xten reminded me of a topic that's come to my mind before...
hrmm.. that's a really interesting concept. I think the closest to that is that people do joints.. combine styles and work together to share an idea or a picture.
Lice has a really good point there. I actually don't have any arguments against it. But then I like iCE as a group ;)
I don't think that groups really bind because of common-theme etc. Lately, anyways, people have been binding together because they're good artists, and they have a decent attitude and spirit added to the group. Noone ever questions in the application/acceptance process "Do you know how to draw gothic stuff" or "are you into spawn" type thing. For any group larger than, say.. 10, it is very difficult to move a group towards a common theme, or a common style. It IS art, and people are free to express whatever they choose. The freedom is the beauty of the art scene. Much like what Massd said earlier, the closest thing would probably be joints and megajoints where various people combine to produce once piece.
Personally I like groups like iCE and CIA beacuse of the diversity of artwork / medium / styles. Sure group projects and collaborations are great, but thats more of an individual one on one or a small group of people working together. The nature of the big groups is to provide a wide range of artwork, it is afterall, an art group, not an art movement. There certainly is a place in the scene for small groups based around one medium or style, but at the same time there will always be bigger groups that are willing to accept and embrace many mediums and many different styles. Its just a matter of the viewers personal preference, no one's gonna force you to be diverse! But you should be. Join Cia. Woops. Damn, Forget those last sentances ;)
I still don't see anyone addressing this question of what the point is of an artgroup in the first place if your ideal is to have a wide variety within the group.
The purpose of the scene artgroup, summed up as simply as possible so there will be no misinterpretation: None of us want to do it alone.
"I wish more groups would focus on creating a cohesion of styles and attitudes, and help bring forth this idea of continuity in artpacks, the idea of a coherent whole."
Maybe a good analogy here would be to compare an art group to a fraternity. When a freshman looks for a frat to join I'd imagine he'd go around to all the frat houses and eventually join the one where he felt most at home. The main purpose of frats seems to be to promote socializing and brotherly bonding or whatever, and so he'll join the one whose brand of socializing he likes. Maybe each frat has its own set of moral/social priorities well defined, if not explicitly in writing, then simply well-understood by its members. If not strictly enforced, then at least respected by the members. As members come and go or as sentiments change, these priorities surely will change as well.
Lice? why would a person in a social setting revolving around some sort of competitive game be more inclined to join one team as opposed to another? Therein lies your answer I think> Since i first got involved inther scene way back when I have always considered this more of a sporting atmosphere than anything else. The scene is in a sense the Doodleboy sports league. This is our sport. Is it professional? no, not by any means. Is it for fun? Yes, it must be since there is no other apparent reason to put forth such great effort for little or no apparent personal gain. Choosing what group you want to be in is pretty much like choosing what team you want to be in during a game of some sort in a school yard. There are many reasons to choose a certain team or group over another, reasons as varied as the artists that make up the groups. it usually has something to do with the people that already make up the group. Maybe they play the game better than anyone else and your the type that would rather be on a team your sure will place well in the competition, or perhaps you dont care what the outcome is as long as your with people you consider friends.. it differs with each artist i'm sure.
F7: you're right on.
i've noticed that people who do same kinds of art are very similar to others. been met some of the acidguys and hell yeah, we are (most of us) more like a tribe of strong individuals rather than a normal type of boring fools that you can remember from highschooltimes that were pain in the ass. i can say that i could not speak most of my words for, or party with, normal-life-hobby crews.
lice: ya see.. I don;t think i want any hobby to become too serious.. and this IS a hobby.. its not the real world.. and its not professional.. if it was it really wouldnt be the underground art scene that we all know.. and MOST of us love =)
>>variety is what makes a pack stand out.
>>that to me is the lure of iCE.
This same variety is what makes me dislike looking at ice packs a lot of the time. If you're after creating a group of artists with many different styles, and assuming that each artist is working as an individual, then what really is the point of having the group in the first place? You can all help each other with techniques and comments on artwork, but then why do we have lots of different groups? Why not just have a central place (like acheron or hirez.org, plus irc) and let everyone be individuals and communicate there?
To me the best reason for having a group is to explore the possibilities of creating some kind of shared vision, or at least provide an interesting comparison of styles and attitudes that relate _somehow_, instead of just a random collection of artists.
So when I look at a pack, I'm hoping to see some kind of _continuity_ to it. Otherwise, I scratch my head and wonder why these people bother with releasing in a group at all.
I listen to albums, not compilations.
I wish more groups would focus on creating a cohesion of styles and attitudes, and help bring forth this idea of continuity in artpacks, the idea of a coherent whole.
that to me is the lure of HRG ;)
By Mass Delusion on Thursday, December 10, 1998 - 11:33 pm:
It's probably unrealistic to expect many people in a group doing the same style of art.. that's part of the fun of artgroups. Even big sites like braid.com have a variety of styles... creativity knows no bounds. :)
By Mongi on Friday, December 11, 1998 - 01:04 am:
By Egoteq on Friday, December 11, 1998 - 03:31 am:
Other than that, in terms of continuity, I think that it should be strictly confined to the realm of the individual artist. If some artist wants to release a series of pics (like me, I've been releasing chicks endlessly since god-knows-when), then all the power to him/her. Motivating a group to do that... that's a lot trickier, and though it may potentially work towards developing stronger group unity, it may not be in the best interests of the individual participating in an art group.
By Napalm on Friday, December 11, 1998 - 01:00 pm:
By God among Lice on Friday, December 11, 1998 - 09:47 pm:
It seems to me that the closest thing to a purpose for these groups is the almost childishly unsophisticated scene concept of competition, that a group strives to become somehow "better" than others. Since the only practical way you can compare the "quality" of artwork among groups is to focus on the artists' technical skill, you end up with groups made up of a bunch of illustrators and draftsmen and comic artists who merely draw pictures.
If a group is based around a little more than just competition, if there's some kind of loosely guiding principle behind a group's art, then artists can begin to move beyond the mere creation of pictures and begin creating art with a life, a direction, a soul.
By Darkmage on Friday, December 11, 1998 - 11:09 pm:
Response to your questions:
Wondering why there are "groups" in the scene as opposed to just the scene is like wondering why everyone in your high school didn't hang out together. People have different opinions, attitudes, goals, etc. The fact that the things people have in common which draw them to a particular group may have nothing at all to do with the group itself is irrelavant. The fact that the people drawn to a particular group will not share common opinions, attitudes, goals, etc. 100% of the time is irrelevant.
As for competition? I should hope so. Competition produces a constant need to improve.
Technical skill the only thing to compare? In front of the fine arts museum in Richmond, VA, stands a true technical masterpiece. It is nothing more than an 8ft tall clothespin, which is about like looking at ass, but it is technically perfect. Visual appeal. Does it look good? Do people enjoy looking at it? Who gives a fuck if proper complementary colors were used?
A guiding principle? You keep mentioning it, but I have yet to actually see it explained. Are you referring to quality control? Some non-scene related goal for a group? Enforced subject matter, style, or medium? You question us without telling us what you want, which is maybe why you haven't gotten any answers to your liking.
-darkmage [iCE]
By Root88 on Sunday, December 13, 1998 - 10:38 pm:
I must admit, it's a good point, but as I human, I am constantly learning, changing and experimenting. I can't even promise that I myself will use the same style or attitude each month. I enjoy releasing with iCE because they are like a family. Most members are always willing to throw a favor your way whenever they can. I enjoy "socializing" with them via the electron and hope to meet a few of them in person some day. We discuss lots of things that aren't even scene related. I enjoy exchanging info with most all artists in the scene, it's just that iCE seemed to be the place for me.
I'm proud to be a part of the scene, and I'm proud to be a part of iCE.
By God among Lice on Monday, December 14, 1998 - 03:15 am:
With art groups, what I erred in not taking into account is what root88 described about ice, that it's a family; people are joining for the social aspect, and in reality this is going to factor in to some degree for any group.
But still, it's an art group, not a fraternity. I suppose there's no real reason why a group shouldn't consider themselves a social entity first and foremost. I just find more fulfillment of purpose when the group I'm in gravitates more toward a commonality of artistic vision than commonality of social norms/attitudes, whatever. One that exists on the basis of the art more than (or equally as much as) the basis of the social makeup of its members.
With this in mind, let me say that I think it would be silly for a group such as ice to actually change and try to make its members all have some shared artistic qualities. This is something that is best created as a group is formed.
To answer darkmage's question about "guiding principles", such a group COULD be based around some kind of manifesto, with enforced subject matter and styles, although that's not really what I'd be interested in myself. What I think is more practical is if someone decides to start a group for example, he'll say to someone, "Hey, I like your art and I think there's something in common between us but I can't quite pin it down. Maybe if we worked together more closely and found other people to join us who also have something in common in their art, we'll be able to figure out exactly what it is." Eventually maybe some of these artists' tastes will change, and they may leave the group, or they may cause the entire group to see differently, or they may cause the group to die.
As for technical skill and competition, my point was that once you move past technical ability and into visual appeal, emotional content, aesthetic theory, etc... it is silly to assume that these aspects of a work of art can be directly compared with other artwork as being absolutely better or worse, in your sense of competition. The only thing that can occur is a difference in opinions on style and content. This is exactly why I think groups are better off focusing more on their own opinions of style and feeling and content instead of the outdated, simplistic idea of competition. Competition implies that all participants are working towards the same goal. Such is not the case in art.
There are people in this world who think an 8ft tall clothespin can be a valid and remarkable work of art, otherwise it wouldn't be standing outside that fine arts museum in Richmond. Just because someone believes otherwise doesn't mean their own artwork is better, but more power to them if they want to express what they think actually is a remarkable work of art.
btw Darkmage.. do you live near richmond? I go to UVA, in Charlottesville. :)
By F7 on Monday, December 14, 1998 - 04:47 pm:
Now, as for the competition. its simple.. its not about meeting or exceeding any real world artistic principles.. far from it.. its meeting or exceeding "scene" sensibilities and ideals. the scene has its own ideas and sensibilities, it's own sense of what is "cool" and what is not, this is what scene artists strive for, climbing the levels of scene noteriety.. acceptance, respect, reverence... thats about it..
By God among Lice on Monday, December 14, 1998 - 09:33 pm:
and this is essentially what I dislike about the scene... it's all a game, no one is serious about anything. oh well. I'll probably have to leave or start something new before I can change that fact myself.
By Tomi-babe on Wednesday, December 16, 1998 - 12:08 am:
perhaps i'm a hard person to cope with or they are boring.
on scene those whose art is a way of their life are similar somehow. if most of my friends would produce only comixrips they'd not stay for a long time. i don't want to call my "team" as a group. it's more like a tribe. what's the purpose of this post`? it's that groups can be very important to their members.
By F7 on Saturday, December 19, 1998 - 12:18 pm: