What are your thoughts on ANSI reviews? Are they helpful to the artist? If you agree with the presence of reviews, should they contain numeric ratings? Who is qualified to give sufficient reviews of ansi packs? It is fair that reviewers should focus only on the "top groups", or should they be pressured to give attention to all groups that are contributing to the scene? Input your ideas.

Personally, I like to have my work reviewed, but I have come across reviewers that I didn't feel had valid enough views on ANSI art. They were partial to the lame Maxx and Spawn pics, and didn't take a look at style, concept, or originality. I'm not referring to anybody recently, because I have been somewhat pleased with the reviews as of lately. It's too bad that less people are taking the time to actually look at every pack and give some constructive feedback.

As for ratings systems, I think, if done properly, it can't hurt, but I'd rather just have the reviewer tell me what he/she thinks of my art, and leave it at that.

I'm doing reviews for hirez.org, and the way we're doing it is as a general article about the strengths and weaknesses of each pack, plus a 1-10 rating for the pack as a whole.

I like to think of the purpose of a pack review as similar to that of someone reviewing an album by a band. Reviewers should try to convey a sense of what the pack is like, and let the readers decide for themselves if that's what they want to look at. I think the purpose of a number rating is more like a scale of how important the reviewer thinks it is that you see this pack, and not so much saying "this group was better than that one because it got an 8 instead of a 7". It's saying.. "This pack got an 8 because you'd probably be interested in looking at it".

i'm rather new in artscene, but i do have my opinions, and i'm rather sure that they're my real
thoughts.


lets begin.

reviews are really useless, unless they aren't really creative and long .. not just "i like this pic, shading is very cool", or something like that. reviews can be very useful, if it includes long details of that ansi, and it gives tips.

also, reviewer must now pretty damn well what's he's talking about.

and about numeric ratings.
yes, they are good, if they are equal to everyone.
and also, they are good for someone else than artist of reviewed ansi.

yes, i support reviews, but i haven't seen any very good reviews, what includes many opinions from many point of views, and what gives tips to artist, not just say "work on shading".

yes, my criters are really high, and maybe they aren't even possible, because good review of one ansi takes LOTS of time.

I think I agree with God Among Lice. I never really thought about adding the music album concept to it.

Reviews should be more about comparing the pack to what the group has done in the past, not the current scene standard. That's not important. Improving is important, and it must be done at the artist's own rate.

Speaking as someone who's been in a group reviewed since the dawn of time, SINCE the dawn of time...

We've received it all - praise, criticism, biased and slanted opinions, one-liner reviews. I understand that it's all subjective, but I think that slapping a number rating or letter grade on someones piece of artwork is rather offensive. But hey, some people like that sort of junk.

The worse thing that I can think of is when people from their school of art review someone who is doing something innovative or experimental -- and it just gets dissected, sliced, diced and ripped to shreds. And the artist reviewed takes it to heart. Worse yet are reviews like "this sucks" or "nice pic". What the fuck is that? Heh.

At best, reviews can be entertaining or good for a few laughs, but I've yet to see a "review" enlighten me or any other potential reader.

(For wild laughs go to http://artpacks.acid.org and download prdgm-01.zip, prdgm-02.zip and dydgm-01.zip)

ahh, the ol' art review topic.

there's nothing wrong with criticism. i'm sure some of you out there have read my mag. i've been reviewing art packs since it came out. i feel i've been around long enough to know what it takes to draw an ansi. i review each and every ansi in the pack. sure, a lot of them are just "nice shading" or "ugly font". i'd probably make more sense for me to review the ones i feel reviewing, or ones that are worth while, but then you get people bickering about "why wasn't i good enought to review?!". i love reading reviews about my art. it doesn't matter to me good or bad. and usually it doesn't really affect the way i draw. but it's fun to read. a bit of entertainment of sorts. you could even say it's a bit of a bait to get people to read my mag. but when it comes to it, i like doing reviews, and most of you like reading them.

and if you think reviews are lame, well, don't read them. :)

my opinion is that it doesn't matter whether reviews are useful to the artist, or how 'subjective' the review has to be, or even if they're positive or negative reviews. i think what matters is that helps to spark scene activity in that it gives people (and not necessarily the artist(s) being reviewed) something to think and talk about. activity and communication are vital in the preservation the scene. i believe that the reviewer's goal is not [only] to voice their opinions of artists' work, but also to ask us, "well, what do you think?"

i'm not totally giddy about people tacking numbers to people's art, but i still think we need to see something like that when we read reviews of our work. sometimes, even reading five paragraphs of tips and pointers and praises and criticism can leave you a little unsatisfied; you need some kind of definitive scale where you can sum up all of the reviewer's thoughts into, say, a number. It should be treated as no more than a simple number, though -- every reviewer's standards of 'good art' are different; therefore, every reviewer's 'scale' is different. that is one thing we must learn to remember when we read reviews.

I like reviews. I don't normally read them to see what other people get, though :). I usually look at the overall rating for each pack reviewed, and then I go find the iCE pack review and see how MY review went. I think it's nice to know what other people think of my art, even if they don't like it. If constructive criticism is offered, that's especially helpful, 'cause I'm always trying to improve.

Personally I like feedback.. the oneliners of "wow, nice pic" or "hey, that sucks" aren't terribly useful but you still have some appreciation of how your work is being received. Even if the feedback is negative, an artist can look on it as "okay, I tried to get across something and people obviously didn't get what I was trying to say.. what can I do to make my message clearer?" I don't even mind the number rating.. it's one person's opinion of where you sit. Again, it's a way of gauging how people are taking your work.

Things I do have a problem with however would be someone coming down on my work and then expecting me to change. If you have an opinion about how I draw.. even if you acknowledge you hate it with an undying passion.. that's fine. That's your opinion. But just because you dislike how I draw doesn't mean that I'm going to change. It seems like such an obvious thing, but it's so easy to slip into a mode where 'this ansi is good because it uses the _correct_ mode of outlining and the _right_ way to shade.' When people start dropping stuff like that the urge to leap down their throat becomes very strong.

I love pack reviews. I love seeing where I "scored" and how it compared to those artists who I think set the standard. I remember long ago when FOS was still releasing artpacks, when Eerie actually gave us a decent review in Undergrown...it was cool to see my group in the mix with all the big names. Now I'm writing reviews, and I try to give at least a little useful feedback. I used to try what God Among Lice mentioned earlier, having the pros vs. cons approach, but the ansi community apparently wants piece-by-piece reviews. ;)

I try to review those pieces I feel qualified to review, not everything under the sun. I'm not judge of ascii, or fonts, or hirez for that matter. I know what I think looks good, but my specialty is pics, or the occasional logo. And that also means that I'm not going to grab every single pack and review it. A well-written review, one which offers constructive criticism or outlines the good/bad points of a piece, takes time to write. Why do I only review the "top" groups? Because that's what I find to be most readily available. I'm not likely to grab every pack. I hate .RAR compression. I don't want someone to say "Hey, review the new <group> pack...it rox0rz" and then I unzip it to find a handful of poorly-drawn fonts and 25-liners. I'm only going to review that art which I feel capable of looking at without bias, and with regard for both artistic value and technical skill, and that narrows it down.

When used to convey advice or offer deserved praise, reviews are a good thing. It's when an artistically-challenged IRC "doodleboy" starts "contributing" his opinions in writing in a forum intended for serious, technical ansi shop talk that I don't like reviews. But when written by someone like Filth or Eerie or Samurai (referring to past issues of Gutter), a good OR bad review carries some weight.

inazone/iCE

Well, personally I feel reviews are a good thing, as long as the reviewer is good at what he does. They are fun, for one, to look at and see what other people think of your art and can also help you constructivly. An ansi i drew that was released in glue 13 i think was reviewed by filth in gutter and he complimented something i did in the ansi with lines going through a font.. since then i've tried to use that in my ansi's and i have improved on doing so, so thanks filth. a lot of people feel reviews are a waste of time, well, if you feel that way, don't look at them. simple as that.. the argument can go on forever and ever just like the topic of awards 98..

Usually when someone submits a piece of art, they know how high it rates up on their person quality scale. The fact is, that they still feel obliged to submit _something_, even (and especially) if it's a piece of art that has been sitting on their harddrive for months.

Reviews are good, if written in the appropriate manner, and ratings are okay, but the real killer is when somebody puts an idea down on the screen, and it's not "mainstream" so it gets ripped to shit.

I'm exaggerating.

While I was running Function, Nitnatsnoc seemed to notice that he wasn't doing too well on some of his reviews. Nitnatsnoc is one of the most original artists in the scene, and is one of my personal favorites, right now. I think reviewers needs to look at more than just technical skill, but innovation, and creativity as well.

