By Tammy Coxen: The Worldcon has been trying to define how to categorize and recognize artwork of various kinds since the 1950s. In 2024 the latest attempt to do so received first passage at Glasgow. Immediately upon passage many fan artists began objecting to the wording as passed, once again debating how these categories should or should not be defined. This document was created to inform that debate and show how we have arrived at the category definitions that we have now. And as long as it is (and it is LONG) it STILL does not cover all the attempts that have been made to adjust these categories through the years. Prior to 2018 it only includes amendments that actually made their way into the constitution. From 2018 on, it also includes proposals that did not actually pass, because these provide needed context for understanding the most recent decisions.

SUMMARY & THOUGHTS. In its earliest iterations, the Fan Artist category (first awarded in 1967) is about context — it’s art that appears in amateur magazines (later redefined into fanzines and semiprozines). But over the years there’s a gradual expansion of that context. The earliest of these came in 1974 with the addition of “other public display.” Sadly, there are no detailed business meeting minutes to say why that was added (although there is speculation, see below). But it has certainly contributed to the muddiness of the category over the years, as the options for “other public display” grew.

Until relatively recently, none of the definitions of Fan Artist made any mention of whether the work in question had been paid for. The economic context of the work was implicit in the language defining, first, amateur magazines, and then, fanzines and semiprozines, where the art would be appearing. But in 2014 language was added to change “public display” to “non-professional public display” and to specify that this included display at conventions, with the argument being made that “selling fan art at a convention did not make it a professional sale”. So there is precedent to say that art “for sale” is not necessarily disqualified as Fan Art.

In 2019 (ratified in 2021) the definition was expanded further to include “posting on the internet, in online or print-on-demand shops, or in another setting not requiring a fee to see the image in full resolution.” For some, the inclusion of print-on-demand shops seems contradictory to “non-professional public display,” but others see this as no different than purchasing fan art in the context of a convention.

At the same time that the possibilities for public display were expanding (both definitionally and due to the Internet), the very definition of the phrase “Fan Art” was also changing – at least in the wider community. Outside of Worldcon and related fandom, the term “Fan Art” is akin to “fanfic” – art created in response to or inspired by a particular show, movie or written work.

And while the definition of Fan Artist has changed a lot over the decades, the Professional Artist category remained the same, retaining a narrow definition that includes only illustrators and works that are published in a professional publication.

All of this adds up to a world where, currently, a person who makes their living by posting full resolution images of their media-inspired art on a print-on-demand shop would qualify as a Fan Artist, but not a Professional Artist. And conversely, if the language passed in 2024 were to be ratified, then a person who creates art for their local convention to use for free and sells the originals in the art show in the same year would NOT qualify as a Fan Artist but would qualify as a Professional Artist, even if none of that art sells. And neither of these really make sense, which is why there have been so many attempts to clarify these categories through the years.

The thinking has been that Fan Art is a little like porn – you just know it when you see it. But given the existence of completely different definitions of the term “Fan Art,” this approach is definitely not working. Until we as a community agree on what Fan Art is, we won’t be able to agree on how to define it.

The lines have also gotten blurry about what it means to be a Professional Artist, now that we live in a world where individuals have the means to display their own work publicly and formal “publication” of art is no longer desirable or necessary for many who earn their living through art. And how do services such as Patreon fit in when considering if someone is a Professional Artist or not?

In my deep dive through the history of the categories, it seems clear that the change proposed and passed in 2024 was primarily about expanding the Professional Artist category, and really didn’t take into account the impact on, and particularly context of, the Fan Artist category. In particular, there’s a mismatch between the idea that Fan Art is only free and the historical precedent that selling Fan Art is not necessarily disqualifying.

I don’t claim to have the answers, but I’m hoping that this document will shed some light on how we got where we are, so that maybe we can figure out where we should go next!

HOW TO READ THIS DOCUMENT. I used (Fan) or (Pro) or (Both) next to the dates so it’s clear what I’m talking about when. (Context) is used when there is something not related to creating a new definition, but which is relevant. Category definition text in bold & italic was passed, ratified and used. Category definition text only in bold was introduced and may have received first passage, but has not yet been ratified or put into use.  

