Fridge magnets galore

[mandragora]

So, I've come back from Z-con with a ridiculously large amount of fridge magnets, courtesy of the favourable exchange rate at present. I kept on thinking to myself 'bargain, bargain' at the prices. And then I thought of the price that British industry is paying at lack of competitive exports (penalty of growing up with a father whose business was exporting goods all over the world). But yes, the magnets are very pretty. Still, I can't help wondering what my cleaner thought of them when she came round to do the weekly clean today. *g*

The largest contingent are Due South, but I have rather a lot of Smallville, plus a lovely couple of Jack 'n Will. Then there are the Firefly magnets (all of them featuring Cap'n Mal, funnily enough...), plus one of Josh Lyman (love that Josh). They go nicely with my existing Bodie 'n Doyle and Duncan 'n Methos magnets. Gosh, I love pretty men. 'Cos I'm that shallow.

I only picked up a couple of zines at Z-con, both Pros. I enjoyed them both, although I couldn't help wishing that the Rosemary Callahan zine had used the services of a Brit-editor. All the gottens kept on throwing me out of the rhythm of the story - there's no way Bodie or Doyle would say 'gotten'. Other than the Americanisms, though, it was a good read, especially considering that I'm not a huge h/c fan and the zine was h/c based. It also has a lovely Lovett cover. And no, I wasn't there when the Lovett picture at the auction sold for $3,000 (was sick in bed in the hotel room at the time), but I heard about it.

The fact that any fannish item sold for that much money highlighted the difference between an American and British con for me. I can't imagine any item of that nature ever selling for that type of money at a British con. I remember being gobsmacked at reading how much items auctioned off for charity at US Highlander cons raised compared to the prices that similar items fetched at UK cons. Wonder why that is - something to do with the 'good value for money' ethos that (used to be) drummed into the head of every British person I knew, I wonder.

As for the con itself, I don't propose to do a full con report as other people have already done it and very well too.

As I've already written, the best thing for me was meeting old friends and making new ones. It was great to have the 'London posse' (TM: uschickens (almost) back together again. Much laughter and joy. And to see the lovely smaragdgrun (whose costume on Saturday kicked arse!) again. Am trying to persuade her that the next Connotations con lies in her future... Smara's companion in crime justacat who was my other room-mate also looked fabulous in her matching Gothic costume. Was sincerely a pleasure to meet her.

Also, so many other people who I'd heard so much about, especially those courtesy of thermidor. Forgive me if I don't list everyone, suffice it to say that there were so many great people and I hope to meet them all again at some point (not to mention keep in touch through LJ).

I didn't attend many panels, but of those I went to the winner was the dS panel, with the HP one the runner-up. All featured lively discussion and lots of laughs. Much fun.

The fact that I was suffering from the dreaded lurgy meant I didn't enjoy the do on Saturday night as much as I would otherwise have done. Alas, I missed the play. But not the costumes. Gosh, there was some glamour on display. Also some costumes that were deeply, deeply scary (Lana!).

All told, despite the illness I had a ridiculously good time. And then there was Chicago... (of which more later).

Comments

[prudentia.livejournal.com]

I'm glad you enjoyed the con, despite being ill. I hope you feel better soon.

It's good to get a British point of view. I don't think I would ever have the nerve to go to a con myself -- attending the modest London gatherings is nerve-wracking enough -- but it's fun living vicariously through others.

And the fan art thing is both interesting and astonishing to me. I could cope with the odd fridge magnet, or maybe a mug or keyring, but I can't actually imagine having anything fannish on my walls. Partly due to having to explain it to family and friends (Anne's so weird -- she has pictures of TV actors on her wall -- naked!) and also due to the fact that I don't actually like a lot of what I've seen. I prefer to leave it to my imagination. And I definitely couldn't imagine paying thousands for it (I paid over a thousand for an oil painting once and am still living with the guilt). Was the art in question especially magnificent? Or more likely, I suppose two people wanted it very much and forced the price up.

[mandragora1.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the get well vibes. Me too. Sigh (hopefully the doctor will be able to help).

I don't think I would ever have the nerve to go to a con myself -- attending the modest London gatherings is nerve-wracking enough

That reminds me, must organise another London get-together in the not too distant future. However, don't speak too soon about attending a con. I have it on good authority that there'll be another Connotations next year...

Re fan art, I'm of the same mind as you. I get enough comment on me having all of The Professionals videos from non-fannish friends as it is *wry smile*. Plus, my decorative taste runs more towards the abstract, or of photos/paintings of landcapes etc. I'm not so big on having pictures of people on my walls, and I'm definitely with you on preferring to leave most of it to my imagination. That said, I do have one Fraser/Ray K manip (which is safely in a drawer *g*) where the guys are half naked, but you can only see the top of their torsos. A lot of fannish art isn't to my taste, either. Having it in a zine is fine, but I wouldn't want it on my walls. That said, I have been to some people's houses where they've got some lovely stuff up on their walls, some of which I would like myself if I went in for having fannish stuff out on display.

As for paying quite a bit of money for an oil painting, well actually I don't have any qualms about that at all - if nothing else it will hopefully be an investment as well as giving you pleasure. It should (all being well) appreciate in value. I'm not sure why I don't feel the same about a painting of a fannish nature. Part of it could be that I'm not a big Lovett fan (the gorgeous manips that people like Killa do are much more to my taste), but also I couldn't help thinking that it was an awful lot of money for what it is. It's unlikely that the work will be recognised as a future classic, unlike an oil painting such as the one you purchased.

And then I think I'm being awfully snobby. After all, if I can be of the opinion (which I am) that the best fanfiction is as good as most of the pro fiction out there, who am I to decry the worth of a fannish painting?

[prudentia.livejournal.com]

Sigh. I've been meaning to reply to this for ages, but dull things like work keep getting in the way.

Your very thought-provoking post has got me thinking about all sorts of stuff -- the differences between fiction and fan fiction; art and fan art, literature and art, fan fiction and fan art. My head is spinning. But it is *such* a complex subject, and every time I think getting somewhere, I find I've changed my mind, or contradicted myself, and delete it and start all over again.

But for what they're worth, here are some thoughts. Tomorrow I will probably be taking a completely opposite view.

I agree some fan writing is as good as 'proper' writing. I easily get as much pleasure (if not more, given that I have a certain fondness for the subject) from reading fan fiction as a published book. But fan art doesn't give me the same satisfaction as 'real' art, and I'm having trouble in trying to work out exactly why. Because, as you so rightly say, some of it is very good indeed (though I am still scarred by the drawing in a zine that had Ray Vecchio looking like Mr. Bean).

I think some of it might be guilt/personal baggage. To me reading is a private activity, and I have no problem with the fact that I read fan fiction secretly (though I do worry about those piles of printouts in the attic!) But I look on art as essentially a public medium, something that is created to be shared and displayed. If I felt I couldn't do that with a picture because of the subject matter, then it almost descends to the level of a porn magazine hidden under the bed.

Change of subject! Then I got to thinking about exactly what, in both genres, would I be prepared to leave lying around for public scrutiny and what I would hide away. I wouldn't leave slash lying around; but then I'm not sure about a professionally written erotic gay novel either. I'd have no problem in displaying a painting of two naked Greek wrestlers in a homoerotic pose, but I would never display an obviously fannish drawing or photomanipulation. It would have to be 'disguised' as something to give it credibility (you think it looks like those two actors from TV? No, it's a photograph by Robert Mapplethorpe!). So it is all to do with context, and nothing to do with quality. Which basically is stupid. If I like something I should be proud enough to display it, whatever the subject matter.

But back to fan art. I think there is much more freedom in fannish writing. Even though you are starting from a certain point, with certain characters in a certain setting, the sky is your limit. You can write from various points of view, you can write comedy or tragedy or romance. If you write an AU then your imagination can take you anywhere. You can introduce new characters, you can kill them off. All you have to do is keep the characterisation and the voices true and the storylines believable.

In art you can choose what materials to use, but you are far more limited in subject matter. You can't really do an abstract, or a landscape. You have to stick to (usually) two figures, they have to look recognisable and realistic, and they are usually doing a variation of one thing.

And there is one other thing, which is, I think key, to my vaguely uncomfortable feelings. In a story you are working with the fictional *characters*, whereas in art you are working with the actors *image*, which seems a lot more exploitative, like visual RPS. (I notice this particularly when people do photomanips of a pairing using a picture of one of the actors in a different role. This always seems wrong to me and throws be out of the piece completely.) So, without the aid of speech and action, the art has to be particularly good to make me feel I am looking at the characters, and not the actors.

What a lot of rambling, and I have to go to work now so I've no time to rework it yet again. But it is a fascinating subject -- probably worthy of a panel at a Con.

That reminds me, must organise another London get-together in the not too distant future. However, don't speak too soon about attending a con. I have it on good authority that there'll be another Connotations next year...
That would be fun. I'll have a chat with my courage.