So is march gonna be it or what =) ?

ok, the theme will be everyone has to draw nude chicks.

Leo

Leo said: "ok, the theme will be everyone has to draw nude chicks."

Sounds like the Xpak, a project i've done 2 times before this and i'm currently building Xpak-3.

It's hard to get iCE to participate though, i've tried so hard. Do a search on artpacks.acid.org for "xpak" and you'll find #1 and #2..

You were kidding about the nude chics or not?

'Bones

btw: at ACiD we've already got a theme for March, flowers, flora, botanical-digital-treatz..

if there's really going to be a scene wide "theme" month we need to go further into the future with it and SPREAD THE WORD..

I'd say let's do it in April or May, and give everybody time to get their groups organized.. =)

'Bones

hehe, hirez is funny

"You were kidding about the nude chics or not?"

Partially, I'm really up for anything though.

Leo

I thouhght the majority of the people had settled on using hunger as a topic in the month of March. Nothing official because you'll never get anyone to agree, but that's what it looked like most people were doing. (on Acheron)

Soooooooo that means no then ?

I always just assumed that the theme Hunger was decided upon, too, based on the discussions on acheron.org. I guess it's up to the groups themselves if they want to release the hunger pieces in march, or work on them during march to release in april.

Hmm... well i havent really spread the word because ive been super-busy, maybe we should push it off until april releases?

I've been pestering long-dead artists to make a special hunger mistigris release in march, so someone please set me straight regarding what the situation is here 8)

i aint doing any nude chicks, there's already too much them in packs every month. just sounds so fucking lame unless we aren't doing some anatomy research =)

if everyone is drawing nude chicks i know that will be a horrible month.

The official theme as agreed upon was supposed to be "Hunger" for the month of march, to be worked on over the month of February, but it is now seeming less and less likely that anybody is doing it.

I have done some acrobatic coordination to see that it does get done by at least a few scattered artists in various groups, but can anyone set me straight on whether or not any groups are following this theme or should we just get all the themed art and release it in one multi-group pack?

PS - it's nice to see groups setting theme packs. It had been done sporadically by a couple of groups in the past but seems to be becoming a much more common occurance.

Let's keep giving this art a REASON to be released together 8)

personnaly I wouldn't like it....drawing every month a theme....except the nude chicks..

If I wanted to draw according to a pack based upon a theme I would join Hrg =D (No offense to the Hrg guys at all) However basically I like coming out of the blue with ideas when I goto making a composition. The moment I have to start to limit myself to a certain Idea for 2 to 3 pics I would simply not doodle that month. Heh this reminds me of a conversation last night we had in Hirez about Style. Heh, Personally I don't want to be limited to a style and As you see once 3d got old for me I moved over to photo manipulation, Well I like variety. A buffet is so much more appealing when it has 30 items instead of just 10 ;)

We never have pack themes planned ahead of time in hrg.. we just name the packs after all the art has been collected. Sometimes the pieces all go together well, and the chosen name fits it well. Other times the name isn't as reflective of the art itself, or there's a wide variety to the pics. So.. it's not like a limiting thing.

And the whole idea behind the scene-wide theme month was just to have this one special thing, not a regular monthly event.

Oh, and those people who actually think that having a "naked chick" theme month would be cool are fucking toys. Go away. Forgive me if I sound bitter, but it's just an idiotic idea, and says something about a lot of the people still left in the scene.

Ouch, GOD, that's rough!

Ummm...

not to open up a whole new debate, but naked chics is sort of a broad term, and surely we can agree that there are 100's of wonderful classical and contemporary "naked chics" in art that we appreciate a great deal! It's a common theme in fine art you know, naked chics. =)
Why so down on that theme?

And i was really hoping for an Xpak submission from you someday too. =(

'Bones

What annoys me is people calling it "naked chicks" in the first place. It proves to me that the people have no real appreciation of the history of the nude in art, or the subtelties between calling something a naked chick and calling it a nude. It seems obvious to me that "naked chicks" are of the hormone-induced variety, like you would have found in that moonrise pack. I'm really not interested in participating in that, even if it's given the label of "nude", because there will surely be people still around who interpret "nude" as "naked chick" who would be participating and that's just kind of hard to avoid anyway, considering the age group involved here.