1953-1968 (Pro) – In the Beginning

The Hugos launch with two categories for art in 1953: Best Cover Artist and Best Interior Illustrator. Starting in 1955, the second time the Hugos were awarded, there was the single Best Professional Artist category which has continued to the present day except for Loncon in 1957 (which awarded only magazine Hugos) and Solacon in 1958 which called the category Outstanding Artist.

1967 (Fan) – Let There Be Fan Artist Hugos

Best Fan Artist is introduced, with no definition. Jack Gaughan won both Best Fan Artist and Best Pro Artist that year.

1968-2024 (Pro) – Refining the Definition

There are a variety of similar definitions in use during this time. I do not have exact start or end dates for them.

In 1968, the definition of Best Professional Artist was: “A professional artist whose work was presented in some form in the science fiction or fantasy field during the previous calendar year.”

By 1975, two changes had been introduced. It now specifies “illustrator” rather than artist, and puts the professional part on the publication rather than the individual. “An illustrator whose work has appeared in the field of professionally published science fiction or fantasy during the previous calendar year.”

By 1995, another change had been made, replacing “the field of professionally published SFF” with “a professional publication.” “An illustrator whose work has appeared in a professional publication in the field of science fiction or fantasy during the previous calendar year.”

While a couple of proposals were made to change the definition of Professional Artist (see below), none of them passed before 2024, and the 1995 definition remained in place until then.

1972 (Fan) – First Definition

First published definition of Best Fan Artist. “An artist or cartoonist whose work has appeared, during the previous calendar year, in magazines of the type defined under Article 2.08. Anyone whose name appears on the final ballot for a given year under the Professional Artist category will not be eligible for the Fan Artist award for that year.” 2:08 defined Best Amateur Magazine: “Any generally available non-professional magazine devoted to science fiction, fantasy, or related subjects, which has published four or more issues, at least one appearing in the previous calendar year.”

1974 (Fan) – Adding “Other Public Display”

The definition was updated to make work outside of those defined on the Amateur Magazines Hugo category eligible by adding the words “or through other public display.” So the definition became: “An artist or cartoonist whose work has appeared, during the previous calendar year, in magazines of the type defined under Article 2.08, or through other public display. Anyone whose name appears on the final ballot for a given year under the Professional Artist category will not be eligible for the Fan Artist award for that year.”

Sadly, I can’t find any minutes to say why that was added, or what they meant by it. However, Mike Glyer was an active fan at the time and offers this speculation:

“Tim Kirk mounted an exhibit of paintings he’d done for his masters degree at the 1972 Westercon. Although Kirk did illos for leading fanzines like Science Fiction Review, so had eligible work, I know we discussed at the time that people weren’t going to unsee this impressive unpublished work, and it seemed silly for it to have to be disregarded. (As if people would.) That could have lent impetus to the rules change.

1984 (Fan) – Adapting to Semiprozine

Best Amateur Magazine was split up into Best Fanzine and Best Semiprozine, and the Fan Artist category definition was adapted to match. “An artist or cartoonist whose work has appeared through publication in semiprozines or fanzines or through other public display during the previous calendar year. Anyone whose name appears on the final ballot for a given year under the Professional Artist category will not be eligible for the Fan Artist award for that year.”

1990-1996 (Best Original Artwork Hugo) – Trying Another Way

A Hugo for Best Original Artwork was given as a special committee award in 1990. It was then added as a regular Hugo Award and awarded from 1992-1996. In 1995, an amendment to remove the category received first passage, and in 1996 it was ratified. The definition text was: “Any original piece of Science Fiction or Fantasy artwork first published during the previous calendar year.”

Commentary from Fancyclopedia:

The category was intended to honor individual pieces of art, whether or not published and whether or not cover art. (Best Professional Artist and Best Fan Artist honor the artist for a body of work, not an individual piece.)

The category ultimately failed for two reasons: First, there were too many potential, worthy, nominees and the nomination votes received tended to be wide and flat with many pieces each getting only a few nominations. As a consequence, which pieces that actually got onto the final ballot tended to be due mostly to chance. (Additionally, a category which requires few votes to put a work onto the final ballot is very sensitive to a group of friends getting together and bloc voting.) Secondly, in the pre-WWW era, it was difficult to give most Hugo voters an opportunity to see what they were voting for, since the art tended to be widely scattered in where it appeared.