Well, my opinion (which is of course, important *hah*) is that reviews are good - for mostly the same reasons that people above have mentioned. And Filth is right - people will download a mag JUST for reviews. Inazone said some people dont' even see the articles in FOS because they only get reviews.

But the point is - reviews would benefit GREATLY by having a diverse staff of people review them. I.e., have a comic rip pro, an original pro, a couple of great logoists, someone who tends to do experimental stuff, etc, ALL review the packs. The more people that review a piece the better - it'll get rid of those garbage reviews where one person gives it a 9 and the other gives it a 3. Plus it should in theory even out the average scores of packs to make it more realistic.

Back when Abom/Lemonade and I ran Terbium, we tried to have 3 people review packs if possible so that it wasn't just two opinions, and we always took the time to provide some sort of useful information. Either 'good work on this' or 'try using black space to seperate yadda yadda' etc. I may not be a pro myself, but I have been around long enough and I'm _decent_ enough to be able to rate ansi I think. I've had the pleasure of putting together packs with some of the finest art ever created.. anyways.

Terbium, mmmmm.. good. =)

-Mass Delusion // iCE Senior Staff

Ok then, if Acheron was to do pack reviews, who would be interested in reviewing packs?

I might be, but I'd have to think about it.

I think that reviews help an artist improve on his work. A little constructive critism never hurt anyone. Yes you may feel bad at first if the review isn't 10/10 of A+. But if you look at it more. You can begin to visualize what you did wrong and where you can improve it. Based on the review.

reviews are a god-awful waste of time.

if the purpose is to improve the art of individual artists, those artists should be directly contacted, and in any case, a lot wouldn't care for a reviewers word.

if the purpose is to boost the egos of those being reviewed, those people would be better off asking specific people rather than wasting a reviewers time. a good review for such a group would be a good review, which is rather worthless.

if the purpose is to provide content for an emag or web page, perhaps better content should be created than mere reviews.

i doubt very many people read reviews for purposes other than to see how the scene is going to view them after viewing a review of their art or group (despite the fact that few people see these reviews beyond their own works). i doubt reviews are worth the time it takes to write them as few people are likely to download new packs they havent heard of based solely on a good review.

waste of time, creates conflict, boosts egos.

reviews are a god-awful waste of time.

if the purpose is to improve the art of individual artists, those artists should be directly contacted, and in any case, a lot wouldn't care for a reviewers word.

if the purpose is to boost the egos of those being reviewed, those people would be better off asking specific people rather than wasting a reviewers time. a good review for such a group would be a good review, which is rather worthless.

if the purpose is to provide content for an emag or web page, perhaps better content should be created than mere reviews.

i doubt very many people read reviews for purposes other than to see how the scene is going to view them after viewing a review of their art or group (despite the fact that few people see these reviews beyond their own works). i doubt reviews are worth the time it takes to write them as few people are likely to download new packs they havent heard of based solely on a good review.

waste of time, creates conflict, boosts egos.

Reviews are fine by me, and I sometimes enjoy reading them.. But they dont effect me as much.

I draw art because it is fun. If I draw something that gets bad reviews, I couldnt really care less. Just as long as I am proud of what I have created, I dont need anyone tell me its shit and needs alot of work.

Everyone has different standards and therefore different opinions. One person can agree to something and another will disagree. As dieznyik had said before, it causes conflicts and boost egos is true. But it is merely all fun and adds a bit of spice to the scene. It can also benefit some artists in some ways.

I'd be up to providing lit reviews because no one else even thinks they're worth the time to read over.

I think you need to be able to distinguish between a pack review and art criticism here..

When you read a review in the paper for something, an album, a movie, or a play for example, isn't it usually to find out if it's worth your time seeing? A music review's job isn't to point out specific things that a band can improve on, but describe why you should or shouldn't listen to it. Reviews are meant for the viewer, not the artist who made the art.

The fact that there aren't really that many ansi groups out there, and that most people are always going to download and look at the big groups anyway leads to the conclusion that there really is no great need for pack reviews in the scene at all.

I think it's this fact that also leads most reviewers to examine individual works and point out technical flaws and why others think these reviewers should be giving tips to the artists. But when you start doing this, it's more like what I'd call art criticism. You're analyzing pieces and talking about what individual artists could do better or worse, not advising the potential viewer.