A Sorayama illustration is a naked chick, Manet's Olympia is a nude.

But they are both "ART"
Are they not?

optik

It's like pornography...

Throughout history there's always been people creating art for the purpose of getting a raise out of some guy's dick. Maybe it's art in the sense that it requires illustrative skill. Again it comes back to that argument about "art" vs illustration, which I won't go into.

But that has less to do with the fact that showing tits and asses for the sake of seeing t&a, which I take "naked chick" to mean, just further cheapens any art that was involved in the first place.

It's an interesting parallel to that art vs illustration debate. That's more about technique or method, whereas this is more about subject matter. I'd be willing to guess that the same people who don't see the difference between "art" and illustration that some people espouse also won't see the difference between "naked chick" and "nude".

Just as illustration appeals to the basic kind of need for seeing accurate or technically sound renderings of actual things, "naked chicks" appeal to the basic need for seeing a specific kind of actual thing.. namely naked chicks.

It's probably not something that's clean cut.. I mean there's pornography, and there's "erotic art", and other stuff like Hieronymous Bosch or Maplethorpe. It's funny how one can be barely more than male nude studies, and called "pornographic", and another involves orgies and men sticking flowers up each other's asses and be considered classic art.

>A Sorayama illustration is a naked chick, Manet's Olympia is a nude.

>But they are both "ART"
>Are they not?

No. Not in my opinion. Let's not start the old linguistic discussion about the definition of art - there can't be an official definition - but as I see art, no manga/anime, comic books, vallejos, sorayamas, glazunovs, vasilyevs, shilovs, street portraitists and other such fit there. Giger does, maybe. A little bit :)
Art is about soul. About emotion. Sorayama vs Manet is like Asimov vs Updike. Asimov is nothing, if we look at him from the position of literature. He's a lousy writer. Good SF&F author, but bad literator. Same with sorayama: he's a good illustrator, but not an artist at all.

It think you're a bit harsh there. As for the Asimov example. Aren't the stories art then? The content of the story, the meaning and maybe moral of the stories, they're all art too. I don't read judge novels by how good they are grammatically, I like the stories. Well, bad grammar disturbs me, bu tas long as there isn't anything errors it's OK.

Of course comics are art too. As for giving a soul to it, I bet the comic artists think they are giving a lot of soul into their work (at least the less commercialized comics). It's really degrading to say they don't give a shit to what they draw. May be it isn't as deep as the work that people normally define as art, but there sure is both soul and emotion in work such as comics.

Could we please move the "What is art" discussion to the proper message base instead of dragging this up again in the Scene Wide Theme Month base.

We've had this talk WAY too many times and I would like to ignore it. ;)

99% of the discussions that show up here and on acheron devolve into questions of "what is art?", and we will each keep spewing forth our opinions, knowing that they will not be understood. pfft.

Back to the topic at hand...
I can't think of anything more artistically perfect than the female body (that means naked chicks). Maybe twelve years after puberty I still have some hormonal imbalances, but a nice set of breasts really gets me in a creative state of mind. What better source of inspiration, what better subject matter, than the ultimate goal in life of any living male human that has a properly functioning desire to propagate the species? (still talkin bout naked chicks)

Q:What do you want to go to sleep next to at night?
A:Breasts.

Q:What do you want to wake up to in the morning?
A:Breasts.

Q:What do you want sitting next to you at the movie?
A:Breasts.

Q:What do you think about all day long at the office?
A:Breasts (they're in the HR department if you haven't found them in your office yet)

-darkmage[iCE]

OK, I've started a new thread under this topic (General Discussion) called '"What is Art?" - the saga continutes'.. Please continue the appropriate discussion there.

Darkmage--

There are indeed large breasts in the HR department at my office...because there are very LARGE WOMEN in the HR department.

All the big fake breasts are in the buying/merchandising department. :P

Darkmage--

There are indeed large breasts in the HR department at my office...because there are very LARGE WOMEN in the HR department.

All the big fake breasts are in the buying/merchandising department. :P