![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
SCA: art and service and recognition
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?
no subject
Oh, neither do I. Things sometimes become fuzzier when the person already has the service award for that reason and then the question turns to the arts award.
Good point about AoA-level awards versus the laurel. For a laurel, I've been trying to figure out whether I should just disregard the mediocre work and look at what remains. I think, on reflection, that this is the correct approach. That the mediocre work exists is a factor in evaluating the nebulous "peer-like qualities" (in this case, contributing to the society at large), so it's not like I'd be ignoring it entirely.