This is one of a series of posts about the 2025 World Science Fiction Society Business Meeting. They are all tagged bm2025.
One of the constitutional amendments passed last year was a proposal to clarify the Best Professional Artist and Best Fan Artist categories in the Hugo Awards. I believe that I actually wrote most of it, but I no longer agree with it. I have come to realise that I mistakenly accepted the logic proposed by some of the louder voices on the unmissed Hugo Awards Study Committee, arguing that we should define all genre-related activity as either Fan or Pro, and then define the awards accordingly. In fact Pro Art and Fan Art have been historically very different things, and what we should be talking about is how to change the definitions of both to reflect how the production and consumption of art has changed over the years.
This proposal was put to a consultative vote of WSFS members last month, and rejected by 160 votes to 124 – three or four times the numbers that one would historically expect to be in the room for an in-person business meeting.
It is now on the Business Meeting agenda for ratification as item E9 (page 30). It should be rejected. Unfortunately the discussion will be on 25 July, when I will be unable to attend.
There is a new proposal to clarify the art categories on the Business Meeting agenda as item F22. I find it an improvement on the status quo, but I would like to hear the views of the artist community. I don’t like the fact that it proposes renaming the ‘Best Professional Artist’ award to ‘Best Artist in the Field of Professional Illustration’, which is simply too verbose, and I regret that it has missed the opportunity to require Best Fan Artist finalists to supply the same proof of eligibility as Best Professional Artist finalists, which is the one bit of E9 that I still stand behind.
(Presumably the ratification of E9 could be split, to allow the last paragraph through and kill the rest.)
F22 is capable of amendment to improve it in the debate, but that will presumably be on the day that I cannot attend the meeting. It would be no great tragedy if E9 and F22 are rejected and we have another go in another year.
Update: one of the proposers of F22 was subsequently so rude and offensive in an online discussion of the topic that I no longer feel inclined to offer their proposal the benefit of the doubt, and would vote against if I were present (which I probably won’t be).
2025 WSFS Business meeting posts:
Mark Protection Committee Report
Investigation Committee on the 2023 Hugo Awards report
Software Committee
Hugo Administration Process Committee report
Business Meeting Study Group
C1, C2, C3, C4
C5
D1, D2, D3
D4
D5, D6
D7, D8
D9, D10, D11, D12
E1, E2
E3, E4, E5
E6
E7
E8
E9
F1, F2
F3, F4, F5, F6
F7, F8
F9, F10
F11
F12
F13
F14, F15
F16, F17, F18, F19
F20
F21
F22