Yes you did. It's a very good mindset, it looks pretty damn cool, and that's a fact. People can call it whatever. It's a worthwhile direction to pursue in any case. It profits from pixel art skill.
Since this topic is rather close to my interest, I have some more general comments on the issue of "looking like pixel art".
This is not meant to discourage any other kind of effort in that direction, just my thoughts about the difficulties of it, to take into account.
You can have things like cross-stitching -- an entirely different matter of medium altogether -- to which people say it "looks like" pixel art, and you can have two pictures side by side on the very same computer screen, yet one of them does not look like pixel art -- although literally made of pixels -- because you do not recognize the same creative logic of medium in it.
It seems a common approach in interpreting pixel art is to employ the most popular stylistic choices of it. Like, make chibi characters, give them outline, flat lighting -> now it looks like pixel art, merely because that's the style many famous pixel art games employ. But this "looks like" really is very different in meaning than the first. It's sort of a "psychological trick". That's not to say it's bad. It may be finicky in whether the impression works out, depending on how important "being like pixel art" is considered to the atmosphere.
Pixel art can be realistic or comic, few details or high detail, all kinds of lighting, proportions, perspectives, super smooth or very rough, simple or complex, cute or "mature", clean or "dirty", all kinds of content depicted. Any and all of it can be amazing in its own right, and although it's all so different, it's all readily identifiable as pixel art -- even if it's bad pixel art! -- because none of this really defines pixel art, it's just a choice within, and what ties it all together is about something else, the obvious logic of creation, the less obvious the process is recognizable in the result, the less likely people recognize it as pixel art, and the more obvious, it gets very flexible what people call pixel art. That's why I emphasize so much the process instead of result. At that point, even despite after-effects, aa, "bleeding", all these cardinal sins or quirks or fads, or mode of view, or platform, or whatever, it still stays recognizable throughout as pixel art -- its very nature very resilient. If the process is obviously different, every littlest thing that's "off" in the result will quickly make it appear uncanny as pixel art, or simply not identifiable as such at all. (However this is a different discussion from "short-cuts" or "helpers" or "little dirty cheats" along the otherwise same workflow, which in the hand of a pixel art expert doesn't take away from looking like it in the end.)