AuthorTopic: THE TAO OF PIXEL ART : An interpretation  (Read 48640 times)

Offline ndchristie

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 2425
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile

Re: THE TAO OF PIXEL ART : An interpretation

Reply #20 on: January 27, 2008, 10:32:16 pm
I don't understand what you mean by "enduring artistry", and what could I do to express something in an image? What is there to express? An image is an image. I've heard of a lot of artists saying a lot about expression but they never did back it up, as if they assume the reader to know what they mean. Color me one of the (apparent) few that doesn't. Also, only great artists really leave behind a reputation. There's no recognition in it anymore unless you're dead.

What do you mean nobody has ever backed it up?  Perhaps you have just never understood (and you have not, by your own admittance), but that does not mean that you are right to discredit the millions (perhaps hundreds of millions) of people who have spoken about and published on the subject of expression through the visual medias.

In terms of no recognition until death, that's simply false, past and present.  True, many artists receive posthumous recognition, in many cases by their own desire, but modern medicine and rapid communication makes recognition during ones lifetime very common.  Most of the "great" artists of the past 200 years were recognized in their lifetime on at least some level, even those who were reclusive.  to name a few -

Andrew Wyeth
Picasso
Monet
Manet
Toulouse-Lautrec
Suerat
Degas
El Greco
Sargent
Hopper
Matthew Barney
Zac Smith!!!!
Caspar David Friedrich

and that's just my top favorites* just in a minute or two until i got bored of typing, this name should be thousands of names long

*with the exception of el greco, sargent and barney
« Last Edit: January 27, 2008, 10:33:50 pm by Adarias »
A mistake is a mistake.
The same mistake twice is a bad habit.
The same mistake three or more times is a motif.

Offline ptoing

  • Administrator
  • 0101
  • *
  • Posts: 3046
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • variegated quadrangle arranger
    • the_ptoing
    • http://pixeljoint.com/p/2191.htm
    • View Profile
    • ptoing bloing

Re: THE TAO OF PIXEL ART : An interpretation

Reply #21 on: January 27, 2008, 10:49:56 pm
What is there to express?

Have you never looked at a painting or any kind of picture for that matter and felt something that left a lasting impression on you? If not, then I am sad for you.

There are no ugly colours, only ugly combinations of colours.

Offline Feron

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1124
  • Karma: +0/-1
  • Carpe Diem
    • View Profile
    • Pixelheart

Re: THE TAO OF PIXEL ART : An interpretation

Reply #22 on: January 27, 2008, 11:23:37 pm
I meant that nobody's actually explained it (that I've seen). Maybe it's just me and I don't understand expression as readily as the average person. The core question is "What expression is there in an image?" Do video game graphics have any expression in them? If so, how can you tell? If all art has expression, what do you say about the pieces that are crappy?

The expression of an image depends on the picture you are looking at.  By the colors, the forms, the direction of strokes (if we're talking painting), just every basic aspect of a painting will be chosen (probably sub-consciously) to give some feeling and emotion.  Hopefully the viewers would also feel this emotion and therefore the art would have an impression on them.  If you don't feel this, then you have no soul  :P

Video game graphics are made to be functional, they have a primary use of on-screen readability and have to work in game.  A painting does not.  I doubt many video game creators try and capture emotions in 24x24 sprites, unlike a traditional artist would who is creating for an entirely different reason.

Offline ndchristie

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 2425
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile

Re: THE TAO OF PIXEL ART : An interpretation

Reply #23 on: January 28, 2008, 02:22:26 am
I meant that nobody's actually explained it (that I've seen).
there's a book written about every subject known to man, and plenty of those are about expression in art.  such scholarly sources are probably better at explaining than we are to someone who just doesn't understand it by looking.

You are right, on the one hand, an image does not necessitate art in the same way that sound does not necessitate music, yet most people can recognize music and art readily enough.  Thereby no, not all images have expression.

Furthermore, not all art is expressive.  there is a great deal of art that tries to stay away from expression.  Here is a short list of general artistic qualifiers and their "antonyms".  Please bear in mind that not only are these only vague descriptors, but that even those that seem to conflict are not by any means mutually exclusive.

Naturalistic - Of or mimicking nature as close as it can be experienced by the eyes (and, at times, the hand).
Abstract - Not intending to appear or feel like nature.

Representational/Objective - Intended to denote real or plausible objects, places, or events.
Non-Representational/Non-Objective - Not intended to denote real or plausible objects, places, or events.

Mannered - Intended to demonstrate technical prowess; to serve mundane purpose.
Expressive - Intended to demonstrate emotion; to serve "artistic" purpose.

then there is further qualification within Expressive pieces, based on whether the expression comes from the artist or the piece itself.  Laocoon and his sons by a Rhodian collaboration and Ugolino and sons by Carpeaux are both pieces which contain very expressive subjects, and these evoke personal reactions from the viewer (or at least, they should!), but the hand that made them was very measured, mannered, and NOT what is considered to be expressive.

