cellio | SCA: art and service and recognition

Entry tags:

sca: philosophy

SCA: art and service and recognition

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?

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

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?

I agree with

siderea's point. While I do think there are some minimums of skill required, they're generally implicit in the notion of advancing the art -- that is, you basically can't advance the art if your own skill level is too low.

I'm almost the canonical example of straddling this line. I got a Silver Crescent instead a Manche, mainly (I think) because my skill level just wasn't up to snuff. I was working for the art, but at *best* all I could manage was maintenance, because I wasn't a good enough dancer myself to teach well. Then I got a Laurel for largely the same stuff, because I'd gotten (barely) to the point where I could teach effectively enough. In both cases, I think it was probably the appropriate award, based on where I was at the time...

Does it depend on the level of award?

I don't have a problem with people receiving service awards for serving through an art or science.

And for an AoA-level arts award, service through an art demonstrates the enthusiasm that an AoA-level should designate.

For the laurel, though, I'd expect that a candidate who's art is, say, illumination, can do quality work, and does so consistently enough that her name comes up when the kingdom scribes meet and discuss such things.

In other words, if you disregard the large body of mediocre work, is there enough high-quality product to justify an honor that designates high-quality?

I think it depends on how their work influences other peoples work. For instence if they teach and encourge other people to do better/great work than that should be taken into account.

I knwo that if you recieve a top level fighting award your are expected to know how to fight, so a top level arts award should be one given to someone who knows how to arts

Maybe you need an "art in service to the Crown" or "practical Arts" recognition...

My personal opinion is that there needs to be significant evidence of achievement at the level commensurate with the award. If the service-oriented person is churning out stuff to meet a deadline for kingdom, and as a result it's not all that good, I count that work neither for nor against the person from the arts-aard perspective -- but I'll strongly recommend that the Crown give out a token of appreciation for the service. (Atlantia has a non-precedence-bearing service award, the Fountain, which one person can get multiple times. I was one of many who insisted that we institute the award -- we have similar awards for fighting and A&S as well.)

I don't consider the demands of the service component to mitigate the amount of high-quality work needed for an arts award. (What that amount is, will vary from award to award and from one person's opinion to another's.) YMMV of course.

...I think more and more that it does depend on the level of the A&S award. Particularly the Laurel.

The Laurel isn't just the highest A&S award, it's the A&S peerage, so there are a lot of baseline "is this person a peer" issues as well.

Someone who produces a lot of (scrolls / food / embroidered favors / glass bead tokens) of servicable quality is contributing to her kingdom. That's part of being a peer. She's contributing through her art, which is part of being an artsy peer.

Were I trying to decide whether to recommend her for a Laurel, I would still want to see her be well-known enough for her infrequent high-quality works, that the populace (and particularly the community of her fellow scribes / cooks / embroiderers / glass bead makers) isn't scratching their heads.

Why is this an either/or proposition? Why can't someone receive the service award for the service they do with their art, but also the art award for the art itself??? If something deserves recognition, recognize it for what it is and don't worry about stuffing the round peg in the square hole.

S

It's not either-or. Indepdendant of the service-award consideration, I'm wondering how much slack it's appropriate to cut for mediocre work because of the demands of the service aspect. Specifically for an arts award, how much high-quality work do we expect to see regardless of the circumstances?

To which I say: the circumstances shouldn't affect the amount of high quality work expected. The amount and/or quality needed goes up as the level of the award goes up.

For a given specific arts award X, the answer to the question "How much high-quality work is needed to get X?" is, and always will be, "Your Mileage May Vary." That's just a fact of life in the SCA.

Hi!

lyev mentioned this entry to me. In composing a reply, I found it was possible to pontificate at quite some length. ^^;;

Here are some questions I might ask myself when it comes to balancing quantity vs. quality.

1. How much of the work is done to the best of the person's ability? Are they limited by physical factors such as, say, carpal tunnel syndrome?

2. How much of the work is an honest attempt to re-create a medieval or Renaissance style? Even in the situations where the person has to rush, how much of a consideration is this?

3. How knowledgeable does someone looking at, listening to, or tasting the person's work have to be to notice signs that the work was rushed? Paint spatters where they don't belong, over-long pauses while performing a piece of music, and a clearly New World ingredient substitution are things that can be obvious to someone with no specialized training or experience.

4. Does correlation equal causation? i.e., if the work is sloppy, is it only sloppy in instances where the person took on the work with short notice? If the person had a great deal of time to work, does it *always* reflect their full skill or ability?

Frequently people make it known that they are willing to take on work at the last minute. Arguably, a person should, if they are not capable of producing good work at the last minute, learn this from experience, and stop. Is providing bad or "sloppy" work really a service to the individual or group who receives it?

In the case of the scribal arts, people can choose to be available for last-minute requests from the ruling nobles or Signet. In that instance, I would say that it's partly the nature of the beast that there are frequently last-minute requests; but deciding whether or not to take them is up to the individual. (Whether or not they would feel horrible if they declined is a separate philosophical issue but could be considered to address their "artistic maturity," for lack of a better term.)

