[Ansteorra] [Ansteorra ] Kingdom A&S documentation?

Thu Feb 16 17:10:42 PST 2012

Thank you, Ameline,
Do you know why we need 3 copies of documentation for Kingdom A&S? I've
never had more than 2 judges.
Thanks,
Joanna

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Ameline DuBois <Ameline at generich.com>wrote:

>
> Hello all, I Ameline DuBois, wish all to know I was blessed to be the
> Kingdom Artisan last year and I loved every day, but as all things come to
> an end I want to congratulate Beatrix Alfray as Ansteorra's newest Kingdom
> Artisan.
>
> I have notes on a Documentation class I will post here for anyone who
> wished to read through it, sorry it is so long, but attachments will be
> striped. Documentation is hard and this breakdown can be helpful, it also
> helps show you how the judge may work with your information.
>
>
> documentation class:
>
> OUTLINE FOR DOCUMENTATION IN ANSTEORRA:
>
> There are 50 possible points to earn in our judging form, 10 points per
> category.
>
> The first three of these,  METHODS/TECHNIQUES,  MATERIALS, COMPLEXITY  -
> have the italicized comment behind them of :  As supported by
> documentation....
>
>  If  there is no documentation on the table about these three category's,
> the best the judge can give you on this sheet is a 1.
>
> Two of them WORKMANSHIP/SKILL, PRESENTATION/OVERALL IMPRESSION, have no
> documentation needed to earn. So with a perfect piece the judge loves, with
> no documentation you could receive a score of 23... and an average piece
> would be more like 17. Do not do that to yourself, or your judges. Give the
> judge all they need to increase your score, this is how I have done it. I
> have five categories listed in my paper in the same order as the judging
> sheet.  Overview, Methods, Materials, Complexity, and Workmanship. This
> really helps the judge by telling them, under each heading, what they need
> to know about your piece for each category. At times you will repeat
> yourself, that is OK, it helps the judge keep all the info about the that
> category easier to find, and also easier for you to write. Have at least
> one paragraph per Category. This is the outline:
>
>
>
> 1. what is the piece? Who used/wore/made it is history? What time in
> history? Find a picture in a historical reference y to back up that
> statement. Foot note the book and pic. This is not in the judging sheet
> this is just a springboard to launch the judge into your piece, and let
> them see what you are showing them.
>
> 2.Methods: What tools, or skills you used " to make the piece" . What was
> used by the historical artist  in the time frame you are referencing in
> your  piece. <back it="" up="" foot="" note.=""> Is yours the same skill or
> tool? Justify if it is not the same. The level of justification will vary
> from judge to judge.  Time, availability in your area, or cost to you can
> be justified by some judges but less from others. Toxicity, poison or
> danger is always justified.   Level of competition also a factor, Baronial
> A&S, Kingdom A&S, these have different  bars of complexity in my eyes.
>  Others judges might see it differently . Below  is what the judge will
> have as a guideline to give you the possible 10 points . You can try to
> steer your judge by claiming in your docs that you used a Combination 6/7
> in the score sheet, or a Majority 8/9 in the score sheet  in your
> statements about your piece but that is a double edged sword it might pin
> down the score for the judge higher or lower  than they might have
> otherwise given.  </back>
>
>  METHODS/TECHNIQUES - As supported by documentation
>
> 0/1 = No information provided or not applicable
>
> 2/3 = Piece serves some period function, but uses clearly modern or
> industrial techniques. Substitutions are not explained and only the
> basic/minimal amount of information about the period technique is supplied.
>
> 4/5 = Piece serves a period function, but more modern techniques along
> with some period techniques. Substitutions are not explained well in the
> documentation.
>
> 6/7 = Combination of period and modern methods/techniques used. Techniques
> are justified and explained well in the documentation.
>
> 8/9 = Majority of techniques are period, but some modern techniques are
> used. Entrant documents period methods and explains where and why they used
> modern techniques instead.
