>   Take the cart out of the conversation and you have just described my 
>experience with A&S entries in the SCA.  Wood work - just learning how but
if 
>you make a box with out dovetail joints- kiss any points goodby even if evey 
>square inch is covered with celtic knot work carved into it. No proper 
>joints- no points. 

Ah, ah!  What did your documentation look like?  And what category did you
enter it in?  If all youwanted judged was the knotwork, then you should
consider entering only the surface decoration -- your documentation merely
has to say that you recognize that the underlying box design deviates from
period in these ways (fill in the blank) and that you are actually entering
the knotwork, which is documented thusly (fill in the blank).  

If you were not sure how a period box would have been constructed, then you
say so, and go on to add the part about what you are entering is the
carving and here's the documentation for that, etc.

But not all medieval seams were dovetailed.  I know for a fact that some,
at least, were rabbeted... I found that out researching the design of the
ivory reliquaries (they are made over thin wooden frames).

>    Pewter casting - made a belt buckle and matching brooch for my kilt- 
>designs carved into the  cast was an early pict design- design and brooch
not 
>compatible as far as same time period- kiss it goodby.

I very much doubt that the comment you received was "kiss it goodby".  If
your documentation didn't adequately explain what you were doing, you
should have gotten a comment along the lines of, "Nice work with the
casting.  Although the design is very nice, it's actually much pre-period
for this style of jewellry.  You might consider trying to match the
ornamentation style to the jewelrry style more closely on future pieces."
That's good, constructive criticism.

To avoid this, you can simply state in yoru documentation, "the
ornamentation for this jewellry is early PIctish, which pre-dates this
style of jewellry.  It was used here based on personal preference for the
design."  That lets the judges know that *you* know the two things don't
normally go together.

>    This is one of the main reasons why I don't DO A&S compititions any more 
>(except in my own Barony).  I make things that appear to be period and 
>functional for my own enjoyment, with no desire to be flayed alive and
cooked 
>over the coals at an A&S compitition.  

Just do your documentation differently, Bors.  It doesn't make your entry
entirely idgit proof, but it does go a long way towards it.  

And if you DO get a judging form back with inappropriate or overly harsh
comments, it's your job to go and ask the judge why they did that.  Don't
know who the judge was?  Ask other judges or ask the A&S organizer.  Too
sensitive to ask the judge directly?  Ask a friend who is a Laurel to check
it out for you, or ask them to go with you.  Don't have a friend who is a
Laurel?  Come ask me or one of your local area Laurels, and we'll discuss
it with you and if needed I'll track down the person for you -- it's part
of our jobs as Laurels.

>     OH!!!- I forgot the stained glass ( I have done a 6 foot by 6 foot 
>stained glass window for my house and a couple for my neighbors, but if I do 
>a reproduction of the windows from Edinburg castle chapel, it's suddenly not 
>period techinque- No points for that.  

If you used Tiffany foiling, then no, it's not period technique no matter
what the underlying design is.  But all you needed to do was to state in
your documentation, "While using the Tiffany-style copper foiling method to
attach the glass pieces together is a post-period stained glass technique,
in period glass artists would have used lead channel soldered together to
hold the glass (etc. etc.)" and list references.  All you have to do is to
show the judges that *you* understand what the actual medieval technique
was, and then you ned to also document the period design -- and show that
the Edinburgh castle chapel windows are not modern designs, but are actual
surviving period glass. (And note that some huge amount of all British
medieval stained glass was destroyed during the Reformation, so it's
important to document this.)

>     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.  Does this mean that if I were judged today on the projects
from 
>several years ago (the ones that got me my Thistles) that I never would meet 
>the requirements for those awards today?

Very likely that is so.  And that's the way it should be.  Good lord, some
Laurels were made for the simple ability to warp up an *inkle* loom and
weave a one-color belt using commercial yarn!  That was in the days when
rocks were soft and dinosaurs walked the earth.  Today, weavers have built
upon the research and skills of those early weavers.  Now people do
everything from exquisite tablet-weaving to brocaded inkle-work to building
full-sized upright Viking looms.

Modern SCA artists don't usually have to start from Ground Zero in their
research - they can learn from other SCA artisans around them and begin
their own research from that point.  When I first started in the SCA, no
one had any idea that Viking women's costume did not utilize fore-and aft
tabard-style narrow aprons.  Since then SCA researchers have found that 99%
of all published books on the Vikings misconstruct the clothing, and people
are using better clothing design.  

Should we give awards to people who are ignoring all this research and
using outdated and in some cases completely incorrect techniques?  To
change the point of view a bit, fighting styles and techniques have
improved dramatically over 30+ years in the SCA.  Today's knights are MUCH
more skilled than knights who were made 20 years ago were at the time of
their own knighting.  You wouldn't suggest that we should somehow handicap
Crown Tournament to allow an old fighter who hadn't improved their skills
over 20 years to give them an artificial chance when fighting knights whose
skills are at todays' standards, would you?

>     If you were on the list a couple of years ago, you would have heard
this 
>same story debated to death.  At that time I was called a grumpy old 
>discontent ( which I am when it comes to SCA A&S compititions).  Been there- 
>done that.

Bors, you are always going to be a grumpy old malcontent.  We wouldn't know
it was you if you weren't.


Wæs Þu Hæl (Waes Thu Hael)

::GUNNORA::

Gunnora Hallakarva
Baroness to the Court of Ansteorra
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Ek eigi visa þik hversu oðlask Lofstirrlauf-Kruna heldr hversu na Hersis-Aðal
(Ek eigi thik hversu odhlask Lofstirrlauf-Kruna heldr hversu na Hersis-Adhal)

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



More information about the Ansteorra mailing list