Talk:Underground comix

From Academic Kids

Template:Comicsproj I think "underground comix" should be limited to the countercultural movement that ended about 1975. All published histories that I am aware of (including Rebel Visions by Patrick Rosenkranz) agree with this definition (Rosenkranz uses 1963-75). The Wikipedia listing as written includes virtually any independently authored comic from then until forever.

I'd suggest that some of the other categories mentioned " alternative" or "mini-comics" for example, be spun off into their own listing. Chris Ware is great, his work owes a lot to the underground comix, but he's not underground in any sense.

I'm new here, and reluctant to make such an agressive edit without offering a chance for discussion first. Please advise.

I guess ideally there would be an over-arching article for all non-mainstream comics, which could link you to specific articles about undergrounds, minis, alternatives. The only problem I see is that there no good way to put each comic in a category. The anthologies Arcade and Wierdo had issues after 1975, but included artists from the original underground group as well as newer artists. So how do you catergorize this? Is Spain's post-1975 work not underground? What about mini-comics? Some of these are more 'underground' than "Underground Comics".

I guess what I'm getting at is that if we split off Underground Comics from other related types, we should come with a consistent scheme that won't just add to the confusion. Let's discuss this..... user:ike9898

Maybe the over-arching category should ultimately be "Comics" or "Comic Books." The problem you've identified is a tough one--a consistent scheme is hard to find that will allow for all the overlapping approaches that wikipedians are likely to apply when cutting up the field of comics: chronological, sociological, by format, by literary genre, collecting or marketing categories, etc.

I suggest we first try to get "underground comix" right, and move the later, underground-influenced stuff onto a page that be can straightened out and subdivided over time. "Alternative" Comics? "Post-Underground"? Both of those are pretty ugly--anyone have a better catch-all?

As to what is and isn't underground, these categories always have fuzzy boundaries, but at this point I think the movement is pretty clearly over, notwithstanding the fact that many of the underground artists continue to produce work. Arcade, which fizzled out in '76, I think, is often looked at as the last gasp of the undergrounds, and a precursor of the next wave in independently authored comics. Williams, Crumb, and spiegelman all speak of the underground in the past tense--it was a movement that had it's own audience and it's own distribution system, and a collective sense of doing something genuinely revolutionary... none of this holds any longer.

Even an artist like Mike Diana, whose work is stylistically related to the underground, and who has a genuine "underground" status because of his run-ins with the law, still doesn't qualify as a member of the underground comix movement in my view, simply because his career occured in another, post-u.g., context.

I'd sayRaw (b. 1980) and Weirdo (b. 1981) are clearly representative of something distinct, although they grew directly out of the Underground.

I don't think there's much of a problem dealing with the individual artists who were involved in the underground comix: have one article that discusses the underground comix movement, and a seperate article that discusses the whole career of a given artist (Spain Rodriguez, say). Art movements and artists careers have different lifespans.

Thoughts? --BT

Okay. There already is an over-arching article called comics which talks about the medium of comics in general. I guess it does make sense to limit the scope of the underground comics article. I'm just a little uncertain how to describe the distinction between underground comics and 'post-underground' comics (or whatever you want to call them)? Is it just a generational change (artists and readers)? Is there an identifiable shift in style, subject matter, or something that happens in the transition from UG to post-UG? If no good distinction can be found....then are UG and post-UG comics really different subjects? See what I mean? I lean towards describing them as two distinct waves of the same movement of non-mainstream comics. Maybe they are separated by a creative lull in the period of about 1976-1985 (?).

So bottom line, I support the idea of breaking up the article. Just PLEASE don't ditch all the rest. Let's put it somewhere else so it can be modified and improved on it's own (including the list of artists that are not truely UG). Also please see comics, and modify the links so that the reader can see the big picture of comics related articles. [[user:ike9898]

Thanks for the response, Ike. I just did a bit of meddling with the comics page. I'm swamped with some work at the moment, so it may be a while before I can make good on this, but I will come back and try to rearrange and clarify things at some point.

---

I started to put in Cerebus, which started in the early 70s and has plenty of drug references and things in it, as well as allusions to RA Wilson's writings and such, but I'm just not sure if it should be in here or not because while it fits in lots of ways it doesn't fit in lots of other ways. Dodger

I really think Cerebus is part of the next wave of 'non-mainstream' comics. Maybe you could say that it was one of the first of the alternative comics. ike9898 16:28, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

Article title change suggestion

My understanding is the spelling "underground comix" is not only preferred but more correct than "underground comics" because "comix" was intended to differentiate between these publications and mainstream "comics". Is there any way of changing the title of this article to this spelling and preserve the history? By rights, "underground comics" should redirect to the "comix" spelling since, in this context, "comics" is actually a mispelling. Thoughts? 23skidoo 04:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree.Steve block 09:54, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Go for it. -leigh (φθόγγος) 17:25, May 4, 2005 (UTC)