>
> 10 = Methods used are the same as those in period, with only necessary
> variation(s) from medieval practice (e.g., avoiding using mercury to size a
> hat).
>
>
>
> 3.Materials: list what you used your tools or skills " on". paper/velum,
> cotton/wool, pewter/silver, how did you get your materials, bought or made.
> What was used in the time frame you are referencing in the piece.< back up,
> Foot note> Is your Material the same? Justify if it is not the same.  Again
> the level of justification will vary from judge to judge, and level of
> competition. Below  is what the judge will have as a guideline to give you
> the possible 10 points .  Again you can pin down what you think the judge
> should give you with  the words Combination 6/7, or Majority 8/9 or state
> all for the 10, but you better prove that statement with good documentation
> and foot notes.
>
>
>
>  MATERIALS - As supported by documentation
>
> 0/1 = No information provided or not applicable.
>
> 2/3 = Piece serves some period function, but uses clearly modern or
> industrial materials. Substitutions are not explained and only the
> basic/minimal amount of information about period materials is supplied.
>
> 4/5 = Piece serves a period function, but more modern materials were used
> in the construction than period materials. Substitutions are not explained
> well in the documentation.
>
> 6/7 = Combination of period and modern materials used. Substitutions are
> explained, appropriate, and justifiable.
>
> 8/9 = Majority of materials are period, but some modern materials are
> used. Entrant documents period materials and explains where and why they
> used modern materials instead.
>
> 10 = Materials used are the same as those in period, with only necessary
> variation(s) from period materials (e.g., omitting extinct or deadly herbs
> from recipes).
>
>
>
> 4.Complexity: What did you " need to learn" to make this piece. Did you
> have failed pieces, what did you learn. Explain the level of skill needed
> or the time it took you to achieve the skill. In history who would have
> made your piece: servant, tradesman, the owner, a guild. Document that <
> back it up, footnote it>. Below  is what the judge will have as a guideline
> to give you points. The Complexity area is where you will get hit if you
> make a simple piece yet it is perfect in form. Let's say a mud brick...you
> can make a perfect mud brick with complete accuracy to method, and
> Materials, and workmanship....but it is a mud brick, it took you an
> afternoon to make. It has little complexity or knowledge and research to
> learn. Tell me how to take the mud brick and build a kiln then you have a
> bigger more complex piece. Again you can try to lead the judge with your
> words telling them your idea of competency you have attained in this skill
> required to make the piece. That is my idea of personal involvement, it is
> the knowledge you needed to acquire and master, to achieve the piece. Below
>  is what the judge will have as a guideline to give you the possible 10
> points .
>
> COMPLEXITY - As supported by documentation
>
> 0/1 = No information provided or not applicable.
>
> 2/3 = Piece is simple in form and function.
>
> 4/5 = Piece demonstrates moderate degree of complexity and personal
> involvement to produce.
>
> 6/7 = Piece demonstrates an above average degree of complexity and
> personal involvement to produce.
>
> 8/9 = Piece demonstrates an advanced degree of complexity and personal
> involvement to produce.
>
> 10 = Piece demonstrates exceptional degree of complexity and personal
> involvement to produce.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 5.Workmanship:  No documentation needed here...If you have it,  use it.
> Explain your creation of the piece, is it  from your mind, simulation of a
> real museum piece, conglomeration of many pieces. What are the last few
> things that set the workmanship off. Did you do something to set it apart
> as yours? Did you go the extra mile to make a finishing touch.  This is at
> the judge's discretion so help them understand your desire to improve the
> piece by  doing _____ to make it shine and stand out in the competition.
>  Below  is what the judge will have as a guideline to give you the possible
> 10 points .
>
> WORKMANSHIP/SKILL
>
> 0/1 = No information provided or not applicable.
>
> 2/3 = Piece requires basic or minimal skill, workmanship, or artistic
> ability to produce.
>
> 4/5 = Piece demonstrates moderate degree of skill, workmanship or artistic
> ability to produce.
>
> 6/7 = Piece demonstrates an above average degree of skill, workmanship or
> artistic ability to produce.
