Pixelation
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Atnas on November 01, 2015, 07:05:14 am
-
This topic was split from the Ramblethread to keep it on topic. It is full of prickly opinions, beware.
If you have anything to say about how the thoughts in the Ramblethread are taken in a social context, please relegate them to this thread, if you must. If you would like to (and I encourage this) continue to analyze pixel art and develop theories to advance the medium, by all means contribute towards the Ramblethread.
https://twitter.com/Michafrar/status/660469369286189057
this whole twitter thread lol
thankless work.
-
To be blunt, it seems like he has no clue what cluster theory is, and no intent to get one; principally evidenced by the way he believes that it's a 'rule'. It's just a principle, ie. a way of thinking about the structure of a pixel art, and probably one which he uses even if he doesn't realize it.
IMO 'it takes the art in pixel art and makes it more 'pixel science' :(" is a problematic attitude for someone who's writing a guide to pixel art. There's non -sciencey parts to pixel art, but most of the things that distinguish pixel art are in this category, because pixel art is so tightly constrained.
Like everything it can be taken too far, but that's not the fault of the theory; most theories relating to pixel art are straightforward. It's the responsibility of the person to apply it as needed, rather than mindlessly.
-
:yell:
This confuses me, the only aspect of cluster theory I've ever seen talked about that seems even vaguely like a rule is the "no single pixels" part and that is not at all complicated ??? Plus I haven't seen anyone really espousing that outside the cluster study thread.
-
IMO if you understand how dither works (eg. why the standard 2x2 25%-50%-75% set, or impressionistic dither with a set of related clusters, produces cleaner results than other options), you already understand most of the ideas behind cluster theory. I really think that thread is mainly him reacting to his own confusion about what cluster theory is about.
-
I'm extremely aggravated by this attitude I see going around.
These terms were developed to describe things that appear in pixel art. AA, Banding, Clusters, selout, dithering, etc, these words are all symbols. The incarnation of each is fully mutable and subject to the artists discretion.
People think these terms are tools to pull off your belt and accomplish a look. They fundamentally misunderstand what the obsession with SCIENCE was and why it will continue to be important.
This is making my head hurt trying to read about it, glad to hear it's mostly irrelevant
ONE pixel artist, who is well known and yet technically average, said ONE thing, and it is now an AUTHORITATIVE RULE to this person (and who knows how many others) that it is now IRRELEVANT to consider clusters in pixel art. Like what the fuck pixel art is made of pixels and pixels that join are clusters and the boundaries of some clusters tesselate differently and describe different shapes. The instant you stop looking at pixel art as a weird collection of staircases nesting with each other is when you are dealing with clusters.
There are NO rules. They are not even suggestions. These are observations of what works and what doesn't.
Fuck.
-
I'd rather err on the side of being less reactive rather than more..
I do believe, in that vein of false authoritativeness, that it's relevant that this guy is being paid to write a pixel art guide. If you contributed to his campaign, I'd urge you (if you understand cluster theory) to challenge him to explain exactly what it is and give specific examples of how it is used -- ie. pass Chesterton's Fence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton's_fence).
Because a reasonable person, looking at that thread, could quite understandably conclude that he is dismissing it unreasonably *because* he doesn't understand it, not because he understands it and reasonably considers some related topic to cover it adequately.
IMO, the above would be a constructive thing to do.
-
I did not contribute to his campaign, but I will send him a message.
I'm aggravated because I have invested a lot of energy in teaching people what I always believed to be a correct path, or at least point them in the right direction. I have been wrong on many occasions, and someone always helped point that out to me.
Some have invested much more energy than I have teaching and helping people. Perhaps it is because I haven't been active with helping others lately that I feel particularly sensitive to misinformation.
Using ethos to discredit a misunderstood concept flies in the face of all of that effort.
If this didn't rub me the wrong way... I would be much less likely to do anything about it. Who would?
It would be a shame if he applied a negative spin to the work everyone has done in this thread and outside of it trying to push the medium further.
-
Humm,
Reminds me of the way hardcore atheists argue against religion; so much aggro going around. I don't understand that hehe. When you dismiss something just because you perceive it as dogma, then aren't you being equally dogmatic about opposing it? Yes cluster theory is not fact it's theory. That's what humans do, theorize, categorize, conceptualize the world to understand it better. Theory is a tool, there to help.
I do believe, in that vein of false authoritativeness, that it's relevant that this guy is being paid to write a pixel art guide. If you contributed to his campaign, I'd urge you (if you understand cluster theory) to challenge him to explain exactly what it is and give specific examples of how it is used -- ie. pass Chesterton's Fence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton's_fence).
