By Kevin Black: I have been following the discussion of the Hugo Award artist categories here by Tammy Coxen and Colin Harris closely, as well as the Facebook discussion threads on JOF. I am not a fan artist, although my spouse is–I do, however, amend code professionally, as senior counsel for a chamber of a state legislative body in the U.S. I have become convinced that it is important to reject ratification of the “F.18–Cleaning up the Art Categories” amendment which the business meeting in Glasgow passed forward to Seattle, but that there is a significant problem which needs addressing, which is the retitling of the Best Professional Artist Hugo category to Best Artist in the Field of Professional Illustration. It is time to solve the Fan vs. Pro Artist conundrum by cutting the Gordian Knot. The amendment which I recommend is set forth in full below, followed by explanation.
End the False Binary
Moved, to amend the WSFS constitution as follows:
3.3.13: Best Professional Artist in the Field of Professional Illustration. An illustratorartist whose illustrative work has appeared in a professional publication in the field of science fiction or fantasy has appeared in a professional publication during the previous calendar year.
3.3.18: Best Fan Artist. An artist or cartoonist whose work related to science fiction, fantasy, or science fiction or fantasy fandom 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 (including in semiprozine or fanzines, at a convention or conventions, posting on the internet, or in online or print-on-demand shops where the benefit from direct sales inure to the artist or the artist’s business instead of to a second party to whom the artist has sold or licensed their work).
3.10.2 In the Best Professional Artist in the Field of Professional Illustration category, the acceptance should include citations of at least three (3) works first published in the eligible year.
Explanation: Recent fan scholarship reveals remarkable stability in the Hugo Award categories of Best Professional Artist (awarded since 1955, first published description in 1968) and Best Fan Artist (awarded since 1967, first published description in 1972), until recent turbulence and Glasgow’s approval of “F.18–Cleaning up the Art Categories” for ratification in Seattle has threatened to overthrow the community’s understanding of what these categories are, and what work and artists should be recognized in each category. This amendment takes a measured approach by respecting the code we have and the community’s long-held understanding of the scope of the categories, while finding opportunities to more carefully and respectfully describe the differences between the artist categories.
The wellspring of angst, I argue, is the title of the Best Professional Artist category, which commits a multitude of sins:
It creates a false dichotomy between professional artists and fan artists, implying we should be able to defensibly sort artists into one category or another. But “professional” and “fan” are not opposites (or we would not allow artists to qualify in the same year in both categories). It should be obvious and understood that artists making fan art may operate and conduct themselves as professionals, and may produce work which is of professional quality.
It’s misleading.The Best Professional Artist category has been limited by its description to illustrators since 1975, but art is not limited to illustration, and professional artists exist who are not professional illustrators.
It’s insulting. By labeling only one form of art as “professional,” it implies that professional illustration is the only form of art the community values, and has the feeling of casting shade. Because one opposite of professional is unprofessional.
So, we should rename the category to reflect what it is actually for, Best Artist in the Field of Professional Illustration. I differ from some other commenters by believing that it makes evident and eminent sense to continue this community’s 70-year tradition of honoring professional illustration, based on its singular importance to our genre. Nor would it be fair or sporting to expect the artists producing fan art, which we equally revere with its own Hugo Award, to compete against beloved professional illustrators whose work receives mass market distribution and is attached to products and IP that we love. The amendment makes a small change to the category description by repositioning “has appeared in a professional publication” to make it clearer that genre illustrations may be counted for award consideration if they appear in a range of professional publications, including not just novels and magazines but other things like game cards and postage stamps.
No change is made to the Best Fan Artist category title, which respects our community’s tradition of recognizing and esteem for fan work. The changes made to the description in this category are almost entirely nonsubstantive and for the purpose of cleaning up convoluted language. The few substantive additions specify that the work must relate to “science fiction, fantasy, or science fiction or fantasy fandom,” and that if the work is for sale in an online or print-on-demand shop, the benefit from direct sales must inure to the artist or the artist’s business instead of to a second party to whom the artist has sold or licensed their work.
The Best Fan Artist amendments leave the scope of the category essentially unchanged since the last amendments to it were ratified in 2021, and arguably since “or other public display” was added to the description in 1974. Fan art itself has changed in the past 50 years, which has had an impact on what kind of artists get recognition in the category, but the category itself really hasn’t. The only period in which the category was limited to fanzine art was 1972-1974. Professional illustrators were recognized as fan artists all the way back in the 1970s and 80s. Fan art, understood as the kind of genre art appealing to fans which is commonly (but not exclusively) found at SFF conventions, is more prominent and important than ever–as reflected by the ability of some artists to reportedly make money producing it! Meanwhile art donated to fanzines and conventions continues to exist alongside these creations, and continues to receive Hugo Award recognition. This is no time to try to roll back the clock or put the genie back in the bottle. It will be easy to think of technically eligible artwork which does not feel like fan art to you–in which case, don’t nominate it! Don’t vote for it if it becomes a finalist! Ultimately it is the community, and not the business meeting or Hugo Administrator, which should continue to decide what merits the title of Best Fan Art.
These amendments maintain the Hugo Award artist category framework, which has worked for this community 98% of the time, while making a few small changes and one big change in retitling the Best Professional Artist category. They should end the reductive fan vs. pro artist debates. Free your mind from the pro vs. fan artist binary!
By Colin Harris: INTRODUCTION: A follow-on to Tammy Coxen’s “Evolution of the Art Hugo Categories”. I am very grateful to Tammy and Meg Frank in particular for their input, and also to everyone who has contributed to the online debate for their ideas and comments.
In its earliest form, the Fan Artist category (first awarded in 1967) was defined purely by context – it was art that appeared in amateur magazines (later redefined into fanzines and semiprozines). But over the years there was a gradual expansion of that context, starting in 1974 with the addition of “other public display.” in 2014 “public display” was updated to “non-professional public display” and to specify that this included display at conventions. 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.”
Until recent years, none of the definitions of Fan Artist mentioned whether the work in question was 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. The later changes around public display made it clear however that “selling fan art at a convention did not make it a professional sale”.
Meanwhile, while the definition of Fan Artist has evolved over time, Professional Artist is still quite a narrow category that includes only illustrators and works published in a professional publication.
As Tammy pointed out, this adds up to a world where 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.
Clearly, a relatively simple distinction has become very messy indeed. How do we untangle the mess? Perhaps it’s time to step back a bit …
THE ARTIST OR THE WORK. Here’s a fundamental question: is a Fan Artist someone who creates Fan Art, or is Fan Art something made by a Fan Artist? Similarly, is a Professional Artist someone who created Professional work, or is Professional work something made by a Professional Artist?
This might seem simple – but it gets to the heart of the matter. If we want to start from the work, then we need to focus our definition on the work. Do we then want to just define the work by economic context (was it for sale?) and where it was presented? Or is there something more fundamental about either the intent behind it, or the nature (aesthetics) of the work itself? Remember that in earlier days, the professional artist definition referred to “illustrator” while fan artist referred to “an artist or cartoonist”. And until the last decade, the list of Fan Artist Hugo winners remained full of “traditional” fan artists who were working for fanzines and convention publications: Teddy Harvia, Brad Foster, Sue Mason, Frank Wu and before that, Ian Gunn, Bill Rotsler, George Barr and various others.
It is only since 2013 that this has shifted, with more winners who are illustrating for semiprozines (rather than fanzines) or who are progressing towards professional careers. Many of the finalists produce work which is on the cusp between Fan and Pro categories; sometimes it’s just about visibility to the community and how they are perceived in a particular year. (Galen Dara won best Fan Artist in 2013 and was a finalist for Professional Artist in 2014 – I’m not sure how much their work or where it appeared actually changed between those years).
Conversely, there are still occasions where an established professional artist produces work which is clearly fan art. Lee Moyer won Best Fan Artist in 2022 for his “Small Gods” series which appears at conventions and online (https://www.smallgodseries.com/). And this seems like a tradition to hang on to – dating back to Jack Gaughan’s dual win in 1967 and more recently to cases where professional writers including Fred Pohl and John Scalzi have won the Hugo for Best Fan Writer.
It seems then, that we must allow for the question of intent, which may be reflected in the content and aesthetics of the work or the way it is published (or sold). The problem is that we also need a simple definition which will be intuitive to thousands of Hugo nominators, and we’re not getting that. Instead, we’re getting progressively more complex definitions which are just leading to progressively more dubious results (see above!).
We are in fact trying to maintain a bright white line between pro and fan art which no longer exists. Go back 50 years, and book / magazine covers vs. fanzine illos and cartoons was a genuine and simple proxy for this white line. In the age of the Internet, where pro and fan artists have equally polished websites, pros and fans both sell work at conventions, and where fans may be supporting themselves financially through e.g. Patreon, we are just tying ourselves in knots.
FAILURES OF DEFINITION – WHERE HUGOS GO WRONG. There’s a couple of routes by which Hugo categories become messy. One is the desire to have a Hugo for everything – because every part of the field should have a chance to be honoured. Of course this is understandable, given the prestige of the award and the recognition that goes with it; and when people advocate for an “overlooked” area they do it because they have a passion for that part of the genre.
The second route is the tendency for highly invested people to get lost in the detail when trying to come up with “clear” definitions, or to focus excessively on edge cases. Over-thinking is a real risk, and it’s easy to end up with a cumbersome definition in an attempt to address every edge case and scenario.
