I'm sure this is the yardstick, however, in the modern world, I was an illustrator. My favorite medium is water color. If I do a painting in true water colors, I can do a transparency layer, let it dry and do the next transparency layer, which disturbs the layer beneath and can make lovely, subtle lifts and bleeds in color that can't be controlled and can't be repeated. I can do the exact same picture and transparency technique in acrylic. When I go in with the subsequent layers, there is no shift in the lower layers. That means I could repeat the same painting over and over with no more variation than repeating a cake recipe in varying ovens, pans or atmospheres. Does that make the true watercolor art and the acrylic watercolor science? Even in the modern world, the lines are blurred.

My vote is, and always has been, for leaving the award structure alone. People, no matter how confident, are fragile creatures. The more opportunities for "atta boys", the better. In modern parlance, it amounts to promotions, raises and bonuses. People, being only human, tend to perform better when they know there may be a payoff in the end. That doesn't mean they don't love their job or their game and wouldn't be doing it anyway. It just means they may be a bit more likely to put themselves out there farther, play harder and share more if there is something a little extra to work towards.

Johanne of Fisher Gate

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 6, 2014, at 11:13 AM, "Marguerite D.A. Reed" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

The yardstick for science should be the same as it is elsewhere: repeatable and reproducible.
~Melisende de la Roche de Lionne