[Ansteorra] How Much Travel is enough?

[gtaylor]

Bob Dewart wrote:

>If the dish were fully cooked, it wouldn't need stirring.  :)  I think this
>would be some "good to know" info.
>
As an aside to this topic....Hey...we all need stirring, no matter what
the level.  Thinking of a Peerage as a destination ("fully cooked") can
cause problems for people once they are recognized.  Your role changes
and you become "in charge" of things, but hopefully you aren't done
cooking.

Someone who has been chosen as a Peer doesn't suddenly become a
different, scary species of human who no longer needs satisfaction from
their work...which in the arts can switch from creating art to nurturing
the arts community and activities.   Y'all...if you see Laurels out
judging, knights out teaching/marshalling, Pelicans out working...and
appreciate what they are doing...let them know how you feel.  At times a
majority of feedback that they get is complaints about how unfairly
someone's been judged, rather than any positive recognition about how
much work/creativity went into making the tourney or competition.   Once
a Peer, stagnation is definitely a potential problem, and stirring by
interaction with excited younger-in-the-SCA people helps a lot.

>The number of folks that I'm becoming aware of who have been told that they
>don't travel enough, yet do numerous demos, is growing.
>
IMHO, the "traveling enough" designation tends not to mean traveling
enough, but rather gaining enough recognition by Laurels and others in
your field from various areas throughout the Kingdom.   If someone
doesn't know you or your work, then they generally won't give a "yes"
vote on you.  Demos are a fine way to be of great service to the SCA and
Ansteorra...but arts-wise, if you are not recognized both as an artist
and leader in the arts community by a diverse and large group of
Laurels, you won't have wide support.  In the arts...if you want to
maximize your exposure, attend events where lots of Laurels congregate,
and become a leader, at least on a local or regional basis, in the arts
community.

>IMHO the folks I know about should have already been peers.  It seem they
>are thought of as such by everyone except the circle.
>
As Alden said...there are many aspects to being a Peer.   In addition to
themselves, Peers represent their circle, other Peers, and the Kingdom.
 Usually circles and Crown choose carefully.   If individual peers don't
know a candidate well enough to know how this person will behave when in
a position of responsibility, a Yes vote is unlikely.

 If, in a position of responsibility or perceived authority, a candidate
is known to fall apart when faced with slight adversity, then a "no"
vote is likely until they prove that they can handle themselves.  Same
goes for a candidate who, when in a position of perceived power, turns
into a know-it-all, condescending clod who tramples on the rights and
feelings of others.  The first person would likely find little
satisfaction as a Laurel and the second would make the rest of the
circle, and particularly sensitive fledgling artists, very unhappy,
particularly in a judging situation.  Going in either extreme while
decision-making can also lead to problems- not making their own or being
swayed too much isn't good...but neither is making unsupported decisions
and allowing no feedback.

Age isn't necessarily a factor.  Emotional maturity often is.

Please note...I am not referring to anybody in particular when
responding, above.  Gilli refers to a number of people whom he feels
have been overlooked and I have made general responses.  In addition, my
answer is designed to give additional information to what has been
presented in earlier posts...its description of what makes a peer is not
complete in itself.

Mistress Isobel Hadleigh, OL, WSA