![[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
Volume of work is not the same as quality. This is true for both service and art. The debate flares up periodically on the service lists about people who go to a lot of effort or do bunches of high-profile work, but when their work is examined a little more closely, it hasn't been very effective work or has caused collateral damage in the process.
The same kind argument holds true for art. Being prolific is not the same as being skilled or knowledgable. When evaluating an artisan (and YMMV), my basic list parallels the competition judging forms we use, factoring in whether the person is teaching or supporting the art effectively. The "standard" I expect will vary depending on the level of award the artisan is being evaluated for.
If someone is prolific but with low-quality results, that doesn't reflect well on them as an artisan. A side-effect (collateral damage, if you will) is that poor-quality "service art" is not valued, so what has been gained by speed? Make fewer, but higher quality pieces.
Like one of my former bosses used to say: You can have it quick and cheap, or good. Pick one.
My thought process about C&I as a service art is pretty straightforward. I have the ability to turn out scrolls in quantity--if I sacrifice quality for speed and don't personalize scrolls. Although my goal is for everyone to have scrolls for their awards, I also want those scrolls to be perceived as something individualized and worth having rather than a bulk-produced commodity.
I can't imagine any other artisan feeling differently (unless they really are trying to mass-produce something like tokens, coins, buttons, nails, etc.).
Eldred AElfwald (posting from his wife's account)
no subject
That scroll will last longer than the wait. It's worth the wait.
Eldred
no subject
That scroll will last longer than the wait. It's worth the wait.
I like that.
Congratulations again on your own recent elevation!
no subject
There's the classic Laurel vigil advice: "You are the only book some people will ever read."
It makes sense to avoid identifying as an exemplar someone who is a bad example.