Ever the heretic, I wish to state that I am opposed to A&S competitions.
I've been thinking about this for years. I've heard virtually all sides of the argument, a couple more than once. I strongly believe that if the mentors mentor and the learners learn, and if we all strive to do our personal best every weekend, that Arts and Sciences competitions could be dispensed with altogether to the greater good of the Society.
Some of my favorite frequent talking points:
- A&S competitions are required for people who aspire to the accolade of Laurel
Interestingly, participation in competitions isn't something that a lot of the Laurel circle considers as qualifying candidates. (Some do, but I disagree.) Perhaps as a judge, since this indicates an intention to support and provide service to the arts, but as an entrant? Not so much. We look for teaching and mentoring, excellence in research and skill sets, and hard to define aspects such as franchise. Has the candidate the social development to be polite and kind when dealing with others? Does he lead by example, does she inspire peers to greater heights of excellence? Have they brought new, original, or groundbreaking research into the SCA?
- A&S competitions are equivalent to tournaments; the fighters also put themselves out there for competition
Every time a fighter walks on a practice field, there is evaluation. Over and over again I have seen knightly sorts[1] watch, note, and then step in with a helpful, "let me show you something" or "have you tried to throw the shot like this?" The fighter hones skills with every practice, once, twice or more a week. Constant practice. Certainly the tournament is a "test" of sorts, but too often tournaments become 'meanest mudder' sport; outside of a pas d'armes, tournaments are inconsistent as exemplars of knightly virtues.
Those on the service path have a similar route to excellence. Perhaps a mentor/Pelican is involved, but usually there is an officer who directs, inspires, and evaluates. Service, like fighting, is a regular thing; the officer's monthly duties, or the ongoing tasks required to complete a project.
And the artist? We typically focus on creating masterworks for one or two events a year. We usually work alone, seldom presenting the opportunity to have suggestions, critique, or direction. If one considers that the most significant barrier to adult learners is anxiety - of being wrong, of criticism - and then add the tendencies of artists to have deeply emotional connections to their art, it's easy to see how artists can get into a rut of high productivity of items that demonstrate incomplete knowledge and insufficient skills.
Artistic people need to learn to step in with a helpful "let me show you something" or "have you tried this?"; and as artists, be open to kind, helpful critique.
- A&S competitions give artists a forum for criticism and direction
A&S competitions are a too-simple solution, and one that doesn't really address the issue of creating excellence. The frequent outbursts of criticism of the competition format itself would indicate that there are problems. Few kingdoms educate judges (although I know of a number of folks who offer classes on judging at collegia); fewer kingdoms educate the entrants.
When the planets align, when the entrant has good expectations, and gets a knowledgeable, insightful judge, the system works. As often as not, entrants walk away with really bad experiences which they then repeat to friends and which serve to scare away others. Sometimes it is the judge; more often the bad feelings come from criticism of something that is near and dear to the heart. The solution is to make the product secondary to the research and documentation. It's through the documentation that I can tell whether the artist has a good grasp of historical practice. The object is the example of the artist's understanding; it's the companion to the real work. Weak documentation is always going to count against scores.
And then there are the contradictions: opposing authenticity/creativity scoring system, non-uniform documentation writing criteria. The things that we as a Society seem to debate endlessly are the things that would indicate to me that we are better off without.
- A&S competitions promote excellence
A&S competitions encouraging one skill (or set of skills) to produce one masterwork. This isn't excellence; it's a test.
Why do we invest such effort in a test, and so little in mastery? Should we not be striving to do our best job on the every-day things? Like the fighter who demonstrates his very best every time he steps on the field, the artisan should present their personal best each weekend, rather than what is "good enough". (This is a critical part of franchise.) I can only imagine the quality of SCA life, if we would all invest our resources in striving to the heights of our abilities; if we would trade gowns for t-tunics, hnefatafl for the Wheel of JellO, and cormarye for barbecue. Creating quality largesse leads by example and provides an opportunity to be "seen" far more often than the annual competition.
The artist who possesses franchise leads by example, demonstrates the joy of the process, and creates an environment which is open and inviting to the curious. This is the foundation of excellence.
- There's virtually nothing in the culture of the Middle Ages that equates to an A&S competition.
In short, it's ahistorical. I call it the "county fair" of the SCA.
What would be historical? A system of masters and apprentices, who agree to give and receive support, encouragement, direction, and criticism on a regular and ongoing basis.
Oh, right! We already have that!
[1] To differentiate from the Chivalry; there are plenty of fighters who are knightly who don't have the accolade.
No comments:
Post a Comment