全美藝術與寫作大賽參賽對象及投稿作品類型說明

全美藝術與(yu) 寫(xie) 作大賽 The Scholastic Art & Writing Awards是北美最負盛名的創意寫(xie) 作大賽。該賽事由青年藝術家和作家聯盟於(yu) 1923年設立，每年與(yu) 美國100多個(ge) 視覺藝術和文學藝術組織合作，旨在發現最有創意與(yu) 靈感的青少年美術與(yu) 文學作品。

優(you) 秀獲獎者不僅(jin) 可以參加全美巡回展覽，更有機會(hui) 獲得現金獎勵和高達10,000美金的獎學金。很多金獎得主在後來成為(wei) 了世界級藝術家和作家，其中包括世界最著名懸疑小說家史蒂文·金，以及當代最具影響力的藝術家安迪·沃霍爾等。大賽共設置了28項藝術與(yu) 寫(xie) 作類別，在全國範圍內(nei) 評選出最具創意、技巧、和個(ge) 人特色的作品。

適合對象

7-12年級13歲以上，對文學、藝術創作感興(xing) 趣的，美國和加拿大地區就讀的學生們(men) 均可參加。

比賽時間

每年9月開始報名，12月中旬停止提交作品。

參賽作品類型

可以提交以下文體(ti) 的作品：

1. Critical Essay 評論文章 ：500-3000字的議論文，內(nei) 容包括但不僅(jin) 限於(yu) 藝術或文學評論，時評、個(ge) 人觀點等。

2. Dramatic Script 劇本：500-3000字的電視、電影或舞台劇劇本，若超出3000字需要提供250字的摘要，可以靈活使用對話、動作、舞台變換等各種手法講述故事；

3. Flash Fiction 微小說：1000字以內(nei) 的短篇小說；

4. Humor 喜劇：500-3000字，可利用各類喜劇表現手法，包括笑話、諷刺、模仿、荒誕等；

5. Journalism 新聞稿：500-3000字的紀實新聞稿件；

6. Novel Writing 小說：小說長度不限，需提交完整作品和3000字以內(nei) 的一段摘錄和250字的小說摘要；

7. Personal Essay & Memoir 個(ge) 人陳述&自傳(chuan) ：500-3000字的紀實文章，作者需根據自己的經曆，想法和觀點描寫(xie) 對自己產(chan) 生重要影響的事件或觀點；

8. Poetry 詩歌：20-200行的散文詩、自由詩、古典詩、歌詞等，每位作者可提交1-5首；

9. Science Fiction & Fantasy 科幻小說：500-3000字的超自然、魔法類、未來世界、科學技術主題的科幻小說；

10. Short Story 短篇小說：500-3000字；

11. Writing Portfolio 寫(xie) 作作品集。

獎項設置

大賽設有地區性和全國性獎項，最高榮譽是 Gold Key，即 金鑰匙獎 。每年組委會(hui) 都會(hui) 為(wei) 金鑰匙獎獲獎作品舉(ju) 辦最高規格的藝術展覽。

REGIONAL AWARDS（地區獎）

Gold Key

Silver Key

Honorable Mention

American Visions Nominee

American Voices Nominee Awards

NATIONAL AWARDS（國家獎）

Gold Medal

Silver Medal with Distinction

Silver Medal

scholarship awards

國家獎章獲得者有資格獲得高達 10,000 美元 的獎學金。

Critical Essay

Judging the Past, Judging the Future

By Alicia Xin

The perception of righteousness and morality has historically been an anthropological mess. Beliefs and actions considered acceptable or even honorable in the past could be repugnant today, and those differences only expand with time. Many historical figures whom we admire can be retrospectively criticized for standards that we no longer consider acceptable. However, years of social and scientific research help us to make rational decisions about beliefs and morality, and modern-day technological advancements give us more freedom than our ancestors to make choices on our actions. Without the same societal and scientific context, it is unfair for us to judge historical societies or individuals the same way that we judge our own. Yet it is important for us to look at history with what we know today in order to learn from the past and examine the legacies certain individuals left behind. This article will discuss how we should approach a balance with presentism, judge the past, and imagine how people in the future will judge us.

When we judge the past, we should consider the level of knowledge that the people at that time possessed. For example, throughout history, patriarchal values have remained present throughout many regions of the world. Numerous esteemed individuals that we honor today harbored male chauvinistic sentiments. Among them, Napoleon Bonaparte claimed “women . . . should not be regarded as the equals of men; they are, in fact, mere machines to make children” (Napoleon, 1817). That statement would be unacceptable today. Yet we should consider that he lived in a time with a plethora of norms, traditions, and laws that belittled women and empowered men. The Bible itself regards “the husband [as] the head of his wife” and requires that women “should be subordinate” (English Standard Version Bible, 2001, 1 Corinthian 11:3, 1 Cor. 14:34-35). As a Christian ruler with no reason or obligation to question a statement from the Bible, Napoleon might not have realized the immoral nature of his belief (Burton, 2007). In this sense, men in history like Napoleon should not be judged in the same way as a 21st-century man with the same ideas, who should have been educated with a more egalitarian view after decades of women's rights movements. Knowledge is an essential factor to consider in judging morality. When the German philosopher Immanuel Kant laid out his three criteria in his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, the first among them was that morality begins with goodwill, otherwise defined as a sense of duty to right and wrong (Kant, 1785). As past figures had beliefs backed by outdated information and logic, we should not expect them to have the same sense of right and wrong as modern citizens. Thus, it would be illogical to judge individuals under a different set of standards than the ones they could have known.

We should also judge the past by the extent of necessity. For example, the use of chattel slavery in both the private and public sectors has long been associated with some of the most successful economies in the ancient world (Scheidel, 2013). In Mediterranean societies like Greece and Rome, the use of free labor helped to create the surpluses that sustained a stable ruling class (Scheidel, 2013). In ancient China, slaves helped to build the Great Wall which was essential for protection from northern invaders (Scheidel, 2013). Modern citizens rightfully consider slavery as wrong, but this is partially because our necessities have changed (Sowle, 1968). Due to advancements in efficiency and productivity, the modern world can remain productive and pursue job specialization without free labor (Sowle, 1968). Once society no longer needed free labor for survival and stability, ideas about abolition gained enough traction to materialize (Sowle, 1968). This is why we would judge Qin Shi Huang, the Chinese emperor who ordered the use of slaves on the Great Wall, differently than a modern human trafficker. Although similar, this idea does not quite qualify as utilitarianism, a theory coined by John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham. These philosophers would have argued that the net benefits of a system like slavery in China would excuse the mistreatment of indentured individuals (Schultz & Varouxakis, 2010). Rather, necessity, as defined in this essay, does not acquit the violation of human rights. Masters who beat or killed their slaves in ancient societies would still be morally reprehensible. But if it is necessary for the stability and survival of a society to do an otherwise immoral action, such an action cannot be condemned to the same extent as one chosen freely.

Using the criteria of knowledge and necessity, sometimes we must judge society and individuals separately. For example, foot binding was a tradition of breaking the arches of girls’ feet to achieve a “lotus foot” shape with tiny soles. It was used as a status symbol in socially elite circles in Han Chinese culture, similar to the English tradition of wearing corsets to attain small waists. Although foot binding is as much a violation of human rights as slavery, for hundreds of years upper-class women with unbound feet would be considered unsuitable for marriage (Fan, 1997). Even if a particular elite family believed it was wrong, it may be necessary for them to follow the custom to avoid ostracization and to provide a future for their daughters (Fan, 1997). In this situation, modern citizens cannot judge individuals who made decisions under outward pressures from society. Yet when considered with a larger lens, we can and should judge the custom itself, as bound feet are both clearly a detriment to women’s health and not necessary for a society’s safety or stability.

Even when presented with a system that seemingly fails these criteria, it is important to avoid prejudice and destruction. In many cases, we should not assume that our standards are inherently superior to those of the past. In 330 AD, when Emperor Constantine conquered Rome, the Byzantines brought new beliefs of Christianity with them. The Pantheon, built hundreds of years before that for pagan worship, came under fire for promoting a path away from the true god (DuTemple, 2003). For people in 330 AD, many regarded the Pantheon to be against their beliefs (DuTemple, 2003). Instead of tearing it down, the Byzantines simply converted it to a Christian church to fit their values  (DuTemple, 2003). This choice saved the legacy of an ancient building that still stands today. In contrast, during the Cultural Revolution in China, narrow-mindedness led to regrettable destruction. Upon Mao Zedong’s rejection of the “Four Olds”, the Red Guard burned many historical texts and artifacts because their values had changed from the people of the past and only later recognized it as a mistake (Walder, 2015). It is natural for a culture to change its beliefs, but when approached with new values we should accept that people in the past had different values instead of erasing their legacy altogether.

