RE: The Hugo Best Artist Proposed Amendments
If you care about the Hugo Awards' future in the Artist categories (Professional and Fan), then I highly encourage you to check out the following two blogs re: the proposed amendment by Irene Gallo and Donato Giancola: Kevin Standlee's Livejournal and Irene Gallo's blog). Irene and Donato are proposing Hugo Award rule amendments that, if passed, would hopefully increase the chance for an informed vote for the Hugo Artist Awards in coming years. Irene and Donato are working on amendments to provide a framework so that blind voting based on reputation-only is no longer accepted in the Artist categories. The Hugos are very diligent about making sure that written works in other categories were published in the previous year, and the two Artist Hugos are supposed to be acknowlegements for an artist's body of work over the course of the previous year. Personally, when I look at the spirit of Irene and Donato's effort here, it seems to me like they're trying to help the Hugos ENFORCE their own rules, rather than CHANGE the rules themselves. If you think about it, all of the "one-person" Hugo categories (Best Professional Editor, Best Professional Artist, Best Fan Writer, and Best Fan Artist) should ALL be subject to the same standard and should be afforded the same diligence toward the previous year's work as the other categories. I'd like to see all of these categories receive the same rules amendments, so that all of them will have the same level of diligent qualifying as the other Hugo categories. In the end, it just helps the future of the Hugos, and increases the appreciation for its recognitions.
So I'll be keeping a close eye on this discussion and hopefully lending a hand to help the process. I do care about the Hugos, and I'm grateful and very honored to be nominated in this year's awards. However, I think the process can be improved and I'd like to see it happen. You can help too. You can take part in the discussions on the blogs above (or here) and let your opinion be known, even if you don't agree. Or better yet, you can attend the Business Meetings at Worldcon in Anaheim this August, when these votes will be administered. Either way, please let your voice be heard!
If you have any thoughts, I'd love to hear from you here.
So I'll be keeping a close eye on this discussion and hopefully lending a hand to help the process. I do care about the Hugos, and I'm grateful and very honored to be nominated in this year's awards. However, I think the process can be improved and I'd like to see it happen. You can help too. You can take part in the discussions on the blogs above (or here) and let your opinion be known, even if you don't agree. Or better yet, you can attend the Business Meetings at Worldcon in Anaheim this August, when these votes will be administered. Either way, please let your voice be heard!
If you have any thoughts, I'd love to hear from you here.
posted by John Picacio at 11:51 PM
3 Comments:
Agree with your assessment. I'm not sure voters need to include a qualifying work, though this doesn't seem to differ greatly from listing the publishing house behind an obscure title. I may be ignorant, but it doesn't seem that verifying an artist's eligibility would be an insurmountable task for the Hugo committee in 99% of the cases. Again, I am much gratified by Mark Kelly's wonderful list of cover art available at www.locusmag.com
Agree with your assessment. I'm not sure voters need to include a qualifying work, though this doesn't seem to differ greatly from listing the publishing house behind an obscure title. I may be ignorant, but it doesn't seem that verifying an artist's eligibility would be an insurmountable task for the Hugo committee in 99% of the cases. Again, I am much gratified by Mark Kelly's wonderful list of cover art available at www.locusmag.com
Well, I agree with a lot of what you're saying here. I think there's a subtle, but important difference though, as opposed to the example of listing the publishing house next to an obscure title.
I think the main advantage of voters needing to provide a qualifying work is this: it requires the voter to think beyond just the name-reputation of the person they're voting for. It requires the voter to at least know one work from the past 12 months that embodies the reason why they're voting for the artist of their choice. And if that artist happens to be someone who didn't produce work in the previous year, or happens to be deceased, then that makes it impossible to vote for them. Currently, that's not the case, and I don't think that's in the best interests of the Hugos, and their legitimacy. There's great diligence paid toward making sure that publication dates and eligibility are in-line for the Hugo categories of the written word. Why shouldn't the same diligence be paid to the Hugo for Best Professional Artist? I think the amendment helps the Hugos to help themselves.
Post a Comment
<< Home