You know, it's been a while since I've talked about SCA stuff. I was re-reading some old posts of mine from 2008 on mooching, and it reminded me that once upon a time, I was going to use this journal for SCA stuff.
Well, that train came and went, didn't it? I think a good half of my readers aren't in the SCA anyway. Fortunately, a lot of the stuff I talk about for the SCA is applicable to other areas. The one exception is when I talk about the award structure – specifically, Laurels.
An award for artistic endeavour is always going to bring out strong emotions, because unless someone is doing the exact same thing as you, comparing skill levels and quality is an apples and oranges enterprise at best, and more often feels like comparing 21st century architecture in Saigon to the aerodynamics of hand-propelled bananas.
It's tough sometimes, is all I'm saying. And because it is done by humans, people get missed, fall through the cracks, have their recognition delayed, or see someone else recognized who demonstrates a less than superior skill level, but knows everyone. Visibility is a big thing, and yes, there is politicking in awards, even ones for the people you genuinely think deserve them. After all, people have to know who you are, right? You could be the most skilled banana-thrower in history, but if no-one knows it but you and the couple of friends you take banana-hurling with you on Saturdays, you're not going to get recognized.
And yes, we've talked before about the rising tide of information, and how it's harder to get a Laurel these days for just having a wide range of superficial knowledge about an area, because there's so much data for the easy taking on the Intarwebs. I still maintain that this is an awesome thing, and that it's not really harder to get a Laurel; the skill set you need is just different from twenty years ago (15 in my case).
And this came up in a discussion I had with Bob the other day; I think the next generation of Laurels will come from the people who are specializing in great detail in their field of interest.
Take costuming (I certainly did). I've been researching and working on costume and embroidery since I started in the SCA (though I did not get my Laurel for that), and I've been finding out stuff all along the way, but the field of Elizabethan costume is popular, so therefore it is difficult to get a Laurel for Elizabethan costuming in this kingdom (Atlantia) for simply being a whiz with the nice clothing. Lots of people do it, and even a newcomer can access the information to make a really good Elizabethan outfit without doing any first hand research. All that information is there for the taking, but using other people's learning doesn't make you Laurel material. You need to stand out from the crowd.
So, at first glance, due to the huge amount of information already available on the subject, it may seem like you'll never get a Laurel for doing Elizabethan clothing, which sucks if that's what you like (and I admit, I'm not helping y'all any by doing my own continuing research; but I like Elizabethan clothing too, and I like doing cool stuff). However, you're not stuck with changing your field to something more obscure, you just need to look at things in a different way.
The answer is to go deeper. When I say that the next generation of Atlantian Laurels will be the ones who specialize, I mean just that. There are lots of things that simply aren't well-known or disseminated throughout the SCA on 'bethan clothing, and the field is rife with opportunities for research. In addition to learning how to make pretty 'bethan stuff (hereafter shortened to BS, because I have a juvenile sense of humour), which you can pick up quickly and easily by playing for an hour with Google and the various costuming websites out there*, start looking at the areas where people are saying "well, we don't know exactly what they did…". There are tons of things – the SCA is full of BS (har), but a lot of that BS involves a fair amount of guessing. Find the gaps. There are bigger gaps in some fields than others, but all fields of historical research have gaps. For the purposes of this post, I picked BS (hee) because it's pretty heavily covered, what with Janet Arnold and all, and a lot of people think there isn't anything new to be discovered. This is simply not true.
Good thing, too, or else BS (giggle) research would be pretty boring.
"But Laura, how do I find out what those gaps are?" I hear you asking. Well, I've found some pretty glaring gaps in BS (you get the picture) myself, but I'm not telling you what they are, because that would be cheating. To find those gaps and earn that Laurel, you need to change your way of focusing on a subject. Look sideways, and see not what's there, but what isn't. Is something accepted practice, but no-one knows why (coifs with brims, heart-shaped coifs constructed out of multiple pieces of buckram)? Is there an area people keep avoiding (embroidered jackets)? How about a piece of "common knowledge" that turns out to be completely wrong (attifets)? How do you prove your theory? What do you need to do to convince people who don't want to be convinced? Why should people even care? These are the things you need to think about when you're looking at your chosen art.
Research has always been a detail-oriented thing. Even in a field as well-covered as BS (blah blah blah), there are all sorts of details that are elided** and fudged, because they have not been properly researched. And that's some exciting news for the next generation.***
Go on – your Laurel in BS awaits you. ****
*Because if you're going for a Laurel in costuming, you'd damn well better be well-dressed.
**Glossed over. Big word sound S-M-R-T.
***OLSCA:tNG – the adventures of a plucky crew of misfits who really, really obsess over the details. On (a) Lifetime (of)Mondays, 9pm.
****Yes, I had to do it.
Well, that train came and went, didn't it? I think a good half of my readers aren't in the SCA anyway. Fortunately, a lot of the stuff I talk about for the SCA is applicable to other areas. The one exception is when I talk about the award structure – specifically, Laurels.