2007-2008 (Fan) – Removing Restrictions

In 2007 an amendment was introduced to remove the restriction about not being able to appear on the ballot as both a fan and a pro. The proposal commentary includes: “This restriction goes against the basic model underlying fandom — that being a pro is not an attribute of a person that takes them outside of fandom, nor is fandom some sort of junior league that fan artists graduate from to become pro artists. Just as we don’t stop pros from running as fan writers, if that’s what they’re doing (and, in some cases, winning the Hugo for Best Fan Writer and a fiction Hugo in the same year), we should not impose that restriction on fan vs pro artists. If people are doing both (and there have been, and still are artists who are doing both kinds of work), then they should be eligible in both categories.”

The amendment is adopted with no debate in either year. The Fan Artist category definition is now “An artist or cartoonist whose work has appeared through publication in semiprozines or fanzines or through other public display during the previous calendar year.”

2013 – 2014 (Fan) – Broadening and Defining

In 2013 the first proposal was submitted to the business meeting to expand the Fan Artist category to include other kinds of art by adding “working in any visual or performance medium.” This was not adopted, but other additions to the definition were. This included specifying that “other public display” had to be non-professional, and specifically calling out conventions as an example. This addition was made by Colin Harris who wanted the amendment to be clear that “selling fan art at a convention did not make it a professional sale.” Read more of the discussion here starting on page 6 here.

The 2013 amendment was ratified in 2014. The category definition was updated to: “An artist or cartoonist whose work has appeared through publication in semiprozines or fanzines or through other public, nonprofessional display (including at a convention or conventions), during the previous calendar year.”

2017 (Both) – Creating HASC

The Hugo Awards Study Committee (HASC) was created, and one of its remits was to look at the Art Categories. In fact, the original proposal by Nicholas Whyte and Kathryn Duval was for a committee that would look only at the Art categories, but this was broadened out to cover the Hugos as a whole.

2017 (Context) – Disqualifying Sculpture

Tomek Radziewicz, a sculptor, received enough nominations to be a finalist for Best Professional Artist, but was declared ineligible because, as a sculptor, his work did not appear in a professional publication. Nicholas Whyte was the administrator that year, and stands by his decision as being in accordance with the rules, but saw this as evidence that the categories were not working as intended and something should be done.

2018 (Both) – Attempting a Radical Rethinking

HASC brought a proposal to the business meeting. However, even among the committee it was heavily debated, and a second competing proposal was considered but not introduced.

The proposed new definitions were:

Best Professional Artist. An artist who has produced work related to science fiction or fantasy which has been published or publicly displayed for the first time during the previous calendar year, and which does not qualify as Fan Art under the Best Fan Artist category definition.

Best Fan Artist. An artist who has produced work related to science fiction or fantasy which has appeared in fanzines or other public, non-professional display for the first time during the previous calendar year, and for which the rights to reproduce that artwork have been given without direct compensation to one or more non-commercial publications or for use at or by non-profit science fiction or fantasy conventions. Art which has been made available for reproduction only for the purpose of advertising the artist or their work, including art provided to a convention by a Guest of Honor, is not eligible as fan art.

The commentary attached to the proposal really gets at why we’re STILL having this conversation now.

Historical Context

Fan Artist originally meant people who had their art published in fanzines and/or convention publications. Sometimes the originals of that art may also have been sold (typically in convention art shows), and some of it was produced by people who made their living selling SF/Fantasy art professionally but who also donated the right to use art to fannish causes – but only the donated artwork, and not the sold artwork, was considered for the eligibility of the fan artwork.

A person can be both a professional artist (for work being sold), and a fan artist (for work for which the right to reproduce is donated elsewhere for free). In past history, Jack Gaughan won both of the art Hugo Awards in the same year, for work in a year in which he both did a great deal of professional art (magazine and book covers and interior art) and fan art (many dozens of sketches that he donated to fanzines for them to use as interior art).

In recent years, Fan Artist nominations have spread to include artists whose material is visible on the web without direct payment to view. This has been welcomed by some as an expansion of the field but decried by others as not meeting the historical expectations of fan art – that the right to reproduce the art (and often, but not necessarily, the physical artwork) be donated for free to someone else, for use in the other person’s fan publications (including websites).

