« Is there 'bottomless buckets' for popcorn? | Main | start your weekend with a laugh... »

May 28, 2015

Comments

Dillon's "Beneath the Surface" was the cover to Shadows Beneath: The Writing Excuses Anthology (http://brandonsanderson.com/introducing-the-writing-excuses-anthology/).

Aha, thanks, Nat. It's not listed that way on her site, and I didn't find it by image-googling -- there's so much lettering on the cover that it fools Google's algorithm. I'll edit the post accordingly.


That is interesting. Namely the prospect of the discussion of what sets a work apart. For example in the case of the "Neverborn" - to me it appears to be a charcoal drawing. Hence, after finishing the work on paper; you spray it to maintain it, and then proceed to either scan it or take a picture for a digital version. (Charcoal drawings are easily ruined by time.) Thus can we consider the most likely digitally coloured work as an entity of its own, or is it still the same picture as the earlier charcoal drawing?

Regrettably the images provided do not enable me to inspect the details, nor the actual distances within the image. Sometimes artists do decide to recreate their own work from scratch.

Thus with the infornation available, with the decisions between a work of charcoal and one that has been coloured. I would lean towards the works being seperate.

Though I suppose I should give a disclaimer how I have done charcoal drawings of my own, and then later coloured those, and I do consider both to be their own distinct works due to their seperate techniques and chalenges.

On the subject of "Kirk DouPonce": Why is there a red 'x' on the day novel, if it was published in 2014? Was the image published elsewhere during 2013?

"The definition of what is a “professional” publication is somewhat technical. A professional publication either (1) 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."

Thus the question on the green 'x' marks is as follows, are you sure that someone has not already paid for those works in question?

Well, I guess that is all I can bother about this topic.

Carter Reid's "Professional Artist" nomination is for his book covers, I think. He does the covers for the Rock Band Fights Evil series of books, among others.

works first published in the eligible year

I am way out of my field here,
but isn't it true that copyright date is
not the same as publishing date, nor not
necessarily the same?

I'm under the impression that modern copyrights
are automatic and begin at the creation of the
work, but publishing is a different event.

I'm not sure that already agreed upon and revealed future publication is a disqualifier. Maybe we need someone from the Hugo Committee itself to comment?

I admit, I'd have been inclined, IF given no other direction, to offer a portfolio of "Best works" not limited to the year in question - is it possible that these artists didn't know otherwise? I know ignorance is not a defense in the law, but I would like to know what they were told to do.

(I'm also a little surprised display in an art show, at least Worldcon or World Fantasy sized, doesn't tip into professional. I guess it's too hard to separate out juried shows (WFC, most actual galleries) or high-level shows with minimal fan-only presence (Worldcon) from local ones, and to include all would bloat the professional category into meaninglessness. )

Lenora Rose:

That confused the heck out of me, too, until I read the rules carefully and thought about them a bit.

The distinction isn't actually between "pro" and "fan" as we usually think of it. It's between "pro distribution, assumed to be wide and publicly available" and "fan distribution, assumed to be available only to people who make an effort to be in fandom, by reading zines or going to cons."

This way of thinking of things has been *completely broken* by the Internet, Worldcon hasn't recognized it yet.

I think I'm willing to give Greenwood a bit of a pass: If we consider colorizing the images to be a substantial revision (and I can see the argument on both sides), all of the work colorized and "published" in 2014 is eligible and the work that appeared on the Kickstarter still wouldn't have been professionally published until 2014.

The kickstarter was posted in October 2013, but I doubt that the colorized edition of Amethyst was done until 2014 since they were asking for money for the production of content. So even that one image passes muster.

So, there's one image, "Mech" that you're saying was already in color in the otherwise BW edition of the game. The rest, to me, are eligible.

Tuomas:

Thank you for noticing the incorrect date on the Vox Day cover, over on File 770. Proofreading at 2:30 AM isn't always a very good idea ...

@Ampersand "Carter Reid's "Professional Artist" nomination is for his book covers, I think. He does the covers for the Rock Band Fights Evil series of books, among others."

The problem for me with that is that I couldn't find anything about him via google search other than his web comic and nothing was submitted to the packet not even a link to where the covers may be viewed online or a list of books to look at the covers of.

It would be very helpful if Reid or his supporters did something to make it possible for those of us who have never heard of him to see his work. Otherwise it appears he has none.

Hi Doctor Science,

I like your preciseness and willingness to research. I feel like the internet has messed with what "publishing" means and so any work released digitally could be termed "published" (like the works that were announced as chosen art for future print publishing) or "unpublished" (like works put on tumblr or elsewhere but not yet paid for in any way) without necessarily intending to be a lie.

Until some more vetting of individual works with strong definitions around what published in a year means the voters are left with packets as chosen by the artist/publishers.

So far I've been approaching the question as a more sweeping one. Was their most recent work awesome? Have they grown as an artist? Was last year's better? Did they capture some part of a scifi/fantasy visual zeitgeist? Since the vote is for a person and not an individual piece of art I don't know how else to analyze the decision.

Am I correct in the way I am placing my vote? Probably not. For now though I'm trying to be as fair as I can and look forward to participating in more conversations about how to define eligibility.

Thanks!
Rebekah

Rebekah: I'm less concerned about their growth as an artist or comparing to previous years. I'm working through this by considering: is this year's work awesome? Is it worthy?

Any comparison to other years or "growth" doesn't quite work, especially if you're looking at a very established artist with a particular sensibility / style. I don't know how to say John Picacio (not nominated this year) has grown, but I think his work is awesome.

Alas, I'm voting for Steve Stiles in the "Nominated a lot, but never won" category again this years :-) I like his work, think it's fun and worth nominating, even though he doesn't seem to have much new this year, but it hasn't been up to the winning entries, even though he's definitely painted one of the most canonical pictures of Scalzi, like, ever.

Bill:

Thank you for commenting!

You sound like a long-time, consistent Hugo voter, unlike myself -- I'm in the "long-time, but embarrasingly sporadic" category.

What kind of things do you look for in Fan Artist? What do you think about artists like Galen Dara, Sarah Webb, and Elizabeth Leggett? ISTM they are professional artists who are in the "fan artist" category because their work is distributed online instead of via traditional SFF publications. But they're not really distributed via the usual fan publications, either: it's just that "misc" got categorized with Fan Artist instead of Pro.

Dara, Webb, and Leggett are the thin end of a gigantic wedge of sf & fantasy art that's being distributed online: on etsy, deviantart, tumblr, via roundups on io9.com, etc. A lot of this work is of professional style and quality, comparable to the stuff in Spectrum -- but it doesn't count as Pro SFF publication for Hugo purposes.

How would *you* like to see the Art Hugos organized? What do you feel about SFF art from people who are fans, but who aren't part of Worldcon fandom? Examples: Leggett (who I knew about from tumblr, and who was on my nominations list), Evgeny Kazantsev, Alexandra Khitrova, or Alice XZ?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad