I somewhat disagree on the last point, but that comes down to a philosophical debate about the Laurelate, and the Orders in general.
One of my personal cornerstones about SCA awards is that all of them are given, to one degree or another, for leadership. More specifically, for leading the SCA and its members to be better than we would otherwise be, in some respect. In that light, I don't consider the Chivalry to be given for simple prowess -- I think of it being given more for providing inspiration, expressed *though* that prowess.
The Laurelate is for leadership within an artform: making that art better within the Society. Some folks interpret that quite narrowly, as being all about Research Dammit, but I don't agree, and really *can't* agree, because that isn't why *I* got the freaking award. I got my Laurel for being a great *teacher*, but I was a lousy researcher at the time. (My dance research is still quite weak, although my games research has wound up a bit more substantial.)
So while granted, the definition of the Laurelate *would* have to be widened to a broader interpretation of leadership within an art, I personally wouldn't mind that too much. I've gotten very weary and annoyed at the people who apply such an academic focus to it, and extending it to people who people who lead their art through demonstration of excellence wouldn't be the end of the world. (And I am *very* outspoken in my opinion that martial arts can and totally should be considered "arts".)
Mind, it's not likely to happen: the Laurelate are collectively just as jealous of their territory as the Chivalry, and no more likely to countenance a widening of their remit. So, y'know, grumble...
no subject
One of my personal cornerstones about SCA awards is that all of them are given, to one degree or another, for leadership. More specifically, for leading the SCA and its members to be better than we would otherwise be, in some respect. In that light, I don't consider the Chivalry to be given for simple prowess -- I think of it being given more for providing inspiration, expressed *though* that prowess.
The Laurelate is for leadership within an artform: making that art better within the Society. Some folks interpret that quite narrowly, as being all about Research Dammit, but I don't agree, and really *can't* agree, because that isn't why *I* got the freaking award. I got my Laurel for being a great *teacher*, but I was a lousy researcher at the time. (My dance research is still quite weak, although my games research has wound up a bit more substantial.)
So while granted, the definition of the Laurelate *would* have to be widened to a broader interpretation of leadership within an art, I personally wouldn't mind that too much. I've gotten very weary and annoyed at the people who apply such an academic focus to it, and extending it to people who people who lead their art through demonstration of excellence wouldn't be the end of the world. (And I am *very* outspoken in my opinion that martial arts can and totally should be considered "arts".)
Mind, it's not likely to happen: the Laurelate are collectively just as jealous of their territory as the Chivalry, and no more likely to countenance a widening of their remit. So, y'know, grumble...