Philosophical Context:

1. 1. Hugo voters want to recognize artists who create speculative art which mirrors, complements, and inspires the stories we read and watch.
   2. Hugo voters want to recognize artists who make special charitable contributions of art for the furtherance of fannish activities such as fanzines and conventions.
   3. Hugo voters have decided that these are two distinct forms of art, and have created two categories to recognize those forms of art.

Additional Commentary:

• • These two artist categories are not mutually exclusive, and it is possible for one artist to be eligible for both Professional and Fan categories in any given year.
  • No attempt will be made to define “professional artist” as opposed to “nonprofessional artist”. If works do not meet the eligibility requirements for Fan Art, then they are considered to be Professional Art.
  • Eligible work includes art in physical or digital form, including illustration, painting, book and magazine covers, photography, three-dimensional work such as sculpture, jewelry, mixed media work, and costumes, and other visual artwork such as website graphics, animated gifs, and game art.
  • “Public display” includes art shows, dealer tables, panel presentations, other convention display, websites, and any other type of display that is generally available to the public.
  • “Without direct compensation” means that the artist has not been compensated for the art in question, but does not disqualify them on the basis of compensation otherwise received (such as a discounted or free membership at the convention given on the basis of having served on multiple panels in line with standard policy for that convention).
  • Artwork which has been “given for free to one or more non-commercial publications” includes artwork which has been made freely available for use via a Creative Commons (or similar) license: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_license.

This proposal was heavily debated in the business meeting, and ultimately referred back to a new committee which (spoiler) failed to act. I will not attempt to summarize the debate here, but I recommend you read it for yourself starting on page 22. https://www.wsfs.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/2018-WSFS-Minutes.pdf

2018 (Context) – Disqualifying Online-Only Display

Ariela Housman was nominated as Best Fan Artist. One of the works she submitted to the Hugo Voter’s Packet was not allowed to appear because it was only exhibited online and not published or exhibited at a convention, as the definition requires. In her Hugo eligibility post for that year, she expresses frustration that “you can make a living entirely for years by selling your SF art directly to other people and still not be considered a Professional Artist” under the Hugo definitions. From my read, this blog post drives a lot of the direction of the changes made over the next few years, so it’s worth reviewing in its entirety. “2018 Hugo Eligibility Post: Best Fan Artist” — Geek Calligraphy.

2019 (Fan) – Defining Public Display

Ariela Housman and her business partner Terri Ash submitted an amendment to define “public, non-professional display” in the Fan Artist category by adding “posting on the internet, in online or print-on-demand shops, or in another setting not requiring a fee to see the image in full resolution.” An attempt was made to refer this to the HASC but failed. With little discussion on the actual amendment the motion passed and got sent on for ratification.

2019 (Both) – Passing it Back to HASC

The new committee created in 2018 to work on the art categories did not meet or submit a report. The topic was referred back to HASC by the 2019 Business Meeting.

 

2021 (Fan) – Debating Public Display

The 2019 ratification came up for amendment (due to ConNZealand in 2020 passing all business forward). Discussion against the amendment included:

• The addition of “in online or print-on-demand shops” means art that is for sale. Just because you can see it for free doesn’t make it fan art. Saying that art that is for sale is eligible for the fan art Hugo Award goes against the spirit of what fan art is.
• The traditional definition of fan art is art that is made available for fannish activities, such as fanzines and conventions. All art is professional. It’s making it available for use for fannish activity that makes it fan art and, thus, a fan artist.

Discussion in favor of the amendment included:

• Fan art has always appeared in convention art shows, where it has always been for sale. You could see it at a convention, but if you wanted to keep it you had to pay. The same rule for art on the internet is fine and keeping with the spirit of fan art,
• Fan art online, which is made by fans for fans to celebrate fannish things, needs to be celebrated with the Fan Artist Hugo Award.

The amendment ultimately passed, and the new definition was: “An artist or cartoonist whose work has appeared through publication in semiprozines or fanzines or through other public, non-professional, display (including at a convention or conventions, posting on the internet, in online or print-on-demand shops, or in another setting not requiring a fee to see the image in full-resolution), during the previous calendar year.”

2022 (Both) – Trying Again to Radically Rethink

The HASC submitted another amendment to resolve these categories. Having failed to define “fan” first and pro in opposition to that, they now tried to do it the other way around.

Best Professional Artist. One or more collaborators on a body of work first displayed during the previous calendar year and created as i) work for hire, ii) on paid commission, or iii) for sale (either directly or via a paywall-like structure).

