INTRODUCTION. The deadline to submit proposals to the Glasgow 2024 Business Meeting was July 10. The formal agenda will be out soon, but in the meantime the movers of 15 submitted items have provided copies for publication and discussion on File 770.
The fourth of these items proposes to redefine eligibility for the Best Professional Artist Hugo to encompass work done under three different compensation arrangements. It discards the current standard “appeared in a professional publication”. And the motion also redefines eligibility for Best Fan Artist to depend on work not done
The motion also provides for collaborators on a body of work to be treated as a single finalist.
SHORT TITLE: CLEANING UP THE ART CATEGORIES
Moved, to amend the WSFS constitution by adding and removing text as follows:
3.3.13: Best Professional Artist. An illustrator whose work has appeared in a professional publication in the field of science fiction or fantasy during the previous calendar year. 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).
3.3.17: Best Fan Artist. 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. 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. Free copies of a publication in which an artist is published shall not constitute “pay” unless they are supplied with the expectation of resale by the artist.
3.10.2: In the Best Professional Artist category and Best Fan Artist categories, the acceptance should include citations of at least three (3) works that were first displayed in the eligible year.
SPONSORS: Terri Ash, Kate Secor, Kevin Sonney
DISCUSSION: 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.
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Are there any provisions about AI generated art? There does not seem to be anything to deter it.
I agree with this one in as much, there is plenty of 3-D and computer art (such as games or other items) As for AI, maybe add that in when introduced. I don’t know if you can add amendments in or not but it certainly could be done eventually.
I’m not big on the portfolio semi-requirement, for either fan or pro. If you do one incredible work that should be enough to qualify. Otherwise, I like it.
AI, yes, have to figure something out about that.
My main concern with this idea though is that it seems to be very concerned with those who do not or cannot or do not want to appear in a “publication”. That seems to me a self-defeating concern: it seems to me that in something resembling realitiy, those whose work isn’t “published,” is not going to find the kind of exposure that will bring nominations and votes.
I could be wrong. I might even want to be wrong.
Dan’l: There are loads of publication venues that aren’t “professional SFF publications”, though? The change isn’t “published” to “unpublished,” it’s “published in a specific set of venues” to “published anywhere for pay.” Which now means that all the commission based artists can qualify, to name one huge segment that didn’t qualify under either category before…
So, I think the “publication” issue is that there have been squirrely definitions there. A good deal of that is probably a reaction to a ruling (IIRC) that having one’s stuff up on DeviantArt (or something similar) “didn’t count”.
I’m just hoping we can get a final vote on this. Similar stuff has been sent to committee for the last couple of years, and I think we’re past the point of “have a committee clean it up” being a fair request.
I’ll add to the above that I think an anti-AI amendment is a good idea. I’ll probably be working with folks to produce something on that for next year. We were just a little bit busy this year with stuff resulting from the last year or so to get to that.
I am not an artist, but I like this. I feel it is an issue that has needed improvement for some time.
I think these changes will help alleviate some of the confusion that the artists themselves are encountering.
I know that the last time I dealt with the Hugos, some of the artists themselves didn’t know if they were “professional” or “fan”, because they didn’t know if the publications that they sold their work to were pro or semipro. (Some of the publications weren’t sure of that themselves.)
To my mind, a one-of-a-kind artwork is like an unpublished manuscript. It is not really part of the sfnal conversation. You can sell it to a collector, but who cares, besides the artist and the collector? A reproduction of such an artwork that reaches a wider audience would qualify, in the same way that a manuscript qualifies when and only when it is converted to a medium that reaches a significant public.
Congratulations, you just eliminated multiply-nominated fan artist Brad Foster.
The truth is that most artists sell their work at some point. I have artwork by Steve Stiles (sold by Elaine after his death). And Glasgow has commissioned quite a bit of work by Sarah Felix. She doesn’t get paid for it, but she does get asked for it. Indeed, when a faned calls for art, is it being commissioned, even though no money exchanges hands?
No, this proposal is extremely flawed from an artist’s point of view.
Patrick McGuire: If a one-of-a-kind artwork is displayed in a convention art show, I think that counts as “publication” for the purposes of the Best Artist awards (whether for sale or not). Many attendees will have seen it.
Not sure if this would also be true for an artwork displayed in a dealers’ room. But again, many attendees will have seen it.
I like this, also should add that AI generated images are NOT elegible for any awards, ever.
Lisa – as a fan artist, it is very clear. If someone gets paid – Professional. If someone didn’t get paid – Fan artist. Someone gets paid sometimes but not this year? Fan artist.
If someone did paid work and unpaid work it should depend on what they’re being nominated for but if there’s confusion (people nommd them to both) they can always default to the category they got more nominations and add up all the votes.