An award for artistic endeavour is always going to bring out strong emotions, because unless someone is doing the exact same thing as you, comparing skill levels and quality is an apples and oranges enterprise at best, and more often feels like comparing 21st century architecture in Saigon to the aerodynamics of hand-propelled bananas.
It's tough sometimes, is all I'm saying. And because it is done by humans, people get missed, fall through the cracks, have their recognition delayed, or see someone else recognized who demonstrates a less than superior skill level, but knows everyone. Visibility is a big thing, and yes, there is politicking in awards, even ones for the people you genuinely think deserve them. After all, people have to know who you are, right? You could be the most skilled banana-thrower in history, but if no-one knows it but you and the couple of friends you take banana-hurling with you on Saturdays, you're not going to get recognized.
And yes, we've talked before about the rising tide of information, and how it's harder to get a Laurel these days for just having a wide range of superficial knowledge about an area, because there's so much data for the easy taking on the Intarwebs. I still maintain that this is an awesome thing, and that it's not really harder to get a Laurel; the skill set you need is just different from twenty years ago (15 in my case).
And this came up in a discussion I had with Bob the other day; I think the next generation of Laurels will come from the people who are specializing in great detail in their field of interest.
Take costuming (I certainly did). I've been researching and working on costume and embroidery since I started in the SCA (though I did not get my Laurel for that), and I've been finding out stuff all along the way, but the field of Elizabethan costume is popular, so therefore it is difficult to get a Laurel for Elizabethan costuming in this kingdom (Atlantia) for simply being a whiz with the nice clothing. Lots of people do it, and even a newcomer can access the information to make a really good Elizabethan outfit without doing any first hand research. All that information is there for the taking, but using other people's learning doesn't make you Laurel material. You need to stand out from the crowd.
So, at first glance, due to the huge amount of information already available on the subject, it may seem like you'll never get a Laurel for doing Elizabethan clothing, which sucks if that's what you like (and I admit, I'm not helping y'all any by doing my own continuing research; but I like Elizabethan clothing too, and I like doing cool stuff). However, you're not stuck with changing your field to something more obscure, you just need to look at things in a different way.
The answer is to go deeper. When I say that the next generation of Atlantian Laurels will be the ones who specialize, I mean just that. There are lots of things that simply aren't well-known or disseminated throughout the SCA on 'bethan clothing, and the field is rife with opportunities for research. In addition to learning how to make pretty 'bethan stuff (hereafter shortened to BS, because I have a juvenile sense of humour), which you can pick up quickly and easily by playing for an hour with Google and the various costuming websites out there*, start looking at the areas where people are saying "well, we don't know exactly what they did…". There are tons of things – the SCA is full of BS (har), but a lot of that BS involves a fair amount of guessing. Find the gaps. There are bigger gaps in some fields than others, but all fields of historical research have gaps. For the purposes of this post, I picked BS (hee) because it's pretty heavily covered, what with Janet Arnold and all, and a lot of people think there isn't anything new to be discovered. This is simply not true.
Good thing, too, or else BS (giggle) research would be pretty boring.
"But Laura, how do I find out what those gaps are?" I hear you asking. Well, I've found some pretty glaring gaps in BS (you get the picture) myself, but I'm not telling you what they are, because that would be cheating. To find those gaps and earn that Laurel, you need to change your way of focusing on a subject. Look sideways, and see not what's there, but what isn't. Is something accepted practice, but no-one knows why (coifs with brims, heart-shaped coifs constructed out of multiple pieces of buckram)? Is there an area people keep avoiding (embroidered jackets)? How about a piece of "common knowledge" that turns out to be completely wrong (attifets)? How do you prove your theory? What do you need to do to convince people who don't want to be convinced? Why should people even care? These are the things you need to think about when you're looking at your chosen art.
Research has always been a detail-oriented thing. Even in a field as well-covered as BS (blah blah blah), there are all sorts of details that are elided** and fudged, because they have not been properly researched. And that's some exciting news for the next generation.***
Go on – your Laurel in BS awaits you. ****
*Because if you're going for a Laurel in costuming, you'd damn well better be well-dressed.
**Glossed over. Big word sound S-M-R-T.
***OLSCA:tNG – the adventures of a plucky crew of misfits who really, really obsess over the details. On (a) Lifetime (of)Mondays, 9pm.
****Yes, I had to do it.
Profile
attack_laurel- attack_laurel
- Extreme Costuming
Page Summary
- pinkleader : (no subject) [+0]
- florentinescot : (no subject) [+4]
- peteyfrogboy : (no subject) [+14]
- cbellfleur : (no subject) [+0]
- ornerie : (no subject) [+2]
- femkederoas : (no subject) [+0]
- dragonfly_sidhe : (no subject) [+3]
- jillwheezul : (no subject) [+0]
- sstormwatch : (no subject) [+1]
- ermine_rat : (no subject) [+4]
- baronesspixie : (no subject) [+4]
- weavedancer : (no subject) [+1]
- dagonell : (no subject) [+4]
- quatrefoil : (no subject) [+1]
- chargirlgenius : (no subject) [+4]
Comments
Thank you! :D
I just laughed. I told her I wasn't doing it to get awards/etc; I was doing it because I loved it. If they had a problem with that ... *shrug*
This is not to say that I don't think new research isn't important. In fact, anyone who reaches the level of skill necessary to be considered for the Laurel is most likely going to be seeking out new challenges and unexplored areas. I just hesitate to make it seem like it's a *requirement*.
