Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: A&S projects?

Expand Messages
  • Jeff Suzuki
    ... True, although the specificity of that date is relatively recent...English Country Dance (1651 and later) and some other things have been grandfathered. I
    Message 1 of 16 , Jun 11, 2009
      --- In scanewcomers@yahoogroups.com, Coblaith Muimnech <Coblaith@...> wrote:
      >
      > Jeffs/William wrote:
      > > As for the scope: since the SCA is focused on pre-mumble
      > > civilization, anything after (at latest) 1650 will be a hard sell. . .
      >
      > The start date for the S.C.A's core period is somewhat vaguely
      > defined. The end date is not. Anything from after 1600 is out of
      > period for us. That's clear in our organization's governing
      > documents <http://sca.org/docs/#govdocs>.
      >

      True, although the specificity of that date is relatively recent...English Country Dance (1651 and later) and some other things have been grandfathered.

      I was in the process of writing a rather longer response to this ("Back when I joined the SCA, period was set as 100 years before the present date..."), when I realized there's actually two different types of A&S here.

      First, reproducing something that existed in period: the Peacock dress, a suit of armor. For a reproduction, the 1600 date is a hard limit: you don't reproduce something that existed after 1600 *as* a reproduction.

      But there's a second category: using period techniques to produce something that could have existed. This is most obvious in the intangible arts: someone who creates a new Italian dance or a sonnet is doing this.

      Here the gray is a lot grayer. For example, consider Pascal's adding machine (1640). It's 40 years post-period, but there's nothing about it that is inherently non-period. As da Vinci shows us, it's entirely possible to be centuries ahead of your time; a couple of generations is nothing.

      Personally, I give more credit to the latter, done properly (though at the same time, you have to work harder to convince me that you *have* done it properly). It takes a great deal of skill to reproduce something. It takes a great of understanding to use create something that could have been done in period. Again, you have to convince me that you've done it properly: it's not enough to say X and Y existed in period, therefore XY did. You have to convince me that putting X and Y together would make sense to someone in period.

      Jeffs/William the Alchymist
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.