THE KEEN MINDS OF PIXELATION NEEDED

[AdamAtomic]

Even if the process is the same, if the intent is different, then it is a different technique.  Art techniques tend to be about the end, rather than the means.  However, I do not see much benefit in arbitrarily naming these techniques or making a big deal out of them?

[Indigo]

Even if the process is the same, if the intent is different, then it is a different technique.  Art techniques tend to be about the end, rather than the means.

thats open to opinion I believe.  As I see your point, I also see the other side to that argument.  Technique, i'd say, is the process of doing something.  And intent on what we use that process for, doesn't change the process itself.

Ptoing:
agreed.  I have always held the stance that there is only AA.  -for example, during the debates of whether selout is good or bad, I always voiced that it's only AA to a non existent color.  I'm not for adding new terms for things that already exist

EDIT:

Tho again: AA = approximation, but not all approximation = AA.

quickly I'd like to comment on this.  This couldn't be more true.  This is what makes us artists.  We are not governed by these 'rules' of AA (or others), we govern them.  We can artistically choose for or against these technicalities based on the situation.  This is what makes pixel-art "art", rather than pure "approximation"

[Helm]

Actually as far as selout being describes, effectively as AA towards black that's perfectly fine with me. Historically it's important to note that the people that invented the term didn't have this in effect mind though when they named the process (otherwise they'd just dump it under AA) they had an inention in mind. It is quite possible the capcom artists and others that actually used the technique in the first place, before Tsu and Pkmays named the thing, were informed of this effect (: as if it was antialiasing towards a very dark color) but the intent was to achieve differentiation between sprite and background, therefore clarity. Differentiation is emphatically not what AA does, most of the time. See why the term is useful? Selout is much more than an effect (which is as you said, an application of AA). It's a term that describes a specific artistic intent. And it's a very risky process that hurts art more than it helps it most of the time.

[Indigo]

thanks for clarifying that helm.. I was about to mention that myself.  That the term 'Selout' isn't a term for a technique as much as it is a term for an INTENT of a technique - As you said, some used for differentiation.

but the history of such is still a grey zone, helm.  There are just as many examples of selout from retro games used as AA as there is that to achieve differentiation, if not more.  Its hard to say what they were thinking about when they did it without being presumptuous.

As for the creators of the term, they have adopted the 'selout is AA' theory now.  Thats not to say they didn't think this when they coined the term.  But it does suggest we are all on the same page now, more or less.  (not to mention the term was coined by a young artist in learning at the time, rather than a seasoned professional)

[Helm]

I have no problem with the terms being made up by young artists, this is a young field. Whatever doubts I might have once had about making up terminology have been dispersed by the years of having seen slightly dodgy ideas being evolutionarily-wise put aside, and good ideas endorsed by the artists here. If it's a good, useful term, it'll stick around, if it's not, it'll be dissected and gutted until all that can be taken from it, has, and the husk thrown away. Pixelation has great judgement in this respect. Even selout, the thorniest of thorns has slowly being reevaluated by most practitioners.

[Indigo]

no argument there, but you missed the point.  My point was that the term evolved as the creators of it also evolved.

[Helm]

No I'm sorry, that doesn't work. You don't get to do that I mean, you get to do whatever you want and use language in whatever way you want, but don't expect other people to keep up to date with how you're using the term 'selout' this week. This is why although I do light-dependent outlines I never call them that (which is what the term has evolved to mean I think, correct me if I'm wrong). The term has too much baggage and we *have* to remember the baggage for historical reasons, we can't just disregard and recontextualize because we've grown now.

[Indigo]

I don't see why not... I mean, If a word naturally wants to change its meaning over time (which words often do throughout history) - let it do so.  Don't shackle it down at a stage when it was most flawed.  Historically we should remember the original meaning I guess.  I'll agree with you there. - but there is no point in forcing negative meaning upon it if the general consensus of it is beginning to change.  Thats counter productive.  In fact, the only ones that are "DOing" anything are the ones raving about it's original meaning in attempts to have it not change.  Truth is, things like this change on their own, without my or anyone else's will.

...though i must say the entire debate about the origins of the term is completely trivial anyway.

this thread has derailed tremendously  *sigh*

[ptoing]

gay still means happy!

[ndchristie]

and "faggot" still means "punch me in the face"

terms are contextual.  it cannot be helped.  i would love if everything meant what it was intended to mean all the time (communication is the point of language?) but it doesn't.

the only option i see is to create a pixellation-specific glossary of terms, or forget about it.