Most people probably didn’t really know this actor. I really first encountered him as Commander Jeffery Sinclair on Babylon 5. Even though he was only on the show for the first season (and a couple of episodes after that), he was a wonderful character. He really had the sort of Warrior Philosopher thing going in the character he created, an archetype that appeals to me on a lot of levels.
One of the things that appealed to me in the whole of Babylon 5 was it’s forward looking ideas. One such idea was expressed beautifully in this clip.
Rest in Peace.
Last night while discussing my various projects with some friends one topic in particular came up I think needs sharing. The idea of what the arts and sciences really are within the context of our SCA game.
For those of you who are reading my blog but don’t know what the SCA is simply think Renaissance Fair and you’ll be close enough to understand most of this. The only other thing you need to know is that within the context of this game we have a group of people we call “Laurels” who are the artisans and scientists of our group, attempting to recreate and create (no that isn’t backwards actually) whatever they can from historical knowledge and forms.
When I look at the Laurels I wonder about how much of what we do is art and how much of what we do is science. As a Laurel I was elevated to that rank by virtue of artistic skills. Admittedly these were artistic skills which no one else at the time was engaged in, so the bright shiny newness of it was (and still is) of great reward and pride. But it was still artistic skills.
As excited as I am by the things I’m looking into now with recreating the telescope and planning some of these models of ancient inventions I’ve begun to wonder more about the technical/scientific side of what we do or should be doing and encouraging.
One of my friends stated that I was on a more classical definition of arts and sciences with the idea of arts being the “knowledge” and sciences being the “practical”. And certainly we’ve joked about some of the same kinds of things within our organizations such as the axe test. You know, “hit with an axe. If it’s destroyed it’s an art. If it’s still there afterwards it’s a science. Hence with a bottle of beer, the bottle is an art and the beer is a science.”
Amusing, but not really useful.
Of course within the context of our game it’s kind of hard to say “hey this guy understands geometry really well. We should make him a Laurel!” Our ranks would swell dramatically. But how do we decide who and what is worth our time? This question comes up pretty frequently in the context of whether or not a particular person has gained the appropriate amount of knowledge and/or skill to be considered individually. But I don’t think we discuss the relative merits of art and science in and of themselves.
The above definition of “knowledge vs practical” seems, on its face, to be reasonable but on further consideration I’m not sure it works for us. Or at least for me.
I tend to think that art has a practical side to it and that science can be elegant and therefore artistic. The two intersect at what I think of as “the elegant solution.” We all have had art projects that had some difficulty in being completed and were solved by an elegant solution. And I think we’ve all had technical problems with a project that required an equally elegant solution before becoming overburdened by complex problem solving.
But in the context of our SCA game we really want to see something tangible. So, while an understanding of geometry is certainly a solid scientific study, until it’s applied to something practical I’m not sure it’s going to be Laurel worthy. Though I’ll concede, and even support, a pure research Laurel if they have truly delved into an area and brought some new understanding to it.
There is, however, a very visceral satisfaction in the application of science. I have long stood out in the dark at night and looked to the sky for its beauty and inspiration. But put a telescope in my hands and suddenly I am not just inspired by beauty but I am also driven by curiosity. And let that telescope be created by my own hands (even if just from a kit) and my curiosity isn’t just inspired, it is magnified (pun only slightly intended).
My goals are expanded by the fact that I am as equally inspired by the beauty of the stars as I am by the elegance of the tools. Galileo’s telescope is literally little more than a couple of nested tubes and a pair of lenses. With such humble tools he made discoveries that changed the way everyone looked at the night sky and the world around them.
That is science to me. The inspiration to craft the tools and to solve the mysteries. The need to know. The curiosity to create.
How do we look at that kind of thing within the context of our SCA game?
Sure, we have people who faithfully recreate garments from portraits or portraits from pigments. We cook food from recipes which say little more than “throw these things together in a pot and cook it till it be enough” but we turn out feasts! These things required research, theorizing, testing and ultimately the application of skills and knowledge to craft an end product.
But we call that “art.” Or sometimes we call that “art & science.”
Other than a pure research Laurel I can think of no one in our game that has been elevated to the rank of Laurel who got there for “science.” (If any of my friends know of someone please tell me.)
So I wonder, what will it take? What will we need to see from someone in order to say that this person is recreating a medieval scientist?
I’m sure that I’ve wandered into strange waters here. But if you’re out there and reading this my fellow SCA members, I’d certainly like to know what you think.