Matt wrote: > Maybe I'm biased, in fact I know I am, but I don't think it's > reasonable to exclude a well-known answer in a given field just > because a majority of the "corpus of players" haven't been exposed > to them. While I'm all for expanding the canon, I don't think it's merely enough to write questions about them. Sure, some art historians are important in the field of art history. However, importance in a narrow field is not the sole basis on which questions must be judged. Accessibility is a factor that must be considered if you expect your questions to be heard, enjoyed, and learned from. Even if your pet question makes it into a packet, to avoid getting anything other than blank looks from the 99.9% of us who haven't taken up the in-depth study of art history, the question needs to be well written and have a certain degree of accessibility. It's far better to introduce a new (or very obscure) topic into the canon as merely a clue in a tossup or as part of a bonus. While I certainly wouldn't object to a tossup about Vasari, a tossup about most of the art historians mentioned in this discussion would be inappropriate at all but Nationals-level tournaments. A bonus where one part asked about one of them would be far more appropriate at regionals, but it should be balanced with other, less obscure clues. Paul Tomlinson ISU
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:46 AM EST EST