Similarly, Piet Mondrian produced some works that was intended to evoke emotion, but were by themselves very mannered, while Jackson Pollack tended to produce works that were purely expressive.

It continues to be confusing, however, because many artists manage to be both meticulous AND expressive. 
Another work by Mondrian demonstrates his breadth of character.  Furthermore, desperation and haste does not always mean expressive, as such 'fits of inspiration' only demonstrate what the artist feels is a great idea and not necessarily one of emotional importance.

The biggest kicker though?  Not all expression is expressionism.  Expressionism deals primarily (and some would argue, exclusively) with "big" emotions, overwhelming sensations.  Reflection of calmer, more passive feelings is often overlooked in talking about expressionism because (in my perhaps overly-critical opinion) many of the people* who get all hot and bothered by splashy red paint and piss christ don't always take the time to appreciate simpler things.  To say that Monet's lovingly rendered, meticulously rendered, intimately rendered gardens are without expression is to piss in the face of art (to express my disdain politely).

In the end i think it still just comes down to feeling.  There is, at least to those who appreciate art, a tangible presence of the creator's hand in all art, and it is very easy to tell which hand was forced, which hand was passionate, which hand was timid, which hand was gentle, and so on.

*(and by that i mean one in a million - 99.9% of good artists are intelligent.  still....there are a lot of dicks; i could be one for all i know)
« Last Edit: January 28, 2008, 05:08:42 am by Adarias »
A mistake is a mistake.
The same mistake twice is a bad habit.
The same mistake three or more times is a motif.

Offline AdamAtomic

  • Administrator
  • 0100
  • *
  • Posts: 1188
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • natural born medic
    • View Profile
    • Adam Atomic

Re: THE TAO OF PIXEL ART : An interpretation

Reply #24 on: January 28, 2008, 04:21:10 am
if you want to jump into feeling expression feet first, i highly recommend la guernica at the reina sofia...when i saw it i felt like i'd been punched in the stomach and couldn't move for about 30 minutes!

Offline ndchristie

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 2425
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile

Re: THE TAO OF PIXEL ART : An interpretation

Reply #25 on: January 28, 2008, 05:21:07 am
forgot to mention that expression does not need to be intentional in the same way that emotions are seldom intentional.  if something of you comes out on the page without your meaning it, it's a thousand times more expressive than a work where every emotional investment is measured by the ounce.
A mistake is a mistake.
The same mistake twice is a bad habit.
The same mistake three or more times is a motif.

Offline Helm

  • 0110
  • *****
  • Posts: 5142
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Asides-Bsides

Re: THE TAO OF PIXEL ART : An interpretation

Reply #26 on: January 28, 2008, 01:43:58 pm
Quote
I don't understand what you mean by "enduring artistry", and what could I do to express something in an image? What is there to express? An image is an image. I've heard of a lot of artists saying a lot about expression but they never did back it up, as if they assume the reader to know what they mean. Color me one of the (apparent) few that doesn't. Also, only great artists really leave behind a reputation. There's no recognition in it anymore unless you're dead.

Enduring artistry is any piece of tangible art left behind when you're done expressing yourself through art. I don't care if it's game-art or oil-painting, and it has nothing to do with recognition from your peers. Playing a videogame is an activity that could be deemed expressive initself but leaves no trace once the console is off, besides in your fleeting memory. I am not discrediting that feeling, that memory, but it's a different beast from a painting you might draw today and look at again tomorrow or 30 years from now. There is a reflection staring back at you from your art that is very emotionally important, clensing and to some degrees it builds character, humility and empathy. If you know nothing of these things you'd be surprised once you do.

What is there to express?

My answer to your question is: MU

Offline ndchristie

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 2425
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile

Re: THE TAO OF PIXEL ART : An interpretation

Reply #27 on: January 29, 2008, 02:35:10 am
My answer to your question is: MU
Buddhist philosophy FTW (oh, and it turns out i learned something in college!)
A mistake is a mistake.
The same mistake twice is a bad habit.
The same mistake three or more times is a motif.

Offline Corsair

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 110
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • some assembly required
    • View Profile

Re: THE TAO OF PIXEL ART : An interpretation

Reply #28 on: April 15, 2008, 02:41:43 am
I'm more of a creator than an onlooker. That is, I get more out of making things than I do looking at them. I don't really look at art galleries or anything; it's boring. I'm more interested in making my own stuff and getting better. I know I sound selfish, but I can't find a better way to explain why I don't enjoy looking at the art of others (outside of the concept or pixel art for some games).

okay, so if you're more of a creator than an onlooker, and you don't glean any pleasure from artistic pursuits, but rather observe/interact with video games...

How exactly are you more of a creator?

I don't mean to sound standoffish but it seems, at least to me, to be rather contradictory.

Offline Akira

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 335
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Heheheh
    • View Profile

Re: THE TAO OF PIXEL ART : An interpretation

Reply #29 on: April 15, 2008, 11:25:33 am
He likes the process more than the product... I don't see any contradiction.
thanks Dogmeat!