If you're going to analyze an artist's style and technique, then you're really better off doing so outside the framework of the pack review. Take a look at individual artists over a longer period of time than just one month, and think of the art in a larger context, as well. Write articles about how an artist's body of work has developed, how it influenced and was influenced by other artists, and examine just what makes up the artist's style and technique.

Don't go down the list of works in a pack, giving a number rating and a comment to each one, as if each exists in a vacuum, and any work of art can be directly compared to any other work of art. This mentality is bullshit.

ok licey, sounds good.

if people did read reviews and go 'w0w that pack lewKz eREET imma gonna get that' reviews would have some good purpose. its just the fact that for the time put into them and the response gotten... it doesnt work out.

numbered and quantified stuff is bullshit. text reviews have always been good in mine eyes. the numbered reviews are more geared towards the problems i mentioned above.

"if the purpose is to provide content for an emag or web page, perhaps better content should be created than mere reviews. "

this isn't true. sure i'm not the greatest writer in the world, and not all the stuff i write for gutter is all that award winning, but i have written (to what i feel) some good articles. and even if i was the best writer in the scene, i doubt it'd matter, becuase a lot of people still want gutter to see me say "nice shading. 7.5"

i'm sure other editors feel the same.

about the individual reviews. i'm not sure if this goes for everyone, but my mag was never intended to be THE scene mag. it's 100% my thoughts/views/garbage ideals of the scene. and that goes with reviews. i don't do them with intentions of making the scene a better place, or thinking that i'll in some way change a crappy artists life by saying he did a good job. i do them becuase i express my ideas on the scene, and my ideas of artwork on the scene.

yeah i agree, and i have been thinking that just suming up the pack'd be a better idea. but hey, different strokes for different folks.

oh, and about terbium,
BRING IT BACK

:)

I've been considering a change of review format in FOS for a long time. People seem to really like to see every single piece reviewed, but honestly, that isn't really necessary. I'm thinking of just having a pack summary (including the highlights) and outlining what could use more work. That way, people get some benefit out of it, yet there's no blatant ego-stroking.

Inevitably, there are always going to be those who don't like reviews. But reviews have long been a part of scene mags, and the majority of people like them. It's just a matter of writing them in such a way that they actually achieve some sort of purpose.

inazone-

No blatant ego-stroking? Then what's the point?! :)

The above statement, "I think you need to be able to distinguish between a pack review and art criticism here.. " by God Among Lice really struck a chord in me.

In the beginning, artists banded together so their art would all be seen - pre-internet, archives were unlikely to make it out of the area code, so banding together into a group of self-proclaimed importance was a good way to ensure that your scribblings would make it past the long distance lines.

Internet technology makes this need negligible. I believe that there is no further use for the artpack medium; initially, groups represented a bunch of artwork from people who lived in the same area. The art often didn't have any unifying theme, subject matter, style or even format, so the reason for it being together was where people happened to live. Pack reviews then weren't criticism of how you drew but who you happened to live near.

Now that groups widely consist of members from all over (with a few exceptions and cores like Mistigris, Dark and RCA) the one reason there was for ansi art groups to be composed the way they are seems to be gone.

Current technology makes it easy for any one artist to make an impact on their own in a non-pack medium, while finding similarly-minded individuals so they can produce collaborative works with thematic or stylistic integrity.

(What do I mean by 'integrity'? A retrospective archive, for instance, has integrity. "These files are packaged together for a reason: the reason is that these were all done by the same person / these are what we are the most proud of out of what we have produced over the past year." They have a reason to be the way they are, and they meet that mandate. What integrity is there in modern pack release? "Here's some stuff by some people." The only thing the art really has in common is that some of it was made by the same people (collaborations.))

Can someone please give me a good reason for groups to be structured the way they are, because I'm not convinced that this evil is a necessary one. (This is, incidentally, a big reason why you haven't seen Mistigris releases for so long 8) Individual artists can produce projects. Teams working towards the same end can produce projects. Artgroups just seem to produce a scattered dog's bag of mixed jumble. Why does nobody attempt to attain integrity?

Am I imposing unrealistic / unneccesary expectations on a scene which frequently proclaims that it is only the way it is for purposes of fun rather than out of any artistic purpose or legitimacy?

if no one replies to this here, can it get its own topic? 8)