Best Fan Artist. One or more collaborators on a body of work first displayed during the previous calendar year in a fashion that did not qualify for Best Professional Artist, i.e., neither work for hire, nor commissioned for pay, nor for sale.

In the commentary HASC says:

There was also a clear consensus that the pool of potential nominees in the Best Professional Artist category needs to be widened – the current definition effectively restricts eligibility to illustrators of magazines and book covers – but in a way that does not risk potential Best Fan Artist nominees discovering that they have been deemed to be professional by a quirk of the rules. Much fannish art is sold, after all.

The subcommittee discussed this dilemma at some length, and also touched on the inclusion of art other than images in Best Professional Artist, the requirement for artists to provide proof of eligibility to administrators (which under current rules applies to Best Professional Artist but not Best Fan Artist), and whether or not groups of artists should be eligible.

Ultimately the subcommittee decided that eligibility for both categories should be decided by the existence (or not) of a qualifying body of work by the creators in the previous year – i.e., someone who has produced sufficient professional art should be eligible in Best Professional Artist, and someone who has produced sufficient fannish art should be eligible in Best Fan Artist.

An attempt was made to amend the proposal to remove the words “for sale.” This was then, and remains today, at the heart of the matter. For example, both of these people were speaking on behalf of artists who sell their artwork, but one thought that should give them the right to be considered Professional Artists and the other thought that sales should not be considered germane to whether the art is Fan Art.

Ms. Ash then spoke in favor of F.6 and said the artist categories have been so fundamentally devoted to publishing for so long that the community of those considered professional artists is very small and does not reflect the current state of science fiction and fantasy art as it is currently exhibited, produced, and sold. She said “sold” was the operative word. Fan artists are not necessarily making fanzine covers or convention souvenir book covers. They are putting their work out in the world to sell it and make money. That means that they should be given the grace to have their art considered as professional, just like someone who has had the luck to get noticed by a publisher and have their work on a book cover or a magazine cover. DAW, for example, isn’t coming to the art show to find new people, and it is much harder to break into that market than it’s ever been.

Lisa Hertel (she/they) objected to the “for sale” portion of the motion. She supports herself as an artist, but even non-professional artists come to art shows and put their work up for sale. Their prices may not be very high; they certainly are not making a living by it. Even Ms. Hertel, a professional artist, isn’t making a living by her art.

The amendment to remove “for sale” failed, with the discussion including people noting that it would make obviously professional artists like Phil Foglio or John Picacio eligible for Fan Artist. After additional discussion (starting on page 70 here) the proposal was referred to a new committee (the HASC having been disbanded that same year). That committee has not done any work as of this writing.

2022 (Context) – Defining Pro vs Fan Everywhere

In addition to the proposal to define Pro vs Fan in the Hugo categories, the HASC also put forth a proposal to better define what is meant by the term professional globally, though this proposal was not supported by the majority of the HASC members and was proposed to the Business Meeting without their consent. The constitution already defined the concept of a “Professional Publication” since it was used in other existing categories, like Professional Artist. The existing description was:

A Professional Publication is one which meets at least one of the following two criteria: (1) it provided at least a quarter the income of any one person or, (2) was owned or published by any entity which provided at least a quarter the income of any of its staff and/or owner.

The proposal was to change that to:

A professional publication is a publication produced by professional activity. Any category including language pertaining to non-professional or professional activity will be understood to use the definitions in 3.2.X and 3.2.Y.

3.2.X: Professional activity shall be that which was undertaken with the expectation of sale or other direct profit (by the creator or any co-creators), or which can only be accessed after a payment is made (other than incidental fees, e.g., convention membership fees).

3.2.Y: Non-professional activity shall be that which was not undertaken with the expectation of sale or other direct profit (by the creator or any co-creators), and which can be accessed in a full and final version without any payment.

3.2.Z: All activity shall be considered either Professional or Non-Professional.  In cases where there is some doubt as to which category applies to a given work or activity, the will of the nominators should be considered, as should the greater need to protect fan (non-professional) activity against professional activity than the reverse.

