Op/Ed: Time for a Change
 | |
| Author | Jordan Martin |
|---|---|
| Illustrator | Jordan Martin |
| Subject | ISCAcon, Caricaturist of the Year |
| Genre | Op/Ed, Editorial |
| Published | EF Issue 2019.2 |
Publication date | Spring 2019 |
| Media type | Digital |
| Pages | 8-10 |
| Website | caricature |
| The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of ISCA or ISCAcon. | |
This Op/Ed piece was written by Jordan Martin. It appears in Exaggerated Features issue 2019.2 on pages 8-10.
Contents
Article Transcript
Change for the sake of change is bad, but the core problem that I see here is that the current system does not work for ISCA anymore. Voting has changed quite a lot over the years, and I simply think it’s time for another one of these changes. With more than 160 artists doing somewhere around an average of 10 pieces, the members have around 1,600 pieces of artwork to compare to every other piece. Since artists do not submit pieces to specific categories, you are comparing every piece you see to every other piece in every category. This is already a daunting task, and if the convention has any desire to grow and be more professional, this must change.
If this is to change, the board will need to be upfront and open about the change. It shouldn’t come out of nowhere. The last thing to keep in mind, and possibly the most important, is that there is no such thing as a perfect voting system. You need to choose the one that you are most comfortable with despite its flaws.
What follows here is my suggestion for change based on research, talking to other ISCA members, and talks with similar industries like body art and experienced game designers.
Panel of Judges
Voting should change from a popular vote to a large panel of qualified judges scoring each artist wall in each category on a scale from one to one hundred. Not only do almost all creative organizations judge contests by jury, but there are good reasons for it. It would be fine to leave some of the categories as a popular vote, but most of them should be changed.
This is more effective because it means that every wall is judged by its own merit, and not compared to everything else. The main problem with comparing everything to everything is that it is simply impossible to do without people being missed or things becoming some form of popularity contest. If the convention is to grow, this will become exponentially worse. I have not seen anyone win who was only popular, and not actually a good artist, but I have seen good artists lose to equally good artists who are more outgoing.
Most importantly, artists would receive their scores after voting (like at major body art conventions), and that would absolutely raise the value of the convention. It would mean that competing at ISCA includes evaluations from a large panel of the top caricature artists out there. Many artists would jump at the opportunity to get an evaluation of their work from Stephen Silver, Tom Richmond, or even Golden Nosey winners.
Currently, you either win or don’t win. You don’t know where you stand, you don’t know what you need to work on, or how you can improve. Even winning only tells you that people like your work more than other artists attending, but it doesn’t tell you why your work is good.
Jury Selection Suggestions:
Fairly large group of people that are NOT competing. The larger the group the less bias influences the final results.
- All of the guest speakers that
aren’t competing.
- One outside artist from a similar
field like comics or animation.
- At least one master.
- At least one well-known
caricature artist.
- Someone attending the majority
of the convention so that they are familiar with the faces of the members attending.
- Possibly the board members (It’s
slightly problematic that currently the people counting the votes are also competing. It’s never been a problem, but it’s playing with fire.)
Winners
Caricature Artist of the Year
The strangest part of our current system is the fact that we vote for “best of the year” separate from the other categories; this is decidedly ridiculous. This means that it would be possible for someone to win every category, but not be in the top 10. More importantly, it means that votes can be so spread out that some of the winners may only have received a few votes. It also means that it’s mathematically possible for someone to get more votes than anyone else but not win a single award. It would make much more sense to use a system that is more similar to the Miss America Pageant. In the pageant, scores are given by a panel of judges in the categories, and then the overall winners are the ones with the highest total combined scores.
The top 3 people with the highest combined scores are the winners, but they do not win any categories. Since they are taken out of the running for categories, it can then leave room for more people to have an opportunity to win a category. Right now, a handful of artists take all of the awards. It makes it feel like you don’t really have a chance. This elevates placing as a top artist because those people have won the show: they have the most votes out of everyone, they are the best, and everyone one else who won is second place to the true winners.
The particulars of this would have to be worked out. Taking the top 10 out of the running for the categories might be too much. Perhaps you take the top 3 out of the running, but the top 4-10 are still in the running for categories. This would mean that tension is building as the categories are announced. Not winning each category means that you might have won in the top 3, and winning means maybe you still placed in the top 10. This may not be the right answer, but it is a good direction to be thinking in.
In contrast, I would keep Caricature of the Year as a popular vote. It would be much too much to ask the judges to evaluate each individual
