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

[chaoticgoodnik.livejournal.com]

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.

[cellio]

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.)