The proposal was referred to the new committee looking at the Artist categories with the following instructions:

(a) to consider NOT defining fan vs. pro based on an expectation that an item would be for sale or not for sale, but perhaps based on first usage or presentation;

(b) to consider whether a global definition of fan vs. pro is necessary or whether it is preferable to have a category-by-category definition;

(c) to consider that things have multiple uses over their life, such as fan art or fan writing, and later sales do not disqualify them from being fannish; things can be both fan and pro;

(d) to consider the distinction between collecting money for expenses related to the work vs. for the benefit of the creator, and

(e) to ensure that all activity be defined either fan and/or pro (i.e., all works be defined as fan, or pro, or both fan and pro, but that no work should be considered neither).

This section of the minutes also includes the following, which feels like an important point.

Kent Bloom made a motion against referring F5 to the F.6 committee. He said that many things had changed in the science fiction community since 1983, when we first started debating fan versus pro. Mr. Bloom felt that the internet has made the definition of fan vs. pro obsolete, and that things like Patreon had rendered it impossible to decide if someone was an amateur or professional (in terms of monetary remuneration). He thought we should wait a few years and see what comes out of the new artwork definition.

As previously noted, the committee tasked with both of these 2022 proposals did not do any work or submit a report.

2022 (Fan) – Old Words, New Meaning – Fan Art vs Fan Art

In the discussion about the 2022 proposal, for the first time in the recorded discussion a new issue gets raised. For many people, the term “Fan Art” has a specific meaning that is entirely different from the historic Hugo definition.

Diana Castillo (she/her) spoke in favor. She felt the previous speaker had an old understanding of what fan art is. Fan artists bring their own passion, but they have the reality of needing to pay their rent, food, supplies, etc. Eliminating the “for sale” acknowledges these realities and brings this motion into reality and makes it so that someone who might be creating fan art of their favorite show can offer prints for sale and still be seen as a fan artist and not be lumped into the professional artist category. She urged passage of the amendment.

Alex Acks (they/them) said this is a definition problem. Speaking as a millennial, they said their understanding of fan artist is “I make art of other people’s intellectual property (‘IP’).” But if we are shifting more to that focus on the understanding that fan art is art that you are making of somebody else’s IP, you are getting into a very sticky place because fan artists and fan writers of that definition live in a space where they are not supposed to be making money off it and can be sued or killed by the “Mouse assassins”. They added that it is dangerous to focus on people making money off others’ IP due to patent/trademark laws.

2024 (Both) – Rerunning 2022

A group of people including Terri Ash submitted an amendment with the same language which had come out of the HASC in 2022. Following discussion, it is amended to specify that it concerns artwork (rather than just work) and in the field of science fiction or fantasy. The amendment was passed on for ratification with the text below:

Best Professional Artist. One or more collaborators on a body of artwork in the field of science fiction or fantasy first displayed during the previous calendar year and created as i) work for hire, ii) on paid commission, or iii) for sale (either directly or via a paywall-like structure).

Best Fan Artist. One or more collaborators on a body of artwork in the field of science fiction or fantasy first displayed during the previous calendar year in a fashion that did not qualify for Best Professional Artist, i.e., neither work for hire, nor commissioned for pay, nor for sale.

The commentary continues the themes of the 2022, but also adds in an acknowledgement that the definition of “fan art” has changed in the public eye.

The current definitions are extremely narrow and focused almost entirely on 2-D art. They also ignore the entire vibrant field of “science fiction art for sale” that is not appearing in a print (or web) publication. Those artists with careers in SFF art who do not or cannot or do not want to appear in a “publication” still deserve recognition for their professional achievements.

The definition of “Fan Artist” maintains the tradition in the Worldcon community of defining “fan” works as those which are created and freely offered to the community, regardless of whether they are derivative or original works. While this is an older usage of the word “fan” in context, we believe that keeping this spirit of community contribution alive is important.

The language also makes it clearer that it is possible for the same artist(s) to appear in both categories in the same year (as in Fan Writer and the written work categories), and that it is allowable for a collaboration to be nominated as a single nominee. We have also added a requirement for Fan Artists to have a portfolio in the same way as professional artists.

The newly proposed language not only makes it clearer what to nominate in each category, but also opens up the “Professional Artist” category to a whole new generation of artists who are creating amazing works, and cannot currently qualify in either category.

