Arts & Sciences
Yes, it's been more than a month since my last post. So sue me! It's not that nothing's been going on, but rather that I've been to busy to post. Now I want to catch up - so here's something I posted to one of my yahoo groups on the subject of A&S, creativity, authenticity, yadda yadda yadda....
from March 22nd:
"That whole "slavish" copying or reproduction thing drives me nuts. There was just recently a big dust-up on one of my SCA lists about this. I'm a research geek, and to me, trying to do things as closely as possible to the way they were actually done in my period of study is challenging and fulfilling, and it's why I do historical stuff in the first place. I do modern knitting and things too, but they are a separate activity.
I have found that the people who insist that it must be changed (usually modernized) in order to be "creative" or of "artistic" value are a) incapable of making an accurate reproduction; b) have an inflated sense of the quality and value of their own work; and c) are idiots.
I know, I know - I should stop holding back and tell you how I really feel, right? ;-> Don't even get me started on the whole "Art" thing. Oy."
from March 24th:
"I should have been more specific, I apologize. In *this* kingdom, when people talk about creativity, it seems more often than not to be an excuse for mediocrity. It is frustrating to say the least to be told by a complete moron that one should "use some actual brain power" by coming up with something original, rather than attempting to be as accurate as possible. Bitter? Damn right. I'll take that one to my grave, I'm sure.
A master-level original work, expertly crafted and accurate enough that Eleanora herself would have bought it is indeed something to be aspired to - but is *not* what the people I was referring to are doing.
It seems to me that some people feel that anything hand-made or "old-timey" ought to be just as good as something carefully researched and skillfully crafted. It isn't - not in this context, anyway.
I am also baffled by the violent reaction to this discussion that some people have - they seem to think that striving toward an ideal means making perfection the minimum standard. What's with that? I've never said everyone should do everything perfectly or not bother - honestly, that's completely ridiculous. All I and others like me are saying is that the more accurate it is, the higher it should score. What's so hard to understand about that?
Oh, and on idiot judges - I have one rule: ignore them. Don't let one jerk ruin it for you. They're not worth it. The point for me is the research, the learning, the craftsmanship. Competing means sharing what I've learned, showing what I'm doing, and learning from and seeing what others are doing. If I'm lucky I might get some useful feedback from the judges, but that's not really what I'm there for. The score is irrelevant and is not a personal value judgment. Perhaps it is my Art background that has taught me to separate my *self* from the work - not that I don't put myself into it, but that the work is not *me*. Criticism of the work is not criticism of me. I guess people who aren't used to that process get freaked out by it and take it personally. I think that's really too bad. They could be learning from it and improving."
from March 22nd:
"That whole "slavish" copying or reproduction thing drives me nuts. There was just recently a big dust-up on one of my SCA lists about this. I'm a research geek, and to me, trying to do things as closely as possible to the way they were actually done in my period of study is challenging and fulfilling, and it's why I do historical stuff in the first place. I do modern knitting and things too, but they are a separate activity.
I have found that the people who insist that it must be changed (usually modernized) in order to be "creative" or of "artistic" value are a) incapable of making an accurate reproduction; b) have an inflated sense of the quality and value of their own work; and c) are idiots.
I know, I know - I should stop holding back and tell you how I really feel, right? ;-> Don't even get me started on the whole "Art" thing. Oy."
from March 24th:
"I should have been more specific, I apologize. In *this* kingdom, when people talk about creativity, it seems more often than not to be an excuse for mediocrity. It is frustrating to say the least to be told by a complete moron that one should "use some actual brain power" by coming up with something original, rather than attempting to be as accurate as possible. Bitter? Damn right. I'll take that one to my grave, I'm sure.
A master-level original work, expertly crafted and accurate enough that Eleanora herself would have bought it is indeed something to be aspired to - but is *not* what the people I was referring to are doing.
It seems to me that some people feel that anything hand-made or "old-timey" ought to be just as good as something carefully researched and skillfully crafted. It isn't - not in this context, anyway.
I am also baffled by the violent reaction to this discussion that some people have - they seem to think that striving toward an ideal means making perfection the minimum standard. What's with that? I've never said everyone should do everything perfectly or not bother - honestly, that's completely ridiculous. All I and others like me are saying is that the more accurate it is, the higher it should score. What's so hard to understand about that?
Oh, and on idiot judges - I have one rule: ignore them. Don't let one jerk ruin it for you. They're not worth it. The point for me is the research, the learning, the craftsmanship. Competing means sharing what I've learned, showing what I'm doing, and learning from and seeing what others are doing. If I'm lucky I might get some useful feedback from the judges, but that's not really what I'm there for. The score is irrelevant and is not a personal value judgment. Perhaps it is my Art background that has taught me to separate my *self* from the work - not that I don't put myself into it, but that the work is not *me*. Criticism of the work is not criticism of me. I guess people who aren't used to that process get freaked out by it and take it personally. I think that's really too bad. They could be learning from it and improving."
posted by Cranberry | 7:31 AM
1 Comments:
I am (mostly) able to separate my heart from my writing. I have a greater difficulty in separating my Art from myself. I think it's more an ability to separate what you're saying from the craftmanship of how you're saying it than separating your heart from your art. (And I'm a writer, was that clumsy or what?) Definitely a learned skill.
As an old timer SCAer v. newcomer to the "modern age" of SCA, plus from different Kingdoms to boot, I'd say that the level of authenticity in yours is intimidating. I think by creativity, they might mean fantasy? And if that's what it takes for them to achieve that "moment" then what's it to anyone else? Like we always say, "It's their game too." I'm in it for the fun, the social event, and the Knights, of course. You won't find me hand sewing a gown soon. :)
BTW, I'm eager to watch some boys beat the crap out of each other soon. :) And see you too!
Post a Comment
<< Home