[Artemisia] We're the Society for Creative Anything]]

[Sage Advice]

<GRRRRrrrrr.., grumble, grumble>  I saw that Sage Cover Art thing
again.  <chuckle>

Hi all, just wanted to give an update on cover art.  I have only
recieved ONE piece of art work for the cover of the Sage and that was
printed on the January issue.

Where did all those wonderful people go that had suggestions and ideas
of things they were going to send in?

Come on, I know you can do it!  :-)  Just say to yourself, I KNOW I CAN,
I KNOW I CAN and as the sign says:  JUST DO IT!

Oh!  And don't forget to send in a signed PtP form with your art work.
:-)


Thanks bunches!
Lady Freydis





> (*THIRD* attempt to get this to go through - what is this, Yahoo?)
>
> Perhaps it's because "Reiki" is "Eastern" as well as out of period
> (assuming  wikipedia isn't completely wrong[1], Reiki is a
> 20th-century Japanese  invention) and therefore outside the supposed
> scope of the SCA, while Tarot  is considered vaguely "European"
> (images of "Gypsy" fortunetellers and all  that - so at least there's
> a "folkloric" angle that can be kind of wormed in,  and certainly the
> Roma ARE "period" European.  That still leaves us with the  issue of
> whether or not modern "fortunetelling" tarot really has anything to do
> with "period"
> practices, of course - but it at least "sort of looks kind  of
> Medieval European in a way" while Reiki definitely doesn't.  Not
> saying  this makes sense, just that I'm guessing that's the reason.).
>
> At times, I find myself thinking that the SCA has completely lost
> sense of  what it is anyway.  Not that the SCA has gone "bad", just
> that it's gotten  extremely vague in its purpose.  I suspect that's at
> the core of many  problems the SCA seems to be facing lately.
>
> As one example, there are times when it seems we've become the
> "Society for  Creative Arabianism" or (less often) "Society for
> Creative
> Asianism".  While  Arabian and Asian historical events had important
> effects on "period"  European history, the degree to which the SCA
> seems to have spread out to  incorporate it has, in my opinion, made
> the "purpose" of the SCA almost  indecipherable and a lot of written
> material describing the SCA doesn't seem  to really apply any more.
>
> The issue of prohibition of religious titles or
> material[2], for example, is neither really enforced NOR really
> repealed[3].   The prohibition would seem to prohibit a lot of "Middle
> Eastern" SCA (Islam  doesn't really make a distinction between secular
> and religious authority,  for example - if someone with a
> Middle-Eastern persona can be a "Qadi", why  can't someone with a
> European persona be a "Bishop"?)  While the WRITTEN  rules and
> guidelines seem firm, they also seem not to apply to the SCA as it  is
> today.
>
> Strange as it may sound, I think the flap over the covers of The Sage
> was just  a more trivial example of the same problem.  My impression
> (I may be wrong,  but...) is that a lot of people weren't so much
> "offended" as had a simmering  irritation that to them the covers were
> "tacky" (in the same way that a  real-world fry-cook serving burgers
> and SpudLarvae[4] at a "feast" would be)  while at the same time there
> was no "legitimate" grounds for complaint.   After all, the artist had
> been donating real work to the kingdom newsletter,  and has there ever
> been anything but the vaguest guidelines for the cover  art, and,
> let's face it, there DOES seem to be a lot of "modern fantasy" here
> and there around the SCA already anyway, doesn't there?  (I'm not much
> of an  artist myself, either, so short of a completely unhelpful
> suggestion that the  Sage not have cover art at all, there's not much
> I'd have had to offer  personally as an alternative.)  I think the
> borderline offensiveness some  perceived was just the first reason
> that seemed "legitimate" to voice a  complaint about.  If there'd been
> some kind of firm guidelines for Sage cover  art maybe there'd have
> been grounds for people who were bothered to say  something BEFORE the
> collision of the build-up of the pressure of stewing in  the
> uncertainty and irritation on the one hand and the several months of
> cover-art-style momentum which the artist had built up on the other...
>
> I'm not actually complaining about anything here but the general
> vagueness[5],  otherwise I'm just explaining my possibly insane
> viewpoint.  I don't know  what the solution to the whole issue of the
> increasingly vague scope of the  SCA is, nor if there even is one, nor
> even if we (the SCA) WANT one -  certainly a lot of people seem to
> enjoy the more loosely-defined "nearly  anything goes as long as it's
> reasonably sincere" SCA[6].  I do wish  personally, though, that the
> Society would figure out what it wanted to be  and stick to it -
> whatever it may be - a little better.
>
> signed,
> El Hermoso Dormiendo, just barely returned to Idaho and School and
> trying to  get caught up...
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiki (last visited 2006-01-11)
>
> [2] I'm told this prohibition has to do with an incident involving a
> West  Kingdom coronation around 1970 and someone apparently having an
> "extra-authentic" coronation without warning, including anointing by a
>  "bishop", and people getting subsequently offended about it.
>
> [3] Personally, I honestly can't decide whether *I* would prefer to
> either  really enforce OR really repeal the ban on religious "stuff".
> Religion and  religious issues are a HUGE and important part of world
> history in period.   I'm not especially religious myself, but I can't
> help but wonder if we're not  missing out on a lot of history by
> avoiding it in the SCA.  On the other  hand, it's also easy to observe
> that too many people in the world are unable  to handle religious
> topics without getting offended or at least becoming  uncivil, so the
> ban could reasonably be seen as a safety issue.  But that's a  whole
> separate topic.
>
> [4] "Tater Tots" is trademarked...Hmmm, maybe I should trademark
> "SpudLarvae"  - it has a nice cadence to it.
>
> [5] Oh, no!  Even my COMPLAINT is poorly defined!  It's gotten to ME,
> too!
>
> [6] Hey, I've been half-jokingly threatening for years now to show up
> at an  event in an Adamite persona - they WERE a period sect, after
> all, if a  short-lived one.
>
> On Wednesday 11 January 2006 17:20, Bruce Padget wrote:
>> I find it interesting that a Reiki class is "too
>> controversial," while there are *three* courses
>> pertaining to Tarot reading.  (Playing Tarots =
>> period.  Reading Tarots = not so much.)
>>
>> I confess, I'm not sure that Reiki belongs within the
>> SCA's scope.  It's the apparent inconsistency that's
>> bugging me.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Niccolo
>> Abbastanza Buon Non E Abbastanza Buono
>> bapadget at yahoo.com
>>
>> --- talanesea < talanesea at comcast.net> wrote:
>> > I offered to teach a class at Estrella that was
>> > rejected because "Although
>> > your write up and objectives are non-religious, our
>> > Seneschal's office feels
>> > it would be too controversial."  I understand and
>> > thought it might be the
>> > case.  It was a Reiki class, and I was offering a
>> > level 1 attunement.  So,
>> > if you are going to Estrella and are interested,
>> > please contact me and we'll
>> > set up a time.  If you want more info on what Reiki
>> > is, again, let me know.
>> >
>> > Talanesea
>> > talanesea at comcast.net
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Artemisia mailing list
>> > Artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org
>>
>> http://lists.gallowglass.org/mailman/listinfo/artemisia
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Artemisia mailing list
>> Artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org
>> http://lists.gallowglass.org/mailman/listinfo/artemisia
> _______________________________________________
> Artemisia mailing list
> Artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org
> http://lists.gallowglass.org/mailman/listinfo/artemisia