Is the scene still under the ground?
category: general [glöplog]
A post on another thread inspired me to start this.
I'm also concerned about the status of the scene in this regard, but I've not got such a dire picture.
The main criteria for being underground might be something like
1) Not encountered in art galleries and popular media (you need to go to UG material, it doesn't come to you)
2) Freedom from the rules of the institutionalized art and freedom from the pressures of the public appeal and conformity set for the popular culture
Admittedly, the scene's underground status has decreased a bit. Still, the interest of a wider public to the scene releases seems to be very low. Something being on YouTube doesn't mean that people actually watch it. The official art has its rules (ie. you just cannot jump back to a style of the past if you're a "real" artist) which the scene knows not.
UNESCO recognition may be a doubtful thing in this regard, but other cultural areas accepted seem to be usually rather marginal as well. It doesn't seem to be a passport to the mainstream though symbolically it's obviously meh and I was a bit puzzled why it was welcomed so enthusiastically.
The question regarding to the tension between growing moralistic pressures in the society and the freedom of expression is relevant, but so far I haven't heard any concrete examples of anyone restricting themselves from doing something (which naturally may be just because of my ignorance). In art schools there can be considerable pressures that every piece of art should have a certain political meaning (climate related or intersectional) and old classics may be rejected by students because of intersectionalist excessivenesses. That's clearly a different world when compared to the demoscene. I have hopes that people here still make the difference between criticism and cancelling.
One thing to recognize is that young cultural domains obviously have tendency to be more firmly under the ground simply because of their young age. This is one perspective which explains some difference between the scene of the past and the scene of today.
I'm also concerned about the status of the scene in this regard, but I've not got such a dire picture.
The main criteria for being underground might be something like
1) Not encountered in art galleries and popular media (you need to go to UG material, it doesn't come to you)
2) Freedom from the rules of the institutionalized art and freedom from the pressures of the public appeal and conformity set for the popular culture
Admittedly, the scene's underground status has decreased a bit. Still, the interest of a wider public to the scene releases seems to be very low. Something being on YouTube doesn't mean that people actually watch it. The official art has its rules (ie. you just cannot jump back to a style of the past if you're a "real" artist) which the scene knows not.
UNESCO recognition may be a doubtful thing in this regard, but other cultural areas accepted seem to be usually rather marginal as well. It doesn't seem to be a passport to the mainstream though symbolically it's obviously meh and I was a bit puzzled why it was welcomed so enthusiastically.
The question regarding to the tension between growing moralistic pressures in the society and the freedom of expression is relevant, but so far I haven't heard any concrete examples of anyone restricting themselves from doing something (which naturally may be just because of my ignorance). In art schools there can be considerable pressures that every piece of art should have a certain political meaning (climate related or intersectional) and old classics may be rejected by students because of intersectionalist excessivenesses. That's clearly a different world when compared to the demoscene. I have hopes that people here still make the difference between criticism and cancelling.
One thing to recognize is that young cultural domains obviously have tendency to be more firmly under the ground simply because of their young age. This is one perspective which explains some difference between the scene of the past and the scene of today.
I don't think anything that has a Wikipedia article can or should be considered underground, as the existence of such implies a degree of journalistic coverage.
We need to go back to the underground (sound)
- The Wikipedia article has ~40 references.
- The larger events have been sponsored by NVIDIA, ATI, DICE, Microsoft, etc etc.
- The events we make and the most popular groups in the scene have active social media profiles.
- We have created large websites providing archival and all sorts of documentary evidence of everything that happens within the scene.
- There was a documentary about the scene which _we_ helped promote.
Just accept it: We're not underground, and the majority of the scene - from what I can tell, happy to be corrected on this with data - doesn't want it to be either. However, "overground" doesn't always mean popular or mainstream either; it's not black-and-white.
Think of it like cornhole: Have you heard of it? Probably not. Is it underground? Clearly not and there's an effort to get the word out. From that perspective, the UNESCO heritage thing may have been entirely appropriate.
- The larger events have been sponsored by NVIDIA, ATI, DICE, Microsoft, etc etc.
- The events we make and the most popular groups in the scene have active social media profiles.
- We have created large websites providing archival and all sorts of documentary evidence of everything that happens within the scene.
- There was a documentary about the scene which _we_ helped promote.
Just accept it: We're not underground, and the majority of the scene - from what I can tell, happy to be corrected on this with data - doesn't want it to be either. However, "overground" doesn't always mean popular or mainstream either; it's not black-and-white.
