Posts
(Please note: this won't be my best prose, as I'm using this as a way to hash out some incompleted thoughts.)
I have come finally to realize something that has been staring me in the face for some time now: when we say "authenticity" we don't all mean the same thing. Essentially, I believe that there are two major approaches to authenticity -- performative ("looks right") vs experiential ("feels right"). One approach isn't right and the other wrong, and the two approaches are likely to lead to the same outcome; instead what they represent is different motivations for seeking authenticity.
What exactly do I mean by this? Let's use the example of a pavilion. A "looks right" person is going to focus on getting the details of their pavilion correct so that they can display their commitment to being medieval, a "feels right" person is going to focus on getting the details of their pavilion correct so that they can have have a medieval experience. For a "looks right" person, a zipper won't matter if it's hidden, while for a "feels right" person this would ruin it. A "feels right" person is going to be put out by using a plastic tote to haul their kitchen gear in, even if they throw a blanket over it in the encampment. A "looks right" person might be more irritated by seeing someone mashing up garb from different cultures.
I am a feels right. Not all the way -- I did, after all, disguise my cooler rather than living without. But when I was able to verbalize this difference was when I was able to figure out why making a slipcover for my modern chair just didn't work for me. Sure, a folding wooden outdoor chair from the Mega Store isn't actually any more medieval, but for me it enhances my experience of events substantially. There are some things where looks right feels right -- a card table with a tablecloth on it is fine for me, because a table is pretty much just a table.
My major interest in the SCA is cooking. For a long time I felt like there were certain arts and sciences activities that had more "street cred" than others, or at least had more people interested in them. Garb is obviously always going to get more than its fair share of attention if only because it's the one thing we're all required to do. But I'm starting to think that certain arts can generate more interest by being more performative. That is, I'm interested in cooking authentically because I'm interested in eating authentically, and I'm interested in eating authentically because I'm interested in feeling, even for a minute, like I am living history. For someone who doesn't come from this mindset, the food will never really matter. The tablecloth might, and the dishes will, but the food is almost an afterthought.
I'm not trying to insinuate that there's some kind of "style over substance" hierarchy here, or that the feels right camp is going to be more authentic. We all make compromises, right? We just each assign different priorities.
Beyond this, there are different things that will break the illusion for different people. For me, New World foods are RIGHT. OUT. If I see a menu for a feast and the first course features caprese salad, I will probably not go. On the other hand, I used to sew my garb with cotton and it didn't bother me (but full disclosure, as I've gotten older and crabbier and weirder, now it bugs me and I try to only use linen and wool). I think it would be an interesting thought exercise if more of us considered what our personal "can overlook/makes me want to scream" lists feature.
I'd like to develop this idea more, but that's all I have for now. If anyone actually reads this blog, where do you think you fall? Are you a looks right for some things and feels right for others? Why?
Autumn Collegium
2 weeks ago