(Maybe I don't want to be one after all... sounds like work! heh.)
I do like reading your costuming posts better than the social issues. Please do more!
its interesting. for now, when asked to comment on a candidate, I like to see expertise in their chosen medium. if its costume, they should be a whiz bang tailor and draper and know what accessories go with what and be conversant in the primary source materials (tailors handbooks, manuscript illos, etc).
ditto food, etc.
but we are starting to come to a time when someone may be a mastery of "production", ie using modern interpretive work (already worked out commercial patterns, a book of already reconstructed recipes). as the commercial availability of these things becomes better and better, eventually we are going to hit a time when the current expectations of original research and/or ground breaking discoveries isnt neccessarily the base standard.
not quite yet, though, IMO :)
I may want to develop a class in how to find these kind of original resources. For example, I want to refine information on my 16th century persona, who is from the town of Werdau. Werdau's records burned, but the city 6 miles away, Zwickau, has an amazing archival history, and the court records are microfilmed and available. I thought about digging through the probate records for inventories and clues. There's also an undated sumptuary law that I want to see as well. Of course, being able to read the handwriting is a skillset all on its own ;-)
Also to note is the recent proliferation of photos of English monuments in churches for costume details. That was pretty much an untapped resource that some have thought to pursue. All it took was an idea and a camera (and loving the subject enough to have the creative spark).
I actually revel in finding the crevices. I glory in new portraits, things I don't see on other people, etc, etc.
I'm finally getting my website up and running. If you have an interest in 16th century Dutch stuff, let me know and I'll send you the temporary url.
What kingdom are you from? I'm in the Middle.
In terms of the politicking - (there can be) I do prefer thinking about this aspect in terms of wordfame. Research should be accessible and helpful to others but the methods of delivery can differ. Sometimes it really helps to sit down and plan out a project for oneself including how it might be shared with others. One would still do such a project for love, mind you, but keeping the study to oneself can rob one of much joy (and information) that comes from the sharing. I think the sharing is the best part! For those that are shy, the public can be harder than the research, but it is also something that must be tackled.
It is hard enough doing Henry VIII's time frame like I've been doing, which has been helped by recent books and research. But the earlier I go, the less there is, and definitely very little of it is extant. And I have friends who are stuck in their chosen time periods like 10th or 11th century or earlier.
Compared to that, the gaps in 16th century England are almost straightforward. At least it's still the same language! (On the other hand, I think 14th century English clothing is more difficult to research because at least with the Mongol stuff there are a handful of very well-preserved extant garments. So the challenge depends on a lot of factors.)
I like to think of the sca as a organization that creates things out of books and museums and make them real, useful and functioning again. For that to really mean anything, the general populace should be able to notice the fruit of your labor.
It can get ridiculous but I don't think we're there.
Asa
But there are a few things to play devil's advocate about -
What about the person doing original research who is generous and sharing - who then watches someone else more geared toward showmanship walk off with their research and lay claim to it?
What do you do when long-established artisans who are acknowledged SCA experts simply say "you're wrong" because your work doesn't match their work, which perhaps isn't as recent as yours?
I've seen both these things happen in the SCA, and it makes me wonder about the human component in all of this.
In my post, I pose the question about dealing with people who won't be convinced - what would you do if your new knowledge was refused, point blank? I've had it happen to me more than once. My answer was to provide bulletproof research or really in-depth knowledge of the period, and ask them for their side of the proof. In the end, what they choose to believe is up to them - I don't care if they can't handle the knowledge that they might be wrong. My job is to educate the people who want to be educated.
Yes, it sucks if those people are Laurels, but they can't be the only ones - reach out to others, in other kingdoms if need be. The award structure is people driven, and you're always going to have asshats. There is no answer to that except to try and work around it. Sure, we can come up with hypotheticals until the cows come home, but that just sends people into a death spiral. Some people are going to get hosed - my job as a Laurel is to try and minimize that eventuality by counteracting the asshats.
Now, if someone steals your research, then documenting is key. If you ever have someone do that to you, tell all the friendly Laurels you know, and bring your documentation to prove your research. No-one likes a plagarizer. It is also incumbent on every person to honestly acknowledge the inspriations for their work.
The human component will throw a spanner in the works, but you can't give in to the idea that the asshats win. Sure, people who manifestly don't deserve it sometimes get awards, but it's not the award that matters, it's the person who has it. Believe me, there are tiers of Laurels, and not everyone is respected.
BS also stands for banana slinging. Coincidence?