SCA: art and service and recognition

[cellio]

I'd like feedback from SCA folks on this. (Others are welcome to comment if you like, though this may be a bit cryptic.)

There are some activities in the SCA that you can take in a "service" direction or an "art" direction, or sometimes both. Scribal work (calligraphy and illumination) is an obvious area; cooking is another; others exist. Some people thrive on producing six scrolls for this weekend's event or feeding 300 people at a feast or clothing the shire for the upcoming theme event or something to that effect, and they tend to be recognized with service awards. Others are less concerned with throughput and are more interested in doing research and crafting things that are "right" and well-done, and they tend to be recognized with arts awards. Most people, of course, aren't so easily pigeon-holed and are a blend of both approaches. (It's possible to do good work quickly, after all, but it's more of a challenge.)

I find myself wondering, when considering a service-oriented person for an arts award, what the baseline quality standards ought to be. If most of the work a candidate has done is sloppy but most of that work was also done quickly, to meet a deadline, how should I weigh that? If the candidate has produced one or two high-quality pieces (to show that he can), is that enough? Is his decision to work only on the quick-and-dirty work a choice about his art, or an unfortunate effect on his art (for which he shouldn't be judged) due to a choice to serve the larger group? It would be foolish to expect everything a person produces to be top-quality, but how much high-quality work do we expect and is it mitigated by the demands of the service component?

Comments

[siderea]

See, this is where I really like the Carolingian "service to the art" paradigm. You don't get the art award for merely being good at something. You get the award for advancing the art in some way. That way can be pushing the quality of the art. That way can be increasing exposure of people to the art. That way can be research into the art, which is shared, but which doesn't necessarily produce better results on the part of the researcher (e.g. someone who researches and teaches in music theory, but isn't so great a performer.)

So the question is, what is this person doing for the art? Is this person pushing the enevelop of what can be done under time pressure (a potentially legitimate advancement)? Or is this person just turning in mediocre work? Does their doing a lot of quick-and-dirty work advance some positive agenda for the work, e.g. making it more accessible to more people? Does their quick-and-dirty work degrade the art by diverting people from good work by means of bad examples?

[cellio]

You get the award for advancing the art in some way.

I agree with this model.

Do you think there is a minimum skill threshold, or could the hypothetical bad musician who organizes dance bands, makes sure there's always sheet music, shleps across the kingdom doing this, and so on earn a laurel?

When considering a candidate I try to take a weighted average of skill, teaching/publication, organizational work, and research. This can be hard to quantify, though; it's a gut feeling, not a formal calculation.

So the question is, what is this person doing for the art?

Thanks. These are good questions to ask.

[siderea]

Do you think there is a minimum skill threshold, or could the hypothetical bad musician who organizes dance bands, makes sure there's always sheet music, shleps across the kingdom doing this, and so on earn a laurel?

Hmm. I think being a musical director is a different thing than being a musician.

There has to be a minimum level of skill at some art. It might not be the obvious one. In the above example, my belief is that it is impossible to be a skilled band leader yet a completely poor musician. But if I am wrong, and if someone does research into how to be a period band leader and attempts to bring that to the Society, then, by gum, give that doobie a Laurel.