[Artemisia] Arts and Sciences (Catriona)

[Reuben and Arwen]

Responses in text.  Esther
    Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 08:11:22 -0700
From: "Catriona A. Morganosa" 
Subject: Re: [Artemisia] arts and sciences

Well, it's not late, I'm not exactly bored, but I'm very conceited so I feel
it would be wrong to deprive you of my excellent opinion! ;)
  
 
  Esther:  I'd love to have it!  No crickets after all!
  
I, too, tend towards the PoV of my buddy Couchie regarding Art v. Science
being the definition of Subjective v. Objective observation. Biology
background here. *waves*

However, our Nautical Guild is putting together A and S entries as part of a
Master rank training, so these subjects are very high in our minds at
present. Some of the proposed questions are ones they would really like to
have addressed. Such as:

> Does complexity of a piece always add to it's merit?

Like Couchie said, this is subjective. Some people like simple, some
complex. Likewise, the contestant has their own preference as well. However,
one of the things I'm explaining to our members is that the documentation
sells the piece. While an item may have been simple FOR YOU to make, it
might be out of the realm of feasibility for your judges. The only way to
know is to document your efforts, both your successes and your failures.
Judges also understand the value of learning from your mistakes. It's one of
the valuable things about entering competitions. Most people feel
unappreciated when the judges don't connect with their item, but honestly,
they can't if you don't give them some idea why they should. If your project
is fairly simple, tell the details. MAKE them see why this piece is special.
   
  Esther:  Nautical Guild sounds fun!  Will there be a website? 
   
  I think there's a big difference between *doing* Art/Science and presenting in a competition.  Exactly what that is I'm still working out in my brain.  I don't think it's documentation, because you really have to be using some sort of documentation to even start a project.  I think it has something to do with putting your soul and mind out in public for judgment.  When you just *do* Arts and Sciences you aren't risking public failure.  It's more than that, but I'm trying to find the right words.
>
> What if the historically accurate way is more simple, ugly, or doesn't
> meet modern aesthetics?

Couchie said, "Well, if you are trying to make an accurate historic
recreation, then it
should be done in the historic fashion."

I agree with this. Again, documenting your journey matters. You can choose
to make something incredibly accurate by, for example, growing the flax to
make the linen apron, or harvesting the bone and sewing with bone needles.
So using period tools instead of power tools or medieval math versus modern
calculations may make the difference, especially when you document the
process. Simple, ugly and not meeting modern aesthetics can be made complex,
attractive and aesthetically valuable if the judges know this is the intent
from the beginning. Illustrate the beauty which made you choose this piece
in the first place, even knowing all this.
   
  Esther:  I like your documentation ideas, but then we come to: is it about the documentation, effort, or the piece itself?  If it's art, does it communicate the artist's emotion to the audience?   

> Do quality materials automatically make something better?

That is quite subjective. Imported white truffles (the mushroom kind) can
cost $2200 a pound. They perfectly compliment the delicate flavor of the
quail, but you must take great care in your preparation of the quail in
order to bring out the subtle qualities. Cook it wrong and it becomes dry
and bland.

Of course, to a palate schooled on burgers and beer, ALL of this is wasted.
People who can tell the differences between which brand of hops made the
beer often say all wine tastes the same to them, and vice versa. To the
burger and beer palate, quail is weird chicken that is way overpriced.
Either way, you have to cover it in BBQ sauce to make it edible.
  
 
  Esther:  So art is in the sense of the beholder?
  
> Is emotional content and aesthetics in art more important than
> documentation or execution?

These are intrinsically linked. What caused you to be emotional about this
piece in the first place? Use your documentation to explain this and the
love and care with which you executed the endeavor.

St?pan? Catriona Morganosa, OP
   
  Esther:  I don't know.  Is it being emotional about the piece, or is the piece an artists emotional reaction?  I think somewhere in here is the difference between fine arts and crafts.  Scientists can execute an experiment with love and care, but science doesn't convey emotion.  Anyone else want to chime in here?  My brain hurts.

       
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.