As far as how much quality work we expect of a person when considering them for an arts award, I have a feeling that would vary as the award level went up. And it also depends on how true to medieval or Renaissance aesthetics their work is. Trends (or lack thereof) should probably also be considered.

Thanks. I understand the YMMV part; if it didn't, members of an order would always agree. :-)

The discussion that prompted this entry was of the case where the vast majority of someone's work is not up to the evaluator's standards, but this might be mitigated by most of that work being done under sub-standard conditions. I'm trying to figure out whether I should igore that work (evaluating based only on the smaller quantity of "good" work), give it weight because of the circumstances (perhaps requiring less "good" work than I might of another candidate), or count it negatively because of the quality of the work itself.

I've just now realized that there's another factor: visibility. An embroider has the ability to quietly deep-six his bad work so no one else ever knows; an embroiderer working on kingdom favors might not have that option (someone else's materials, in a hurry, whatever). Maybe, in all cases, the answer is to judge a candidate on his best work and expect a certain volume of that, and only count bad work against him if it's really bad (read: doing harm in some way, like someone who's teaching other people bad methods).

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.

In both cases, I think it was probably the appropriate award, based on where I was at the time...

That's an interesting perspective. I don't know your work at the time of the Crescent well enough to comment on the Manche question, but by the time of the Laurel there was certainly (from what I saw) a feeling of both skill and propegation.

I got my Manche for diverse arts, more or less. My Laurel is for music, and it came at a time when I had made real contributions in composition/arrangement and not just performance. I think, in retrospect, that was correct; merely being a decent performer wasn't enough. I'm told that "Viking stuff" played the role of a strong minor in the discussions, but of course I'm not privy to the details. In my opinion, the work I did on Viking women's clothing wouldn't have been nearly enough; basically, I was the experimental archeologist to Thora's research, but she did the hard stuff. :-)

I don't have a problem with people receiving service awards for serving through an art or science.

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.

Good points. Thanks.

We do have general service awards, whether that service comes through arts or administration or being the last dishwasher out of the kitchen every single time.

In a lot of ways, the SCA would be better off with fewer awards and thus distinctions among awards.

These are good points; thanks.

Atlantia has a non-precedence-bearing service award, the Fountain, which one person can get multiple times.

That would be a good thing to have. We do have sigils, but the crown usually gives them to people who have served them directly in some way. Something more general would be better.

What that amount is, will vary from award to award and from one person's opinion to another's.

Oh sure. I wasn't looking for a level so much as modifiers to the level. Given some idea of the skill I would expect from a "generic" embroiderer, what modifications should I apply to the one who makes all the kingdom favors for every war?

Thanks; these are good considerations.

In composing a reply, I found it was possible to pontificate at quite some length. ^^;;

Welcome to the club. :-) Thanks for the thoughtful comments.

4. Does correlation equal causation? i.e., if the work is sloppy, is it only sloppy in instances where the person took on the work with short notice? If the person had a great deal of time to work, does it *always* reflect their full skill or ability?

Excellent point. And relatedly, is the person taking on the last-minute work because sloppiness is more tolerated then and he feels he's not good enough to do "show" pieces?

Is providing bad or "sloppy" work really a service to the individual or group who receives it?

If it's bad work then no. If it's solidly mediocre -- "eh" food as opposed to food poisoning, that sort of thing -- it's harder to say. Ideally, the person would step aside in favor of others at times, and we'd find out whether mediocrity is pretty much a given under those circumstances or if that one person needs to take a break. (Recognizing this type of problem is something I would expect in a peer.)

by the time of the Laurel there was certainly (from what I saw) a feeling of both skill and propegation.

Propagation, yes, but in terms of skill I was still pretty borderline. My feeling for what was and was not period was still fairly weak, and my own dance skill mediocre. Given the fact of the LoD, it was enough to push me over the line, but I'm not sure it would have been otherwise, showing the subjective nature of these things...

The short answer is No differently than any other artisan's work. Sound harsh? Not really.

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)

After posting that comment, I remembered an interesting bit of philosophy that helps me keep things in perspective when thinking I need to hurry up on assignments. One of our scribes "got behind" on her backlog assignments due to some life issues. She asked me to check if people were tired of waiting and would like a scribe with more free time to work on those assignments. The most inspiring response was:

That scroll will last longer than the wait. It's worth the wait.

Eldred

Thanks for the comments! I, too, consider collateral damage, and people sometimes give me funny looks. ("How could doing lots of work be bad even if it's mediocre?!" Let me count the ways: (1) You give the recipient substandard work. (2) In a case like signet work, you deprive some other artist, who would have shown more care, the opportunity. (3) You lower the bar of what people consider to be acceptable work. (4) You cause people to take your art less seriously.)

That scroll will last longer than the wait. It's worth the wait.

I like that.

Congratulations again on your own recent elevation!

You lower the bar of what people consider to be acceptable work.

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.

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.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

SCA: art and service and recognition

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

After some more reflection...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: After some more reflection...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject