Is the scene still under the ground?
category: general [glöplog]
My scene is so underground, its member of ERASCO.
Quote:
Quote:the sport of Hurling (no not projectile vomiting, kind of like lacrosse meets field hockey meets a bar room brawl)
I prefer 'really aggressive egg and spoon race'
Haha, yes!
Quote:
Re: the fear of UNESCO recognition changing the scene.
[…] Some of the traditionalists worried about having to tone down the madness of the sport, or make it more acceptable or commercial, but none of that has happened as quite frankly UNESCO don't give a shit once you're in.
I don't see why one would want to change something that has been officially acknowledged as something culturally valuable because of that recognition anyway. "Toning it down" might put it in a state that wouldn't be worth acknowledging in the first place.
And regarding the actual topic: I don't see how the question of being underground or not or to what level (no pun intended) is relevant anyway.
Doesn't it boil down to "do I like today's scene or do I want to see change"? Some people advertise the scene, try to make it more visible, accessible, inclusive. So what? You have to handle people potentially not liking your stuff anyway, almost like with "classic" art, so why be afraid of a bit more expose (if it isn't overly toxic)?
Nothing stops you from releasing something (if you choose an appropriate channel).
Doesn't it boil down to "do I like today's scene or do I want to see change"? Some people advertise the scene, try to make it more visible, accessible, inclusive. So what? You have to handle people potentially not liking your stuff anyway, almost like with "classic" art, so why be afraid of a bit more expose (if it isn't overly toxic)?
Nothing stops you from releasing something (if you choose an appropriate channel).
Quote:
Doesn't it boil down to "do I like today's scene or do I want to see change"? Some people advertise the scene, try to make it more visible, accessible, inclusive. So what? You have to handle people potentially not liking your stuff anyway, almost like with "classic" art, so why be afraid of a bit more expose (if it isn't overly toxic)?
At least I had a sort of theoretical approach towards the issue (which apparently isn't interesting for many).
I maybe don't feel that accessibility and inclusivity matter a lot for this topic (I assume they are not excluded by what being underground means).
More than a question about visibility, many people probably associate it to some social ideas (for example copyrights have been discussed on this thread) or to personal alignment: lawful, neutral, chaotic
la_mettrie: I find do your theoretical approach interesting and constructive.
This is an emotional subject, and due to this it's probably a good idea to find common grounds on the definition. This thread had already turned out there clearly are quite different ways people look at this.
This is an emotional subject, and due to this it's probably a good idea to find common grounds on the definition. This thread had already turned out there clearly are quite different ways people look at this.
Probably the core of my personal position today is that I believe that much of the outside world is frustratingly stupid and incompetent. I'd support a revolution by the competent/Brainiacs/Nerds any time.
I do value brain capacity, and I can find this inside our community much easier than outside of it.
More often than not, outside influence hasn't been helpful at all to my causes. As a demoparty organizer, much of my energy had been used fighting with outside forces of the "We only allow old people's music" kind in this overaged society that gives a shit about the young, the creative and the future. That's not theoretical, I spent two hours today again on this very subject discussing the problem of getting permissions from the city should "techno" be mentioned with a friendly location owners. [Not about UC]
Due to these experiences my standard position is to be a skeptic first when it comes to outside influence into a sub-culture. There simply are a hell lot of standards out there that I absolutely reject and I don't even wish to come near my community. The copyright mafia has been covered, for example.
Doesn't mean I am not willing to adapt. Does mean I prefer progress coming from inside our community.
To me, this is mostly what "staying underground" means. Being protected from outside forces I regard - rightfully or not - as potentially evil.
Other people will have had different experiences, and maybe have already profited from outside influence into their community, or may have a different view on all of this for other reasons.
I do value brain capacity, and I can find this inside our community much easier than outside of it.
More often than not, outside influence hasn't been helpful at all to my causes. As a demoparty organizer, much of my energy had been used fighting with outside forces of the "We only allow old people's music" kind in this overaged society that gives a shit about the young, the creative and the future. That's not theoretical, I spent two hours today again on this very subject discussing the problem of getting permissions from the city should "techno" be mentioned with a friendly location owners. [Not about UC]
Due to these experiences my standard position is to be a skeptic first when it comes to outside influence into a sub-culture. There simply are a hell lot of standards out there that I absolutely reject and I don't even wish to come near my community. The copyright mafia has been covered, for example.
Doesn't mean I am not willing to adapt. Does mean I prefer progress coming from inside our community.
To me, this is mostly what "staying underground" means. Being protected from outside forces I regard - rightfully or not - as potentially evil.
Other people will have had different experiences, and maybe have already profited from outside influence into their community, or may have a different view on all of this for other reasons.
"lawful, neutral, chaotic" - that's the alignment that governed one of my dnd characters: a bard named "Lorian Liederschmied"
Good point Gabbie, you convinced me.
I'd say that the demoscene is pretty much still an underground thing. Try to interview random people on the street, it would probably take quite a while until you found someone who knows what it is...
It's been a while since we had a good "old men wave their walking sticks at clouds / kids on the lawn", thank you for this. I particularly like the part where history is rewritten multiple times to account for someone's subjective view of events. :)
Quote:
I don't understand the "underground -> creative/edgy" line of thought. There's lot of non-underground communities, companies etc making super edgy stuff. Music videos, VPRO, super weird Roblox games, the occasional Netflix show even.
Indeed, most things aren't super edgy, but then again this isn't something for its own sake. Could me more for my taste though.
Quote:
Also lets not kid ourselves, the average demo looks more like a Eurovision performance backdrop than something super artsy / edgy. That's fine! But it doesn't seem very underground-y to me.
I get the appeal of underground-ness for scamp's reasons - basically that warm fuzzy "us vs them" feeling you get when you're in a small in-group with its totally unique set of terms, rules and social norms. Tribalism, really. But for creativity? Meh.
I would agree that there is no immediate connection between being underground and creative, but though you are right with the average production I still object that the scene is less creative (or artsy if you will) than other subcultures that create content, most things there are average or shit, too. And then there are those rare pieces which shine brighter.
No idea why you felt the need to dig this thread up, but check out Gabbie's response to these same arguments.
Quote:
No idea why you felt the need to dig this thread up, but check out Gabbie's response to these same arguments.
Yeah, sorry. I somehow landed on this thread while doing a search and for some reason neither realized that this was not the most recent page nor did I question that it might be an old thread one anyway. Please ignore, I blame the a lack of coffee I'll do better next time.
No harm was done, don’t worry about it :)
rrroutine was asscared, dont' worry about it =)
Quote:
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
1. Some of it actually is - but to be featured you normally have to know someone or pay someone. Same for all art. Going to a museum is quite the UG activity, and it's very stimulating to the right mind.
(As a side note, we are definitely moving in a direction to pay to promote art, devaluing the art. The notion is very unattractive to an artist.)
2. I think it's true that all real art is either small and never reach a big audience, or it's not art. I see two exceptions to this: a) Output that is popular and easily digestible ('everyday, nice, but not special') and so not an example of artistry, and b) art that is featured as per 1.
You can also hold the view that anything goes and anything is art or nothing is art, and then you're left with nothing to analyze, of course. (This view is commonplace in all fields including art, the 'no-care' attitude. If you are of this attitude, and claim that there is no meaning, the inevitable conclusion is that the only meaning (the only reason we can communicate at all) is the meaning we create. And that's when you realize creating is the only meaningful activity - this destroys nihilism, which should convert them if they consider themselves possessing analytical powers - if they deny the presence of those as well they get no argument from me, LMAO.)
For as long as it's hard to find your real name, you are an underground artist.
Quote:
You can also hold the view that anything goes and anything is art or nothing is art, and then you're left with nothing to analyze, of course. (This view is commonplace in all fields including art, the 'no-care' attitude. If you are of this attitude, and claim that there is no meaning, the inevitable conclusion is that the only meaning (the only reason we can communicate at all) is the meaning we create. And that's when you realize creating is the only meaningful activity - this destroys nihilism, which should convert them if they consider themselves possessing analytical powers - if they deny the presence of those as well they get no argument from me, LMAO.)
There's a logical fallacy in this line of reasoning. If the claim that there was no meaning would inevitably lead to the conclusion that creating is the only meaningful activity - then you have found meaning. I'd argue that this is the point where nihilism was used as a device for purification and can (but doesn't have to) subsequently be left behind. Nihilism comes in different flavours. If one sticks with the pragmatic definition that meaning is man-made from the outset (an anthroplogic trait), then you're partly right and nihilism and art are entirely compatible.
I've come to some preliminary ideas: Art is materialisation of an impetus to communicate inner worlds. Craftmanship is an enabler, but not its nature. Popularity is entirely orthogonal to art, doesn't help, but doesn't rule it out either. Style builds on cultural context and works in opposite direction to art. The more devoid of cultural context to build upon, the more difficult to create and the deeper (closer to anthropolgic traits and physical reality) the communication, and the better it works. (As above, nihilism can work as a gateway, but it's not needed.)
And this, finally, explains why art is so extremely difficult to create and find in demos. It's not impossible, there are some rare glimpses and instances. Demos may be not a prime vessel for creating art.
that's also what Nietzsche said... doing it without purpose is an artistic choice and thus gives it purpose :P
Actually what I've recently asked myself is that, given that demos originally stem from cracker intros, what percentage of demosceners have been crackers or involved in other illegal activities and how many sceners have only done legal things. I guess that some people consider me a non-scener primarily because I've not been a cracker.
Quote:
Is the scene still under the ground?
It is a computer subculture with whatever that implies or entails... Is it underground? Well, 99% of the regular people out there haven't heard of it, so I can pretty much say that yes, it is. Even people that work in the computer industry have never heard of it before or have a pretty vague idea about what it is. Some gamers on the other hand seem to know a little bit more stuff but since it does not really affect the regular game sphere they don't really care much about it anyway. :)
Also an extra note: Coverage of a subculture from mainstream media doesn't mean that said subculture is mainstream as well...
Some coverage is beginning to get through about the demoscene into mainstream media, but the vast majority of this exists within retro gaming-related publications such as the UK's Retro Gamer magazine. They have finally (recently) been able to resurrect their Homebrew section, which was a regular thing in the magazine until TMR / Cosine fell sick and that was the area where the demoscene was mentioned more, including recent parties. Now the column is back, the new guy running it is in regular contact with myself and others, so we'll see what happens.