The third route is drift, which we’ve see in the Fan Artist definitions (thanks again Tammy!). Each change is small and made in response to perceived issues of the time, but over time the cumulative effect is to move away from the intent behind the award, or at least clutter it so much that it ceases to be intuitive.
So what makes a Good Hugo Category? I believe there are four over-riding considerations:
It should be compact in that it should bring together broadly similar works which can reasonably be compared on merit
It should be distinct in that it should be clearly separated from the other categories
It should be intuitive in that the average nominator should find it easy to identify whether works qualify or not.
It should have depth in that there needs to be enough good candidates to make a solid long list of 15 credible finalists.
Intuitiveness is essential. People who are directly involved in discussions about a category may spend a long time on considered analysis; vast majority of nominators don’t do that, especially if they don’t have ready access to the required information about a work (Was it for sale? Where was it first displayed? Why was it created?). Of course, we want to help the Administrators with clear guidance on what works should be eligible for a Hugo – but I believe the pendulum has swung too far in a number of the current category definitions. I plead for a return to simpler, more intuitive definitions and trust the nominators to act in line with the spirit of those definitions.
WHY ARE THE ARTIST CATEGORIES PARTICULARLY PROBLEMATIC? Building on the above, why then are the Artist categories (especially Fan Artist) particularly problematic? Simply because the natural proxies for identifying professional vs. fan contexts don’t work anymore or are too limiting.
By Alexis Gilliland
What I mean is that the original definition had a very intuitive proxy (was something for a book/magazine or a fanzine/convention) that covered most of the art fans saw. And of course, that distinction is still helpful – but it’s no longer enough because of all the other ways people display their art (as recognised by the evolving definition since 1974).
Proxies based simply on whether something is for sale don’t work for multiple reasons. Pros and fans both sell their work – including side by side in conventions. Fan artists like Sara Felix and Iain Clark create amazing art for conventions (for free) but then sell prints or even originals of those works. Professional artists create personal pieces which are not for sale, but that does not make them fan artists.
Relying on paywall access is also not useful. A fan artist may reasonably operate a Patreon. A professional artist may put high resolution copies of their art on their website.
The field is getting broader. The distribution channels are getting broader. The answer cannot be to make long and longer definitions, especially ones which clearly give rise to absurd options.
WHAT OUTCOMES DO WE WANT? Perhaps the best approach is to agree the outcome – what we want to achieve – and THEN use that to test any proposed definition. Here’s some suggested outcomes for starters …
A single artist (or collective) can produce both Pro and Fan art in the same year
Intent matters; fannish work is primarily work created for and made available to the community for free or for nominal cost
Intent matters: a professional artist remains a professional artist even if their work is not for sale, or is only shown at conventions, if it’s part of their professional body of work …
excepting that a (normally) professional artist can also produce fannish work and qualify for fan artist in the same year
Nominators should not need to know the economic circumstances of the artist to judge whether they are professional or fan.
It is a bad outcome if the typical bodies of work in pro and fan artists are essentially indistinguishable apart from their economic context, or rely on marginal considerations of where someone is in their career. (Per above: a good Hugo category is compact, distinct and intuitive!)
This last point is important. The Hugos recognise work. In some categories we recognise individual works like fictional stories; in others (Editor, Artist, Fan Writer) we recognise the person for the body of work they’ve produced in a year. It feels inherently dubious if we’re going to have two categories for essentially similar bodies of work.
It’s clear, however, that we do not even have consensus on what outcomes we want – the comments on Tammy’s article and related Facebook posts present polarised views from “anyone who is making art to sell should be a professional” to “anyone who only sells their art through direct sales within the community is a fan artist, even if it’s their main source of income.”
These divergent views are all valid – these are subjective matters – but they become problematic when the category definitions are pulled first one way and then the other by amendments. We will never satisfy everyone; but we need a majority consensus that can be clearly articulated to future nominators. It’s also important to acknowledge that there will ALWAYS be examples that don’t fit well with any definition; we need to accept that, as long as we are comfortable with the lists of finalists and winners. To paraphrase Voltaire, the perfect is the enemy of the good.
BEST PROFESSIONAL ARTIST. Current definition (October 2023): “An illustrator whose work has appeared in a professional publication in the field of science fiction or fantasy during the previous calendar year.”
This works in that the definition is simple and results in finalists who clearly belong there. The questions are whether the category should be broader to include other forms of visual art than illustration (almost certainly!) and whether it should also include more of the people who are making a professional living from their art without working for books and magazines. (The latter takes us back to the maze of what constitutes a professional sale, if it’s not the place it appears or the price tag.)
Artist Meg Frank suggests that professional art is distinguished by its client being a commercial entity, which seems helpful. In fact, this is a direct broadening of “appeared in a professional publication” to also cover work done for advertising, galleries and exhibitions.
