Oh my, it seems I kinda started something. But if this has started then it means it's something that is begging to be discussed, so if anyone is interested in a more fleshed out opinion than the above quote by Gil, here it is.
First of all, Pixelation is not 'loosening up' in the least. You might have not noticed any changes in the ruleset on the top of the forum. That's because none occurred. Let's look at the relevant parts again:
Always clearly state what your references were in making a piece. If you sketched in pencil, color-reduced to 1bit and then went to work on it, okay. Ways like this are completely accepted and nobody's going to shout at your for it, but it's good to know anyway.
Pixel Art, is art where there's specific attention paid to the fine manipulation of picture elements. It deals with the informative quality of specific, single pixels. If the art you're about to post has not been pixel-pushed on that level, don't bother. Automatic AA, soft brushes, filters, smudge tools, all are indicative of index-painting, or at least dirty-tooling, but do not always mean your art will not benefit from pixel-level critique. If you've made something using some of these tools and then you're able to reign the piece in by optimizing the palette into using the best possible amount of colors, went in and pushed single pixels until everything is right, then it's probable we'll be able to talk about your art and how it can be made better. Always be clear of how you made things, only post concept art when it's relative to a pixel-art piece you've made and never never try to deceive us.
As you see here these thoughts are not in conflict with how we deal with things now at all. The Low Spec part of the forum is not a pixel art forum per se, and if it hurts the focus of what Pixelation is, it will be reevaluated. It is however not an admission of 'moving on with the times' or any other such thing. Good pixel art will be in 10 years from now about what good pixel art is today. Control will always be paramount to the skilled technician.
I stress this point because it's important for what I say later. These rules have not been watered down around here nor will they ever. Why? It's not a point of purism. It's a point of learning the art form (which is the focus of Pixelation). You will not learn the art form if you're being deceptive with your methods. You will not learn the art form if you're trying to do oil paintings in pixel art or photographic manipulation in pixel art. You will learn the artwork when you do pixel art in pixel art. Embrace the medium. Learn what it does. And when you're ready (like Ptoing is, I don't think anyone would doubt this) sure go ahead, start with an index painted airbrush base, or a scan, or whatever. It will not reduce the quality of the artwork if you know how to
reign it in.
Furthermore points have been raised about what this control we often speak about really is. Is the process of making art after all, conscious? Very much not so. It is very subconscious in its original intent. One might start with some abstract wacom strokes until something 'speaks' to them and they know what they're making a bit more and they work it into pixel art. Or one might work completely from a pixel art base and still do abstract stuff before starting to formulate towards a specific piece more. When we speak of control we do not mean one should work like a robot, one pixel placed *bzzt* next pixel placed *bzzt* from the top left corner down assembling a perfect finished image FROM MEMORY or something ridiculous like that. Sorry for the hyperbole but a lot of PJ commentators seem to think this is how great pixel art is made.
No, control in pixel art is judged by how the end result is somehow...
elegant. You look at the image very close, you inspect every part and there is some... holistic beauty in how most (only a god could utter 'every') pixels work in unison, their potential maximized. This is what the desired control is. That some dude did whatever they did (as long as he told us the truth about what he did) and then spent the time loving the majority of the pixels in his image until they were the right color, in the right shape. Anyone that has spent a few years pixelling honestly knows what I'm talking about. These people should be judging equally honestly if someone else put that effort in.
I do believe that the attitudes prevalent in Pixel Joint are relevant to the letter of the ruleset explained above, but not the (clear, I had hoped once) spirit of it. I believe this because PixelJoint is operated by Pixelation users or at least people who were at the time of its inception very aware of the attitude that would later coalesce into the above stated ruleset on - at the time - Pixelopolis and then reworded and refined in Pixelation proper again.
The problems that occur in Pixel Joint are many from my point of view. I won't cushion the blow here, I hope you guys will be ok with me saying it how I see it:
1. You are flip-flopping daily on what is and is not pixel art based on what is and is not admitted to the gallery. Whether it's a sin of omission or not is meaningless from a managerial point of view. If one of my pieces were hypothetically removed because I stated I used this or that dirty tool yet my end result is clearly
controlled (as is the startling case of Mia's piece) and then some dishonest bullshit like Slay's pieces stay there then I wouldn't have any faith on whomever is making these calls anymore. I don't want to put any words in Mia's mouth, perhaps he really didn't mind at all, just saying how I'd feel. It's inexcusable that someone so amazingly good at making his pictures feel
right, pixel-perfect almost, like Mia is taken off and then sloppy sloppy sloppy art is put up there and adored by the masses daily.
This happens perhaps (I stress the perhaps):
2. Because the people that make judgment calls on what is and is not pixel art are not on one mind on the matter
3. Because they are not all as experienced in spotting what is a fake and what is not
4. Because they are too entrenched in 'scene politics' (pleasing one or displeasing the other) to make sound judgment calls
5. Because they don't have the time to look very closely to every piece submitted in an admittedly huge and growing gallery
These are just from my point of view.
Here's possible steps towards a solution:
Get off trying to represent the medium through a discussion of your personal aesthetics and instead look at methodology. Pixel art is not 'something that looks like video game art'. It is when someone controls the information of single picture elements and how they act in unison. If the end result shows this sort of control and the artist has been transparent in their methodology it doesn't matter if it doesn't look like 'video games' to you. Yes, looking at color counts means something because lots of colors probably mean the art is not controlled. Yes, looking at aa paths and the shapes of the dithers means something because you can spot dirty tools (no control) and autocomputed color reduction (no control) there.
But it also takes trained eyes. I see very blatant mistakes in what is accepted and what is not in the archives. I don't know who of the people in Pixeljoint are making the calls, but it seems they should agree on what is and is not pixel art before they start judging.
Perhaps you need to install a sort of plugin that has a voter below a piece that says 'IS THIS PIXEL ART ACCORDING TO THESE {LINKED} CRITERIA? Y/N' and when someone votes, the voter would check how reliable this person is in their opinion (which should be based on how many of his past choices as 'is not pixel art' end up actually being rejected by the numeral majority) and weigh their vote for or against respectively. I have faith in crowds, I don't think they're idiots. This sort of system would take care of itself for most really problematic pieces of art. However, especially given the relative inexperience of a lot of PJ users, on closer calls there the opinion of the ignorants (OMG THIS IS TOO GOOD TO BE HANDPIXELLED!!!!1) might overweigh against the actual people that can tell there is control.
Then the informed mods step in. This would mean way less work for the moderators and a less tired mod is a more careful mod.
But this won't solve the problems with Pixeljoint actually seemingly being of many minds as to what pixel art is. I hope this dialog (as well as similar over in PJ) might help to that end.
Some comments on aesthetic strengths. I often talk about Computer Aesthetic. I do believe that video screen art has some inherent strengths that manifest in pixel art (but not only) and that an artist aware of these strengths can play them up and achieve things that someone that is just worried about their art looking 'cool' or 'realistic' will not manage. I am very happy when I see people that do this. But I do not think this is a point of purity that is relevant to pixel art and how it's made. A lot of very well made pixel art is completely without any aesthetic merit for me and it is not my place to judge it as NOT pixel art here for that. I think similarly it is not the place of PJ to judge stuff as not pixel art if it doesn't conform to their, ultimately, preconceived notion of what art made of pixels
should look like. This is a very important point. There is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between a) trying to weed out deception and encouraging proper artistic learning practices (which is the twofold reason we have the ruleset in Pixelation) and b) not accepting art in a gallery because it doesn't suit one's notion of how pixel art should look like. This seems startlingly clear to me but perhaps it's not. If asked I will elaborate on the difference.
This ties in with some demosceners you pissed off, I am not aware whom exactly and if anyone has links to the scenes I should give it a read. If you upset them because their art was sloppy and they copied from some shitty fashion magazine without stating references then good riddance, you really don't need them or their practices any more than the 90's did. But if you just thought it didn't look how it was supposed to look and/or someone said they used that tool or another and that's that, then that's not good.
Also as to disparaging comments in Pixeljoint. I would suggest you not encourage this and generally be very wary of 'scene rivalries'. This isn't because I will cry if someone calls me a fag over at PJ. It is because you must consider the mentality of the type of person that leaves here and goes over there to you to bitch about what jerks we are. He probably got it given to him straight about his artwork and now is misery looking for company. Do you need to encourage these people (even with silence)? Do you want them to converge to a countable opinionated minority? Do you want asshurt dudes that can't take critique influencing the steering of your gallery website? I've been linked to some pretty sad threads some times, enough of them to know that I wouldn't feel welcome there and regardless of whether any of you think I'm a nice guy or not, I don't see a reason why I shouldn't be, fundamentally, as a lover of pixel art and learning thereof.
A lot of this occurs in my opinion just because the userbase in PJ is generally larger and therefore a lot more children use the boards. But it also means that a lot of immaturity is allowed to grow there (again, by sin of omission or not doesn't matter). A lot of people might think Pixelation is hard-assed about 'idle fun' sometimes. There's a reason. You can't learn much in a children playground besides how to sling mud. "Well fuck you Helm if you think you're running a place of learning, get off your high horse lol you're just internet entertainment for me" might be a thought that crosses ones mind when they read this. Fair enough, but if it does that person has no place amongst people that honestly want to spend their time learning pixel art (or anything else) online. They shouldn't spoil it for them because they might need to reject core values and/or stand out to self-validate. There's other places that are full-on internet lols and nobody's keeping you from them.