In some aspects, modern citizens cannot judge the past at all without risking hypocrisy. Today, it may be easy to judge the ignorance of British citizens who were aware that their sugar was being produced through slave labor and yet still indulged in sweets. Yet humanity today has not graduated past profiting off mistreatment. For example, anyone living in developed countries will likely have eaten meat from mistreated animals (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, n.d.). In order to maximize profit, most factory farms allow their animals little freedom or happiness (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, n.d.). Even with a growing movement for cruelty-free consumption, the majority of people today continue to buy cheap and unethical goods. As a society, we continue many of the things we vilify, simply in a different form.

At the same time, to keep from the historical mistakes that we have made, it is important to judge those of the past with a certain present standard. In some cases, we need to think about the legacies certain historical figures left behind and the significance of our admiration. For example, statues of Robert E. Lee, the Confederate general in the American Civil War, have come under fire in the past year for promoting racist sentiment. When considering General Lee from the moral standards of his time, he was judged a hero (Blount, 2003). He was defending his homeland, an otherwise righteous cause. However, doing so also meant advocating for slavery at a time when abolition was a viable option. In fact, his legacy today has more to do with his significance in the fight for slavery than patriotism. It is important to note that a large majority of his statues were not erected immediately after the Civil War, but rather during the 1910s, when an epidemic of race riots in the South led to vulnerable race relations (Best, 2020). White supremacists felt the need to remind African Americans of their supposed inferiority (Best, 2020). Rather than continuing to honor such a legacy, we should instead move these statues to museums in order to teach future generations about the harmful history of racism.

As we use knowledge and necessity to evaluate the individuals and societies of the past, we can hope historians in the future will do the same for us. Many things considered normal today may be condemned decades from now. As citizens in the 21st century with still much to learn, we cannot act on what we do not know. But what we can do is strive to better our society’s necessities based on the knowledge we do have. Fossil fuels are known to produce greenhouse gases and catalyze climate change, but they also generate 74% of the world’s energy, including 90% of transportation (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2020). Without them, we would not be able to maintain our levels of efficiency or utilize many automated technologies (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2020). Even Greta Thunberg, the world’s leading youth climate activist, cannot neutralize her carbon footprint entirely. In her effort, Thunberg has committed to sailing around the world in the Maliza II, a zero-emissions sailboat (Geiger, 2019). But to do so, 4 of her crew members had to fly from Europe to the US and vice versa to ferry the boat back and forth (Geiger, 2019). It is not yet possible to pursue transportation without a carbon footprint, even for just one person (Geiger, 2019). If the use of fossil fuels were to be completely outlawed overnight, machine-powered farms and factories would have to stall, and we could not continue transporting food, water, and other essential resources across the globe to the people who need them. Millions, if not billions, would starve. Most of the world would lose access to electricity, a staple in the quality of a modern lifestyle. Therefore, it would be unfair to condemn anyone who drives cars, uses lights, and wears synthetic clothing. Instead, we should do our best to improve upon our necessities, by investing in green energy, limiting consumption when possible, and making sure our leaders prioritize environmental issues. If the citizens of the world were proactive in building upon our knowledge and limiting our need for necessary wrongs, that is all that the future can ask of us.

在Scholastic Art & Writing Awards比賽中獲獎的學生，很多成為(wei) 了年輕的藝術家、作家、電影製片人、攝影師、詩人、雕塑家。有些甚至享譽國際，這其中就包括了：

當代最具影響力的藝術家

Andy Warhol（安迪·沃霍爾）

Philip Pearlstein（菲利普·帕爾斯坦）；

世界最著名懸疑小說家 Stephen King（史蒂芬·金）；

攝影師Richard Avedon（理查德·阿威頓）；

知名演員Frances Farmer（弗朗西斯·法莫）；

時裝設計師Zac Posen（紮克·珀森）；

電影製片人Stan Brakhage（斯坦·布拉哈格）。

隨著參賽學生的增加，Scholastic提供的表彰機會(hui) 和學術獎學金計劃也隨之逐年增長。該比賽擁有近一個(ge) 世紀的光輝曆史，已成長為(wei) 美國曆史最悠久、最負盛名的青少年藝術與(yu) 寫(xie) 作比賽，也成為(wei) 了青年藝術家展現才華與(yu) 創造力的最大平台。