Hence a new definition might be:
“An individual visual artist or visual artist collective creating work for sale or use by business or public sector entities in the field of science fiction or fantasy during the previous calendar year. These entities include, but are not limited to, publishers, advertisers, galleries and museums, but do not include direct-to-consumer sales, print-on-demand websites or similar.”
This would seem to offer several improvements:
Allows for artist collectives
Uses visual artist rather than illustrator, extending the category to 3D and other related art forms
Emphasises the commercial nature of the work and that it is being done for an organisation rather than direct sale. Includes public sector entities (and we assume here people will understand that this is not intended to include conventions!) because of artwork produced for NASA, the USPS etc.
Deliberately moves us away from the words professional publication which carry significant baggage in the Hugo vocabulary – also because we want to avoid any sense that professional vs. fan is somehow related to quality of the work
Avoids considerations of the channel through which the work was presented, whether it was actually for public purchase, and how the artist makes a living.
Note that this would generally put much semiprozine art into the professional category, but this does not seem unreasonable given that most semiprozines are closer to professional magazines than fanzines both in appearance and being for sale.
BEST FAN ARTIST. There are several options for the Fan Artist category, and I have chosen to set out principles rather than specific wording here to avoid the “but what about …” comments. We need to agree on the principles and outcomes we want first, THEN worry about the detailed wording!
Option A – “Everything Is Eligible Somewhere”
This option maintains the status quo where Pro and Fan Artist are complementary categories which essentially cover the whole field. The definition probably refers to work produced for free distribution or direct sale within the community, placing Etsy shops, Patreons and convention sales firmly in the Fan Artist category. The lack of an intermediary, commercial client who commissions or buys and then uses the work is what stops it being professional.
Option B – “It’s A Fan Category”
With this option Fan Artist sits alongside Fan Writer, Fanzine, and Fancast as awards given to works created by and for fans and fandom. The definition would emphasise that the work is essentially created for and gifted to the community. Nominees would revert to being people creating art mainly for Fanzines, Webzines and Conventions, as was typically the case up to 2013. The category would be clearly and narrowly defined. The two potential issues would be (1) would the category still have enough depth to be credible (2) the many artists who produce work and merchandise for personal sale (sometimes making a living from it) on the convention circuit or Internet would not longer fall in either category.
Option C – “It’s Like SemiProzine”
If you think Option A is too vague and Option B too exclusive, this may be the option for you. Why not have three Awards: Best Professional Artist, Best Semi-Professional Artist and Best Fan Artist. Best Semi-Professional Artist would be the category for all those people who are producing work for direct sale to the community or online, but not for commercial and business clients. This covers an ever-growing number of artists. This would however leave the question of whether the narrower Fan Artist category would still have sufficient depth.
At the end of the day, I go back to an earlier point. The boundaries between these categories are no longer simple things with easy proxies. Certainly, we need clearly articulated definitions, but let’s keep them simple and intuitive, and trust voters to understand and nominate based on the spirit of those definitions rather than tortuous legalese!
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.
By ATom
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.”
By Marc Schirmeister
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.”
By Marc Schirmeister
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:
Hugo voters want to recognize artists who create speculative art which mirrors, complements, and inspires the stories we read and watch.
Hugo voters want to recognize artists who make special charitable contributions of art for the furtherance of fannish activities such as fanzines and conventions.
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
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.
By Brad Foster
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.
(L-R): James Bacon, Sara Felix, Chuck Serface, Allison Hartman Adams, Helena Nash, Regina Kanyu Wang, Alan Stewart, Arthur Liu, Vincent Docherty, Sarah Gulde. Not pictured: Dr. Yen Ooi, Michael Carroll, Ann Gry, Jean Martin, Chris Garcia, and Pádraig Ó Méalóid)
By Allison Hartman Adams: Team Journey Planet was out in full force during Glasgow 2024: A Worldcon for Our Futures. Co-Editors and Hugo Finalists participated in a wide variety of panels and activities, and still found time for dancing, socializing at the Fan Bar, and gallivanting around Scotland.
Amid the hubbub, Journey Planet launched both a new Facebook page (facebook.com/TeamJourneyPlanet) and a new Instagram page (@teamjourneyplanet).
For Journey Planet, the enduring theme of Glasgow 2024 was connection.
Arthur Liu noted that, at a small gathering for Chinese and foreign fans, there was plenty of space for conversation and even “friendly yet heated debate.” “It was a most joyful experience, since people from different cultures were willing to share and listen equally, regardless of their social/fandom status,” Arthur said.
Arthur Liu fan meetup. Arthur Liu in front, with back to camera.
Regina Kanyu Wang seconds Arthur’s thoughts, pointing out that “it is wonderful to meet old and new friends at the Glasgow Worldcon, both in person and virtually, from all over the world…I love how Glasgow runs the fannish convention with high inclusivity and professional attitude!”
At table: Regina Kanyu Wang, Emily Xuemi Jin, Gu Shi. On screen: Xueting C. Ni, Dr. Yen Goi
Chris Garcia had a lot to say, even from nearly 5,000 miles away. Chris was a regular presence on the Worldcon Discord channels, was on multiple panels, but was most excited about his famous Flintstones shirt. “I retired it,” Chris said, “so I sent it along with Journey Planeteer Chuck Serface to put in the Fanzine Lounge to be signed by any and all who might. And they did! The photos folks took made me exceptionally happy! A memory that will live in my closet forever…”
Chris Garcia’s Flintstones shirt with signatures.
Similarly, Dr. Yen Ooi was struck by the level of interconnectedness, even for the online-only participants. “I didn’t feel left out at all in any of the events,” Yen noted. “It was a bit surreal doing laundry and cleaning the flat between events. It is wonderful that we have the option of joining online now for something as big and exciting as WorldCon.
Logging in from Thailand, Ann Gry was delighted with how smoothly everything went, in particular the panelists’ breakout rooms and how well online-only participants could see the audience. “I feel very welcome and included at the con despite not being in Glasgow,” Ann said. “This year in particular, it was a breath of fresh air to share ideas about dystopias with Zamyatin’s “We” centennial and AI apocalypse scenarios (with Adrian Tchaikovsky!), figuring out engineering solutions to people’s problems and just having fun talking about food in anime.” In particular, Ann wanted to point out that the “programming team did a fantastic job picking panelists with a broad range of POVs,” and she hopes this hybrid structure remains a staple at future Worldcons.
For Sara Felix, the highlight was “SO MUCH ART!” She was made most happy by “all the art created for the con and by members–art based around my art direction and personal art.” In addition to being a finalist for Best Fanzine, Sara was also a finalist for Best Fan Artist, a well-deserved honor.
Sara Felix art display
Alan Stewart came equipped with exclusive “Australian SF Sci-Pi” ribbons for the whole Journey Planet team during our meet-up on Thursday, during which we held an impromptu planning session for upcoming issues.
For Events Lead Vincent Docherty, the weekend was a blur, but he most enjoyed mc-ing the Symphony and Roger Sayer’s Interstellar Organ recital, moderating a panel on Morrow’s Isle with GoH Ken MacLeod, composer Gary Lloyd, and choreographer Bettina Carpi, and, of course, “the warm feeling of being part of the Hugo nominated Team Journey Planet!”
(L-R) Gary Lloyd, Bettina Carpi, Ken MacLeod, Vincent Docherty. Photo by Simon Bubb
This year, Sarah Gulde celebrated the 10th anniversary of her first Worldcon, and the experience was as wonderful as ever. “I loved seeing all the friends I haven’t seen since at least the 2021 Worldcon in DC, meeting new friends, and meeting authors I’d never met before but whose work I love!”
In front: Sarah Gulde.
Helena Nash noted a similar feeling. Because of the length of the con, Helena got a chance to “sit down for an hour or two with Allison [Hartman] to talk about Journey Planet, or Kat Clay about TTRPGs or Stuart Vandal about the minutiae of Marvel comics history.” Moreover, Helena pointed out an incredibly important piece of Glasgow 2024: “The egalitarian, approachable format of Worldcon meant I felt socially permitted to talk to talented creators, as opposed to, say, getting 10 seconds to say hello to a celebrity at a carefully controlled autographing session before being shuffled along by a minder.”
Allison Hartman, when she wasn’t trying to hack down Meta’s impenetrable walls, found time for chatting, meeting new friends, and participating in panels. “I’ve never felt more at home at a con than I have at Glasgow 2024. I felt listened to, seen, connected. I am so grateful to all the volunteers and organizers. They had a herculean task ahead of them, and they pulled it off beautifully.”
And of course, James Bacon had plenty to say. “Glasgow 2024 was a pretty spectacular and very successful Worldcon. As part of the Glasgow 2024 team, my pleasure comes from seeing the fruits of the labour, the happiness among fans, and delivery of all the good fun things. There was a lot of that. I was a Chairs advisor, and my note now is, “Well that was awesome!” (Read James’ full commentary below.)
One highlight we can all get behind is the arrival of the one-of-a-kind ultra-exclusive Wallace Award, courtesy of Helena Nash. While not a Hugo, we love it just the same. Thank you, Helena!
The Wallace Award
While we were sad not to see 2023 Co-Editors Dr. Yen Ooi, Michael Carroll, Chris Garcia, or Pádraig Ó Méalóid, we were all able to connect with many Journey Planet contributors and friends, including Errick Nunnally, Brenda Noiseux (who also served a Hugo runner for the Awards ceremony), Craig Miller, John Coxon, Yvonne Rowse, Linda Wenzelburger, Pete Young, Alissa Wales, Meg Frank, Iain Clark, GoH Claire Brialey, Mark Plummer, Stuart Vandal, Olav Rokne, Amanda Wakaruk, Dr Meganne Christian, and of course Glasgow 2024 Chair Esther MacCallum Stewart, along with Marguerite Smith and Brian Nisbet. Everyone is hopeful for a Mega-Journey Planet Meet-Up at a future Worldcon. Please join us all on Facebook and Instagram, or reach out to us as [email protected].
JAMES BACON’S THOUGHTS ON GLASGOW 2024: A WORLDCON FOR OUR FUTURES
By James Bacon: Glasgow 2024 was a pretty spectacular and very successful Worldcon. As part of the Glasgow 2024 team, my pleasure comes from seeing the fruits of the labour, the happiness among fans and delivery of all the good fun things. There was a lot of that. I was a Chairs advisor, and my note now is, “Well that was awesome!”
The weekend began early. I arrived on the Sunday before the con, but on Wednesday, an impromptu Journey Planet gathering occurred, as a group known as “Le F*ckers” (said with a fake French accent) gathered and drank in the Crowne Plaza bar. It was mostly JP people, but also other fans, and enjoying a drink was a nice start after a long day.
It feels like such a short time since Dublin 2019–and yet it is five years! It was good to reconnect so many people, and here were some lovely interactions about both Dublin and Journey Planet. There is a lot of love for the zine, and I was pleased that some recent issues really resonated with fans, who were keen to engage and chat about them.
As the Batmobiles rumbled into Hall 4, I knew it would be an amazing Worldcon, and likewise when I saw the excitement for what must have been the best events proposition that any Worldcon has ever had, all under the leadership of Vincent Docherty. Craig Miller in LA, whom I hold in the highest regard, set the bar high. He is an amazing fan, and if anyone can challenge our Co-editor Vince, it is Craig. I spoke to Vincent afterwards, and I hope we can do an issue soon, on music all going well.
I arranged a couple of “meet-ups” slotting them into a spreadsheet, and I was delighted that these occurred. I was frightfully busy at the convention, but ensuring these occurred was important. The first co-editors JP meet-up, after the impromptu “Le F*ckers”, was on Thursday in the vast Hall 4 with everything from a Batmobile to Free Books. I was delighted to speak with the amazing fan Arthur Liu, whom I had not met yet, and while not all co-editors were present, we still filled an entire table. New ideas sprung forth and it looks like our year got busier following the Thursday meetup. I was sad that all editors could not be there, but many were. Vincent was even busier than I was, for sure.
Journey Planet has had 37 co-editors to date, with 84 issues completed, and hundreds of contributors. I would love to meet them all, and at some stage we may even have a Con JP. They all work so hard, but like friendships, they come in, are amazing, and drift away to other projects. So it was wonderful to meet with co-editors, sit down, discuss, and solidify these friendships (although maybe we could have done a better job alerting them all). It was also great to greet some co-editors who I do not speak to much at all these days, just because I am not seeing them at cons I go to, like John Coxon and Yvonne Rowse. I carved out time to have dinner post con with Linda Wenzelburger, but missed Pete Young (I shall write to him, though) and I watched on as some co-editors, such as Alissa Wales and Esther MacCallum Stewart worked so hard. I got to see Meg Frank briefly (their art is so amazing) and was delighted to spend a whole session with Iain Clark who is working on some covers for us. There were so many people!
How friendships evolve in the fan community is interesting, and I am looking forward to Sarah Gulde and Chuck Serface joining us on an issue and writing about that.
Of course, co-editor Claire Brialey was a GOH, and I saw her and Mark Plummer a number of times, but that was more on behalf of the con than the long friendship that we have, although there was an intersection or something there, which is pretty unique.
I think I would like more time to welcome contributors next year in Seattle. If I go, I think I’ll look to my fellow co-editors to arrange some sort of workshop or panel about getting involved in writing and editing. There are so many young people and enthusiastic fans at Worldcon. I felt like I should have gone around to every one of them and given them business cards with ideas about how to volunteer to run conventions on their own terms and see if the enthusiasm could be harnessed for the future. I also felt like so many had something to say, and wished to share the conduit that is JP.
While all this was going on though, our latest initiative, a Journey Planet Facebook and Instagram page, was being rolled out by Allison Hartman, with Sara Felix on graphics. Allison captured what co-editors were doing during the con. We had discussed a structured and planned approach, consistency rather than frequency–the long game. So far it looks amazing.
We also had a meet up on Saturday evening. I am part of the Belfast Eastercon team, and had invited Team Journey Planet, and so we were joined by a number of contributors and supporters, as well as current and previous co-editors. Errick Nunally and Brenda Noiseux are always a delight to see. I enjoyed serving them all nice whiskeys and catching up.
Journey Planet meetup
I met Stuart Vandal, and that was superb. Stuart and I worked for an events company some 15 years ago, and it was a revelation to catch up. He is a freelance writer, but is really a Marvel Indexer, with over 100 indexes to his name, and often supports us with the comics aspects in our issues.
The Hugo Awards are really very special, but also can be overwhelming. We gathered beforehand and worked as a group. We previously did not always do this, which was a mistake. As a pack, a team, problems that crop up can get fixed immediately. While I had to go and accompany a surprise visitor, and was slightly late for the official Journey Planet photo, Olav Rokne and Amanda Wakaruk were very understanding. We were joined by Dr Meganne Christian, Reserve Astronaut, Exploration Commercialisation Lead at the UK Space Agency, and Glasgow 2024 Special Guest, who was delightful.
While we sadly lost the Hugo Award, we were together, which was nice. Helena Nash made the Wallace loser rocket (which I now covet) and that was fun. I was sad that Sara Felix and Iain Clark did not win a Hugo Award; being a finalist is such an amazing achievement and honour, and the Worldcon and its fans, do that so well.
So much hard work goes into a Worldcon, and as we break up to pursue different projects and conventions, I will miss many aspects of being on the committee. There are so many good people with amazing plans. I am looking forward to seeing what Marguerite Smith and Brian Nisbet do with Dublin 2029. My thoughts now move on to thinking about enjoying future cons but working less on them. I saw less of Glasgow 2024 than I did of Dublin, which sounds bizarre, but I was more mobile. I walked 88 miles in 9 days.
We might try to make a concrete plan for meeting up–like Boskone, Eastercon in Belfast, and Worldcon in Seattle–as Chris might be at Boskone and Seattle. Sitting together and discussing ideas and welcoming new writers is always nice. Our ideas list for issues now stands well over 50 proposals, and next year is already filling up. I think the meet up could be expanded, especially if we can manage it at Seattle and LA, giving consistency. There is so much more to write about, another time though.
While many co-editors were not present, I was sad that Chris could not make it, but am hopeful that we will get to reconvene together. Perhaps it will be Seattle, perhaps somewhere else. I do not see enough of Chris, and while we talk a lot, meeting is always great, especially if I can take Chris for a meal.
Overall, Glasgow 2024: A Worldcon for Our Futures was very, very good.
Seattle Worldcon 2025 today announced that DisCon III (the 2021 Worldcon) has provided $30,000 to start a Community Fund for the 2025 Worldcon.
A community fund offers eligible people memberships and financial stipends to help defray the expenses of attending a Worldcon.
The 2025 community fund will have four focus areas: Pacific Northwest community members attending for the first time, LGBTQIA+ community members, BIPOC/AANHPI community members, and Global South community members. Applications for funds will open shortly and will be found on the Seattle Worldcon website.
The Hugo rules give each year’s Worldcon the option of creating one special category. Seattle 2025’s will recognize speculative, science fiction, and fantasy poems from 2024 which are “at least three lines”.
The Seattle Worldcon team points to the city’s “rich, vibrant poetry culture…. From having one of the only poetry-only bookstores to having its own Civic Poet, the Seattle poetry scene teems with activity…. We look forward to seeing what poems resonate with the WSFS membership.”
File 770, with the help of Kate Secor and Gray Anderson, has compiled a box score of agenda items handled at the Third Main Business Meeting on Monday at Glasgow 2024.
TL;DR BOX SCORE OF AGENDA ITEMS ADDRESSED AT MONDAY BUSINESS MEETING
Committee of Investigation elected – to carry out the work in the following resolution passed at the First Main Business Meeting where two agenda items were considered in Executive Session:
Resolved, That a committee of seven be elected by ballot to investigate the Hugo Award Administrator for Chengdu Worldcon, the Chengdu Worldcon Hugo Subcommittee, and the chairs of Chengdu Worldcon for allegations regarding their conduct and the administration of the 2023 Hugo Awards.
Further resolved, That items D.11 and D.12 on this years Business Meeting agenda be referred to said committee.
Further resolved, That the committee has the power to fill vacancies by appointment.
The members elected to the Committee are:
Warren Buff (chair)
Chris Barkley
Todd Dashoff
Chris Garcia
Farah Mendelsohn
Randall Shepherd
Nicholas Whyte
The “Location Committee” to which agenda item F.13 “Location, Location, Location” has been referred(a.k.a. the “F.13 Committee”) was appointed.
Tammy Coxen (chair)
Don Eastlake
Ann Marie Rudolph
Olav Rokne
Ingvar Mattson
Kevin Black
Alan Fleming
One member from a potentially affected country to be appointed later
NEW CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS – SECTION F OF THE AGENDA
“Passed” means the proposed amendment received first passage and will be presented for ratification to the 2025 Business meeting. “Failed” means it was defeated when voted on by the meeting.
F.10.A Make the Change — Proposed Section 1.9 Membership of the Software Advisory Committee. — Sent to a committee to be chaired by Chris Rose who shall select its members
F.11 Hugo Administration and Site Selection Monitoring — PASSED
F.14 Popular Ratification — referred to the Business Meeting Process committee
F.15 Meetings, Meetings, Everywhere — referred to the Business Meeting Process committee with an additional requirement that Kate Secor be added to said committee (with consent given)
F.16 When We Censure You, We Mean It — FAILED
F.17 Editorial Alignment — PASSED
F.18 Cleaning up the Art Categories — PASSED
F.19 No More Retros — PASSED
F.20 Save the Retro Hugos — FAILED
RESOLUTION RECONSIDERED
D.4 Hugo Eligibility Extension for Gojira – 1.0 a.k.a. Godzilla Minus One — The extended eligibility voted for Godzilla Minus One at the Preliminary Business Meeting was reconsidered and voted down. Its eligibility is not extended
CONCLUSION.
Chair Jesi Lipp extended thanks to everyone who helped make the meeting happen, especially those who had to step up when COVID caught up to us.
Motion to thank the chair for exception service met with a standing ovation
Meeting adjourned sine die in honor of Deb Geisler.
ADDITIONAL NOTES. The official videos will be available from the convention on replay and eventually somewhere more permanent.
File 770, with the help of Gray Anderson, has compiled a box score of agenda items handled at the Second Main Business Meeting on Sunday at Glasgow 2024.
TL;DR BOX SCORE OF AGENDA ITEMS ADDRESSED AT SUNDAY BUSINESS MEETING
SITE SELECTION — Congratulations to LA Con V, seated for 2026.
NEW CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS – SECTION F OF THE AGENDA
“Passed” means the proposed amendment received first passage and will be presented for ratification to the 2025 Business meeting. “Failed” means it was defeated when voted on by the meeting. Note: Items F.1 – F.4 had been set aside with “no action taken” at the Saturday session.
F.1 Missing In Action – PASSED
F.2 The Way We Were — PASSED
F.3 Required License Agreement — PASSED
F.4 MPC Procedures — PASSED
F.12 Site Selection by the Worldcon Community —FAILED
F.13 Location, Location, Location — referred to bespoke committee(the “F.13 Committee”)
BUSINESS PASSED ON – SECTION E OF THE AGENDA
“Ratified” means it was voted into effect and following the end of Glasgow 2024 will be part of the WSFS Constitution (unless another effective date is specified). “Failed” means it was defeated when voted on by the meeting and will not become part of the Consitution.
E.1 Marks Authorization — RATIFIED
E.2 Business Meeting Contingencies — RATIFIED
E.3 Consistent Change — RATIFIED
E.4 Convention Time Bracket — RATIFIED
E.5 Bid Committee Contactability — RATIFIED
E.6 Ballot Completeness — RATIFIED
E.7 Independent Films — FAILED
E.8 Eligibility Criteria for Non-English Work — RATIFIED
E.9 Best Fancast Not Paying Compensation — FAILED
E.10 Language Requirement — FAILED
E.11 Convention Generalization — RATIFIED
E.12 Establishment of ASFiC — FAILED
MARK PROTECTION COMMITTEE
Don Eastlake, Linda Deneroff, Olav Rokne elected to MPC
The Sunday session ended with plans to pick up Monday tomorrow with items F.10.A and F.14 – F.20
THE 2024 HUGO AWARDS CEREMONY IN GLASGOW SCOTLAND, A PHOTO ESSAY
By Chris M. Barkley:
(1-3) Lining Up for the Hugo Awards Ceremony outside of the Armadillo, 7:00 pm local time.
(4) Artist Maurizo Manzieri (right) and Silvio Sosio (left), publisher and editor of the magazine Robot and the online magazine Fantascienza.com, outside of the Armadillo, 7:00 pm.
Cora Buhlert convened a meetup of File 770 readers at the Worldcon in Scotland today and took these photos.
From left to right, Klaus Schmitz, Susan, Kathryn Sullivan, Ann-Marie Rudolph, Perrianne Lurie, Doctor Science, Dave Wallace, con photographer Simon Bubb, and Paul Weimer.
The File 770 meetup then decamped to a table in the food truck area. From left to right, Christian Brunschen, Dave Wallace, Klaus Schmitz, Perrianne Lurie and Doctor Science.
