[Artemisia] Arts and Sciences (Conchobhar)

[Conchobhar mac Michil]

Reuben and Arwen wrote:
>   I think this complex & lengthy post calls for in text responses.   I hope this is appropriate.  I'll post my responses in bold and hope it comes across that way.  Esther   
Yep, inline quoting is probably best for this, and I'm going to go ahead 
and trim most of my stuff out too.

>    Esther:  Are these your words?  Just curious.  I like "creative and subjective interpretation" coupled together.  I'd add "concepts in the world around us".  Trying to interpret the whole shebang of the "world around us" would be a serious complexity issue!
>   
Yep, those are my words.  I can string together some pretty good phrases 
late at night with enough beer. :)
>    
>   Esther:  In SCA judging criteria complex gets more points.  Just an observation.
>
>   
True, but complex does not always mean better.
> Esther:  I think this is one of the most hotly debated issues.  I think arts *must* have an element of science but science is independent of art.  Sciences can be elevated to arts by emotional content.  i.e. a suit of armor is a scientific accomplishment, what body parts needs to be covered, metallurgy, correct execution, etc. but when embellished with unnessary design elements it is elevated to art.    
>
>   
Agreed, which is why I included the original example about the mead.  
The act of making mead is a science, the mead itself is an art.
>   
>   Esther:  Better does not equal correct.  Appropriate for our SCA scope meaning historical materials in use?  Highly decorated pickle barrel armor could easily be in a modern art museum, but never fly in the SCA with any degree of seriousness.
>
>   
Well, if doing SCA art, then yes, period materials are more appropriate.
>   Esther:  Can you clarify this?  If it's considered artistic enough to spend money on, doesn't that mean it's at least art to the person making that financial decision?  Mundane example: I thought the pile of Brillo Boxes by Andy Warhol I saw at the BMA isn't art, but other people do, and would pay millions for it.  I wonder if there are period examples of this kind of thing.  Renn. people kept a lot of art in curio cabinets.  I wonder if other people came through, checked it out and said, "wow, what a pile of cr at p!."
>
>   
Well, I think you understand fairly well.  But to clarify a bit, my 
taxes go to the government who gives money and funding to the National 
Endowment for the Arts; the NEA in turn gives money to artists who 
produce things that I wouldn't consider art.  Things that I would expect 
to come from a mentally disabled chimp who was blind in one eye.  And 
even occasionally, things made from actual feces.  So yes, stuff is 
considered art by someone, but not by me.  Make sense?
> Yes ... well between fine art and crafts vs. sciences.
>    
>   Esther:  Can you give us your opinion?
>
>   
Fine arts and crafts are art; sciences are science.
>    
>   Esther:  Never beat yourself up over execution.  Rome wasn't built in a day.  :)  Why don't you document?  Even if you don't intend to submit, it still helps to make notes for yourself.  Just curious.  
>
>   
I'm lazy.  And since I barely do any SCA related arts or sciences, and 
really don't always worry about period materials or practices, I don't 
take the extra time to document anything.
>    
>   Esther:  Lots of incorrect scientific conclusions were drawn in period.  I think the period definition of science must have been very different from the modern one.  Does anyone have something like this tucked away somewhere?   Most of the time scientists don't have to conform to religious views anymore.
>
>   
Well, most scientists certainly aren't worried about getting 
excommunicated for their theories.
>    
>   Esther:  Have they done that one on Mythbusters?  :)
>
>   
I don't think they've tested crickets on Mythbusters, but then again, it 
has been tested fairly extensively by scientists and be found to be 
fairly accurate.

Conchobhar