>
> 8/9 = Piece demonstrates an advanced degree of skill, workmanship or
> artistic ability to produce.
>
> 10 = Piece demonstrates exceptional degree of skill, workmanship or
> artistic ability to produce
>
>
>
> 6.Presentation: How you set the display up for the judges to consume your
> art. Table cloth, pedestal, tools out that you made or used to create this
> piece. One or two levels add interest and show off the piece better. No
> clutter, each thing on the table should add to the piece, none should over
> shadow the piece. Your art should be the focus or the pinnacle of the
> display.   Documentation should be easy to read in a simple type and big
> enough with bold category's so the judge can't get lost. You should have
> three copies in color if you have pictures that support your piece. You
> could have extras in Black and white if you wish to give some to the
> Laurels  or individuals if they express interest.   The possible 10 points
> given here is TOTALY up to the judge's discretion....make it look nice,
> neat, and professional as possible in the documentation,  and hope for the
> best is all you can do here.
>
> 7.Documentation:  there are many ways to document. Type research paper
> documentation into Google and you will get many ways to do it.
> http://www.aresearchguide.com/styleguides.html is a good one.  I will
> tell you how I do it:
>
> Footnote:   Full statement in sentence about piece.  last name of author
> as it is listed in you bibliography and page #
>
> 3 examples:
>
>  Instead of removing the piece, the wax is melted out leaving the void for
> the molten metal. Graham  p.143
>
> I mixed from pool chemicals. An artist of that time could use a vinegar
> solution to achieve a similar effect. McCreight  p. 75
>
> Hammers with a round end and a rectangle end, both used for striking, was
> found in the Mastermyr  tool chest. Arwidsson  p 79.
>
>
>
> Footnote pictures also example:
>
> Evidence of a veil is seen in the line of plaques that extended from one
> side of the jaw line to the other, going around the shoulders. Fodor
> p.230-231 fig 1,2,3,
>
>   fig1.  place photo         fig2.     place photo       fig3   place photo
>
> start with fig1 and number through however many you need in the paper each
> with last name of book and page. If from a web site note the author or full
> web address  if needed. To me it is MOST important to give credit to the
> pictures in your paper and where you got the info.
>
> Bibliography : should be in alphabetical order buy author's last name and
> should look like this.
>
> last name, first name, Title of book in Italic.Publisher, date written.
> ISBN
>
> Arwidsson, Greta, and Gosta Berg. The Mastermyr Find, A Viking Age Tool
> Chest From Gotland. Lompoc, Ca.: Larson Publishing Co., 1999. ISBN
>  0-9650755-1-6
>
> Fodor, Istvan. The Ancient Hungarians. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum
> , 1996.   ISBN 963-9046-05-01
>
> Graham-Campbell, James, and Dafydd Kidd. The Vikings. Norwitch, Great
> Britain: 1980. ISBN   0-688-03603-1
>
> Hald, Margrethe. Ancient Danish Textiles From Bogs and Burials. National
> Museum of Denmark., 1980.  ISBN  87-480-0312-3
>
> McCreight, Tim. The Complete Metalsmith. Revised Edition. Worcester,
> Massachusetts: Davis Publication, 1991.  ISBN  0-87192-240-1
>
> Website
>
>  Anders Söderberg, Sweden, "Viking Bronze"
> http://web.comhem.se/vikingbronze/index.htm
>
> This is how I write my documentation for Ansteorra. There are many other
> ways  to document, this is just mine, and it has served me well. Good luck
> in your A&S entries I hope this paper helps you in your endeavors.   This
> is just one person who has been an artist and judge for more than ten
> years, and my way of interpreting  the rubric of the Ansteorran  Static
> judging form over time.
>
> Mistress Ameline DuBois
>
> Ansteorran  Arts and Science Champion 2011-2012
>
> ameline at generich.com
> _______________________________________________
> Ansteorra mailing list
> Ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
> In order to make changes and manage your account please go to:
> http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-ansteorra.org
>