As the proposer, Terri Ash’s speech makes it clear that the motivation for the change is mostly about expanding the Professional Artist category. She makes the following points:

• The current state of the Professional Artist and Fan Artist categories currently relegates most artists who sell their work to Fan Artist, because of the requirement for publication.
• This is not the state of science fiction and fantasy art today. Convention art shows are filled with people who make their livelihood from selling their art in ways other than book covers. They are Professional Artists and deserve to be recognized in that category.
• While we call it Best Artist, the award refers to a portfolio of work in a given year. Adding body of work language positions it more like Best Novel and not Best Author.
• The body of work language also means that someone can qualify in both categories, providing they produced work that is donated to the fan community and thus qualifies as Fan Art.

In the debate that follows (summarized below), it’s clear that there’s a mismatch between the idea that Fan Art should be free, and the historical precedent that selling fan art is not necessarily disqualifying.

Points against:

• Do we really want to put people like Sara Felix into the same category as Bob Eggleton?
• There are many fan artists who make some proceeds from the sale of Fan Art after publication in a convention publication, but they’re not making money on it, it’s just defraying costs
• If you offer something for sale every day of the year, but never sell anything, are you Professional Artist?
• If I make tote bags with rockets on them and sell them in the art show for $40, does that make me a Professional Artist? It makes no sense.

Points in favor:

• There are many kinds of art beyond just book covers, including things like 3-D art. The current Professional Artist definition doesn’t do enough to reflect the breadth of the field.
• The “body of work” distinctions, as proposed, should be enough to protect Fan Artists from being pushed into the Professional Artist category.
• This is closer to right than what we currently have, we’ve been trying to get it right forever. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
• Someone trying to sell art and not succeeding is still a Professional Artist, they’re just not good at it.

---

Appendix: Just The Fan Artist Text Through the Years

1967 – category established, but no official definition

1972 – “An artist or cartoonist whose work has appeared, during the previous calendar year, in magazines of the type defined under Article 2.08. Anyone whose name appears on the final ballot for a given year under the professional Artist category will not be eligible for the fan artist award for that year.”

1974 – “An artist or cartoonist whose work has appeared, during the previous calendar year, in magazines of the type defined under Article 2.08, or through other public display. Anyone whose name appears on the final ballot for a given year under the professional Artist category will not be eligible for the fan artist award for that year.”

1984 – “An artist or cartoonist whose work has appeared through publication in semiprozines or fanzines or through other public display during the previous calendar year. Anyone whose name appears on the final ballot for a given year under the professional Artist category will not be eligible for the fan artist award for that year.”

2008 – “An artist or cartoonist whose work has appeared through publication in semiprozines or fanzines or through other public display during the previous calendar year.”

2014 – “An artist or cartoonist whose work has appeared through publication in semiprozines or fanzines or through other public, nonprofessional display (including at a convention or conventions), during the previous calendar year.”

2018 (proposed, did not pass) – “An artist who has produced work related to science fiction or fantasy which has appeared in fanzines or other public, non-professional display for the first time during the previous calendar year, and for which the rights to reproduce that artwork have been given without direct compensation to one or more non-commercial publications or for use at or by non-profit science fiction or fantasy conventions. Art which has been made available for reproduction only for the purpose of advertising the artist or their work, including art provided to a convention by a Guest of Honor, is not eligible as fan art.”

2021 – “An artist or cartoonist whose work has appeared through publication in semiprozines or fanzines or through other public, non-professional, display (including at a convention or conventions, posting on the internet, in online or print-on-demand shops, or in another setting not requiring a fee to see the image in full-resolution), during the previous calendar year.”

2022 (proposed, did not pass) – “One or more collaborators on a body of work first displayed during the previous calendar year in a fashion that did not qualify for Best Professional Artist, i.e., neither work for hire, nor commissioned for pay, nor for sale.”

2024 (passed on to be ratified) – “One or more collaborators on a body of artwork in the field of science fiction or fantasy first displayed during the previous calendar year in a fashion that did not qualify for Best Professional Artist, i.e., neither work for hire, nor commissioned for pay, nor for sale.”

---

Byline & Acknowledgements. Compiled and written by Tammy Coxen, with feedback and editing assistance from Nicholas Whyte, Colin Harris, Lisa Hertel, Sara Felix and Mike Glyer. Special thanks to Gary Farber for providing the inspiration by posting some prior definitions in a comment on JOFs. Also, thanks to the editors and contributors to my primary research sites, Fancyclopedia 3, fanac.org and wsfs.org.