I am writing this in answer to a question from alyclpal about how you balance creativity vs. research in SCA A&S projects. This is my own opinion based on 15 years in the SCA and if I seem less than humble in expressing myself, so be it
(
Read more... )
For instance, my jacket is a reproduction, but a lot of original research went into it, and the jacket pattern itself is a combination of two different jackets. While the piece is one of my masterworks, a judge could legitimately give it a 0 for creativity, since it is a faithful reproduction (almost down to the colours) of the original. Dividing the two expectations would solve that problem, and people would know how to assess the project. The pieces would not have to be divided into separate categories (no more complications!), just marked as such on the judging form so that the judge can know which set of criteria to follow.
Otherwise people get penalized depending on which judge they get, and that's frustrating. Even I, brilliant as I am (*cough*cough*), can't always work out how to score creativity on a piece, and I hate lowering the score on something absolutely fantastic just because it is a faithful reproduction. Like you, I look for creativity in process or originality in problem-solving to up the score some. Mind you, if someone has simply copied someone else's research to produce a competent copy of something, they don't get the points.
I'm still pondering your research question to me; I'll get to it soon. :)
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment