However I am finally really questioning myself now what's good "pixel art" and what's good "art made with pixels". I am having a lot more questions now, than before.
I mean this simple rules lead to quite a big difference in the whole thinking process and this rules don't leave you another choice than ending up with really clean pixel art.
Exactly.
So, as a thought experiment, if we put this process at one end (actually, even moreso at the end of one spectrum we should put not-even-45-degre-connections-allowed) and at the other end we put demoscene art that is pixel-by-pixel (let's consider that there was no blur brush or whatever) but at such a high color count and so overwhelmingly dithered that a single pixel really alters nothing on its own by being or not being there, then we have a range of expression.
In that range of expression, when one sits down to draw something with pixels, they might want to consider where their piece (or parts of their piece?) will sit. And for what reason they chose where it'll sit.
That's all I'm interested in, as a method of learning, for people to consider the pros and cons before they start, even if they deviate after they start.
As to that feeling you got about what is good pixel art vs what is good art made of pixels, I think that's a valuable issue to explore further, just as long as we do not put a value judgement on either way. Let's focus on the pedagogical quality of learning 'good pixel art' or 'good art made of pixels'.
Antialiasis shouldn't be explained as making an outline smoother, but as a way to better portray a shape/cluster.
Either can be valuable though I would choose to go with the latter, but what if there's a beauty to just using clusters that do not need to be smoothed out to suggest something else that isn't there exactly? That's the point of this excercise, it's where the form informs the content, and not only vice versa.
Vagrant, I hear you, and that's fine. I just would suggest to not make any final decisions about this stuff just after considering it for a week. I used to AA just looking at the x1 zoom preview as well and that was when I was over-aaing the most and creating subtle banding and then I'd spend so much time trying to take it out. What if I hadn't put the over-aa in there to begin with?
As to whether the method I'm suggesting looks better zoomed in or zoomed out, I stand firmly in the side that says it looks crisp and beautiful at 1x and like a dizzying game of tetris up close (which, if I'm not being clear, to me looks like a good thing). If something just looks better at 1x zoom but falls apart close up, there's an element of misdirection in there somewhere. Or perhaps that's just how I feel about it, let's not state it like it's objective.
Arne, I absolutely agree the benefits of this are most apparent when you don't have too many colors.
Tomorrow I'll be starting my own piece using this technique, and at 90 degree angles as well. There will not be a single single pixel.