Think of it like cornhole: Have you heard of it? Probably not. Is it underground? Clearly not and there's an effort to get the word out. From that perspective, the UNESCO heritage thing may have been entirely appropriate.
But isn't the scene dead? That would mean it's six feet under ground, surely? ;)
who hasn't heard of cornhole. It seems I can't get away from it!
I think that the scene has a bit of self-identity problem. People feel that they need to somehow justify making executable art, so they overemphasize technical side of things to differentiate demoscene from all other scenes.
As the result, demoscene is still most often defined as a culture of making tiny executables that do amazing things, which does not really cover even half of it. As the result, much of the outreach is focussed on the "novelty song" kind of demos, which is not very far from floppy drives playing imperial march or crazy frog videos. This is very nerdy and is not likely to be of any interest to the arts scene, although sometimes it can be enough of the novely to generate impressive view figures.
At the same time, proper art scene is often dismissed on this forum as being money-driven and somehow "for sale", as opposed to demoscene that is intrinsically "free". This just creates a culture where the trully commited makers who want to invest significant resources into their demomaking just have to chase multiple goals, as no-one is going to cover their mortgages and feed their children. Which is not particularly healthy. Those people who actually elevate their scene work to the point where it can be commercialized also seem to be treated with suspicion.
All in all, there needs to be a better recognition of the more artistic trend in demomaking, and I cannot see why it cannot connect with the arts scene proper. But it does require change in explaining context of the work and it also requires substantial outreach work. I know of a few people who tried to make this work, but I have seen very little analysis of what worked and what did not. It would be very interesting if some of these experiences could be shared more widely.
As the result, demoscene is still most often defined as a culture of making tiny executables that do amazing things, which does not really cover even half of it. As the result, much of the outreach is focussed on the "novelty song" kind of demos, which is not very far from floppy drives playing imperial march or crazy frog videos. This is very nerdy and is not likely to be of any interest to the arts scene, although sometimes it can be enough of the novely to generate impressive view figures.
At the same time, proper art scene is often dismissed on this forum as being money-driven and somehow "for sale", as opposed to demoscene that is intrinsically "free". This just creates a culture where the trully commited makers who want to invest significant resources into their demomaking just have to chase multiple goals, as no-one is going to cover their mortgages and feed their children. Which is not particularly healthy. Those people who actually elevate their scene work to the point where it can be commercialized also seem to be treated with suspicion.
All in all, there needs to be a better recognition of the more artistic trend in demomaking, and I cannot see why it cannot connect with the arts scene proper. But it does require change in explaining context of the work and it also requires substantial outreach work. I know of a few people who tried to make this work, but I have seen very little analysis of what worked and what did not. It would be very interesting if some of these experiences could be shared more widely.
niche != underground
Quote:
As the result, much of the outreach is focussed on the "novelty song" kind of demos, which is not very far from floppy drives playing imperial march or crazy frog videos. This is very nerdy and is not likely to be of any interest to the arts scene, although sometimes it can be enough of the novely to generate impressive view figures.
Crazy Frog is high art.
I once nearly curated a demoscene exhibition in a London gallery, but it fell through because of planning issues.
Man, would've been great. I wanted to display 4k intros with the printout of the binary next to it and all kinds of other weird setups to visualize the executable aspect.
la_mettrie: I haven't understood whether you would like the scene to be underground or not. Also, I don't know how the term "underground" is properly defined. When I was making Hugi I was hiding it from my teachers at school and other "official" people since I did not want authorities to influence my work. I guess many other sceners have acted in a similar way and kept their releases scene-internal. Is that "underground"?
Quote:
I am sure that some 4K intros have intrinsic artistic value and that the novelty aspect can be sold as well. But to have more of the footprint, there needs to be less novelty and more direct impact. Scene does it sometimes, surely, but not in a really focussed way.I once nearly curated a demoscene exhibition in a London gallery, but it fell through because of planning issues.
Man, would've been great. I wanted to display 4k intros with the printout of the binary next to it and all kinds of other weird setups to visualize the executable aspect.
In any case, exhibitions are needed to build the understanding. Seeing some of the digital arts that developed independently from demoscene, I am convinced that the scene can be competetitive. But first it needs to get a bit less inward looking for that.
You’re right that the scene was never meant as an art scene, I think it doesn’t have the ambition to be and that’s fine IMO. I think you’re too hard on the novelty aspect tho, it doesn’t have to give it less merit. A lot of art is based on novel or outside takes on mundanity. It can have an impact by flipping the perspective, but if the demoscene does this is debatable indeed.
I think personally that we shouldn’t worry about the legitimacy of a scene born in teenager bedrooms as an anarchistic take on computer usage.
Make a demo about it I’d say :D
I think personally that we shouldn’t worry about the legitimacy of a scene born in teenager bedrooms as an anarchistic take on computer usage.
Make a demo about it I’d say :D
people, why are you listening to introspec? He ruined the entire Russian demoscene long ago, forgetting when he wrote a demo
Demoscene can be compared to graffiti scene .. Art/Work done mostly for own sake and the few like minded individuals that understand and values it. The more hardcore/technical/etc production results in more respectz points gained.
there are hella commercial graffiti artists though, which is fine, actually i guess that indeed is kinda similar to the scene.
Who is the demoscene banksy? I vote for BITS, they fucking knew what they were doing and it ruled.
Who is the demoscene banksy? I vote for BITS, they fucking knew what they were doing and it ruled.
The demoscene was originally about technical achievement. Only later did demosceners try to make aesthetically pleasant productions.
E-werk's toilets are definitely underground
I've heard of The Great Cornholio.
Quote:
Well, at least that was a demo.people, why are you listening to introspec? He ruined the entire Russian demoscene long ago, forgetting when he wrote a demo
Quote:
I very much like the comparison, but 1) Graffiti seems to be much more easier to appreciate, so they don't seem to need to outreach, 2) Demoscene clearly does not have artists of Banksy's caliber, and 3) Frankly, if even Banksy cannot get creative control of his works due to his anonymity, demoscene is due to a rude awakening when it'll become better recognized. To some extent it is happening already, see the Giorgio Moroder's video for "74 is the new 24" or that never-ending thread of stolen scene music.Demoscene can be compared to graffiti scene .. Art/Work done mostly for own sake and the few like minded individuals that understand and values it. The more hardcore/technical/etc production results in more respectz points gained.
Quote:
Demoscene clearly does not have artists of Banksy's caliber,
Welllll.. I love banksy cause he's a creative and smart hack, but he's still a hack! LBR.
And anonymity was one of the biggest things in the demoscene, you were Atomic Werewolf from Super Metal Software and made cool shit for your friends. Technicality was definitely an aspect but it was also drawing boobs in deluxe paint (and c64 paint, or atari paint, you get my point).
Quote:
- The Wikipedia article has ~40 references.
- The larger events have been sponsored by NVIDIA, ATI, DICE, Microsoft, etc etc.
- The events we make and the most popular groups in the scene have active social media profiles.
- We have created large websites providing archival and all sorts of documentary evidence of everything that happens within the scene.
- There was a documentary about the scene which _we_ helped promote.
Gargaj's implied criteria tend to be rather strict: if anything which goes on for decades has any significance, it's likely to get some attention. And being on the social media does not imply high visibility as such. There may be room for some discussion on how much attention is needed to go over critical thresholds in this respect.
More immediately convincing issue is the corporate sponsorship: if something is sponsored by Microsoft, how could it be underground? Yet this issue touches only some events and groups & releases itself are not sponsored.
Adok: Yes, I do not reveal everything and definitions itself are part of the discussion.
Quote:
Gargaj's implied criteria tend to be rather strict: if anything which goes on for decades has any significance, it's likely to get some attention.
You ignored the other thing I said:
Quote:
However, "overground" doesn't always mean popular or mainstream either; it's not black-and-white.
la_mettrie: Even by your own definition the demoscene hasn't been underground since the 90s (there were reports about demosceners at least in regional / national TV programs, later also bigger stuff like Farbrausch on the Arte channel)
^
It wasn't the idea that any media coverage implies non-underground status (that formulation is mine and probably not very good). It's a matter of volume and this would lead to a more specific discussion.
However, one way to look at the issue is how the word is used at other domains, in the music for instance. In the light of this thread, I think the word is used surprisingly loosely. If "an underground artist" makes a something noteworthy, it doesn't take long until music magazines sold in supermarkets pay attention.
It wasn't the idea that any media coverage implies non-underground status (that formulation is mine and probably not very good). It's a matter of volume and this would lead to a more specific discussion.
However, one way to look at the issue is how the word is used at other domains, in the music for instance. In the light of this thread, I think the word is used surprisingly loosely. If "an underground artist" makes a something noteworthy, it doesn't take long until music magazines sold in supermarkets pay attention.