Because a reasonable person, looking at that thread, could quite understandably conclude that he is dismissing it unreasonably *because* he doesn't understand it, not because he understands it and reasonably considers some related topic to cover it adequately.
So it's some kind of veiled self-promo thing? Ah well that makes sense I guess...
-
ErekT:
I try to avoid reading in to people's conscious motivations, so I didn't mean to imply that he was intentionally trash talking it to promote his stuff.. I don't think he specifically mentions his guide once in that thread. I just meant to point out:
a) the more basic human psychology of tending to rationalize a thing we don't understand as being crappy rather than allowing ourselves to admit that maybe we don't understand that thing;
b) his 'more science, less art = :(' comment : if I was a backer of his pixel art guide, this would be a huge red flag, the very opposite characteristic of what I want to see in someone writing a guide. It also makes the explanation a) more likely, IMO.
Atnas: Your interpretation of reactive may be different to mine. I certainly don't mean to imply that you should have no feelings about the matter. When I say 'reactive', I simply mean 'acting out of feeling, rather than considered thought'; it's hard to genuinely act out of considered thought when your feelings are running too hot.
In this context, reactive can especially mean taking a 'I'm right, you're wrong' attitude, which generally results in a pissing match, no matter how objective you attempt to be in what you're saying.
Obviously, I'm not you, I don't know what's going on inside your brain. I'm just strongly aware that when a person (michafrar) is behaving reactively, it's both very easy and very unhelpful to react in turn to their reactions, rather than stepping back and thinking 'what will help this person actually consider changing their mind?'.
-
Never really looked into cluster-theory much myself; but the fact he discourages people so vehemently from even looking it up, making it sound as if it can only hinder their progress if anything, and does so without even offering an actual explanation as to what cluster-theory is when asked; makes him come off as rather pretentious and foolish, to me.
-
I think the exact problem lies in Helms exact wording and in communication.
And the urge to take ideas as "rules" if you can't understand the big picture.
If we speak science this whole thing rather would be a "cluster hypothesis", than a "cluster theory".
And there are even vids explaining the terms.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqk3TKuGNBA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqk3TKuGNBA)
If we speak science we should do it right.
"Cluster Theory" is worth to discuss it to gain more insight.
The whole discussion is pointless, unless one can't take away something for himself.
-
The work done on clusters has been sufficiently correct and largely useful.
There are artists that are not into clusters, and yet whose work I like a lot.
What I don't appreciate is simple spitefulness and foregone conclusions.
There are reasons for clusters, there are reasons against them.
But also, there needs to be a space for concentrated discussion of either paradigm.
When we discuss it we don't want to feel a need to apologize and relativate every second sentence.
And it's not constructive to fall into another's word every few lines with harsh disagreement.
It's good that things can flow out a while to see where the adventure can go.
Sometimes being bold in our statements helps us get a distance to work with.
But that also requires trust into maintaining a reasonable distance to self in the end.
There are a lot of people on the internet saying many things. It's hopeless to want correct them all.
The best argument for either clusters or non-clusters as conscient design choice is doing good work.
The beauty of the work itself says it all, the verifiable proof in favour of an art theory.
Trying to convince anyone of anything with chats is a waste of time, tbh.
You can be in the non-clustering camp, yet not be spiteful anti-clustering, and vice versa.
I have a lot of respect for people that manage to keep their composure, especially when they got it tough.
-
Michafrar's response: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1snp5n7
-
Pretty fair IMO, except to himself -- he seems a bit down on himself honestly. Personally I would say there's nothing wrong with saying 'you don't need to know x'. You don't need to 'know' cluster theory, or dither theory, or aa theory, in detail to make good pixel art --
you just need the 10000ft views 'blocks of color visually "stick together" to create the impression of volumes'; 'evenly distributed mixes of pixels can simulate extra colors', 'placing intermediate colors in accordance with how much of your intended (infinite-resolution) shape falls into a pixel, can give the impression of a higher res image'. Once you're accustomed to how the general ideas work, more research could pay off.
. It's only the way that it was dismissed that was problematic. If he had said 'I think that for beginners, cluster theory is an unnecessary complication' (which seems to be the sentiment he's expressing in his reply)... that would have been pretty reasonable. I would probably disagree (IMO how shapes cluster is a very basic and important aspect of pixel art, and once you venture beyond merely 'making art which happens to be done with pixels' to 'making pixel art', one of the first things to explore), but I wouldn't feel that anything had been misrepresented.
His original OP was not that problematic either -- it was the narrative 'cluster theory is irrelevant', created through the progression of the thread including his subsequent replies, that was unhelpful, IMO.
-
Things are not quite settled yet though. A lot of common fallacies have been further popularized that we need to address now. At times a bit salted.
I never understood the "science versus art" attitude. I regard it as a decadence of modernity through the over-specialization of professions and social clique.
Believing that you'd be a better artist for not knowing the science of your work, or a better scientist for not knowing the art with it, that you'd have to protect your soul from the other's foul taint so you could be truthful to your respective work, is hilariously stupid. You better also avoid black cats crossing the street at a full moon's midnight. Renaissance masters especially would have just laughed at that. For it was analytic method that brought their art to the next level. The good artist has always taken much interest in the world every way of understanding, to seek out new opportunity for art. Seeing how many other fundamental aspects of art are so incredibly laborious and difficult to study, from Perspectives to Anatomy to reference material compilation, art is very tough, has always been, unafraid of science.
Art is serious enough that you can study it at university for a qualifying degree. It is serious enough that there are thick books about its problems, understanding of which improves your art considerably, but require an advanced reading comprehension. The seriousness of in-depth studies, not taking things for granted, putting in the detailed research effort, methodical and disciplined, is very much what differentiates a pro artist from a kid "having fun with pixels", as much as a chef cook's food from that in an average home kitchen. The more you reduce your art to a matter of "taste", the smaller do you keep yourself as an artist. And if you can't take your own work serious enough in study, why would anyone else take you seriously?
What is it now, are clusters too obvious or too difficult?
So what are your tutorials for then? kids stuff? a form of entertainment? or introducing people to becoming pixel artists, expanding their horizon in a meaningful way? The people that read your tutorial might think of it too obvious as well otherwise. Well, if we split target audience up like that, maybe that's the audience best served on Pixelation then. For ambitious people that want to bring their pixel art to the next level. To be honest, seeing the quality of artwork from a Helm, makes me much more interested in the explanation of his art, than reading some twitter gang throwing around one-liners. Presenting that as adding anything to the art discourse is too convenient. Debates are not about having the same opinion, but it can be way too easy having an "opinion", and whether benefit or damage comes from throwing that around is a gamble. Fortunately the people of Pixelation don't like gambling the quality of talk.. or art.
What is obvious to an experienced artist, hardly ever is to a beginner. Your work is about pedagogical teaching, making knowledge accessible, not how to protect your audience from knowledge that has influenced so many pixel artists. Your ability and method of teaching is what gives your work worth. And there's a quite the difference observable in the work of someone who just happens to do something and someone who knows very much what he's doing.
You see, there is a chain of inspirations here. You may have never cared to study clusters, but you very likely have been inspired by the works of those who did. It's too easy to call their hard work obvious then, as much as it is too careless to call the backround of concluding it too complicated. Many useful things can be boiled down to a simple formula, but concluding it never is quite so simple, and if you want to get the most out of it, you need to know more about it.
Pixel artists always needed to be exposed to a lot or arcane technical knowledge to do their work. Because pixel art was on the cutting edge of making the impossible possible. Cluster theory has historical context. It was made in a time the most popular techniques were quite different paradigms. So that was the achievement, a conscient approach to dissecting problems differently, and adapting the art to different times. Of course art theories let you make predictions. That is why you make use of their resulting techniques, because you expect a certain effect on your work. You want your work to look cleaner or smoother or whatever, so you employ a method known to achieve that. That is why clusters have been studied, to understand their consequences, and find ways this could improve your art. How much you employ this tool is everyone's own decision. The knowledge is there to serve.
-
I've been talking to Michael since this went down and he's offered to let me proofread future installments and has sent me the already published ones to revise.
He's been very friendly and receptive to taking another look at things he may have dismissed before, and his expanded opinion is obviously not the various opinions of the comments. At least currently he seems to see clusters in a light free of "scary pixelation science" that he saw as a prohibitive feature of the research here. A light under which an alarming number of pixel artists view it.
The pixelation approach to dissecting clusters appeared too comprehensive to include in a beginners guide before this discussion, but it will be covered and I'll make certain to represent the work put forth by the artists in this thread and elsewhere. In my opinion, clusters are the foundation of pixel art, and equivalent to the brush strokes found in a painting. You can not avoid using clusters.
RAV: I agree. Many of the points you brought up in the latter half of your post were iterated to Michael in our emails. Public perception of this forum, as well as how people treat pixel art methodologies as extraneous tools to use or disregard without consideration are perhaps the most prohibitive parts of this whole issue.
-
I became upset reading that twitter thread, although I shouldn't have.
Sadly, a lot of cluster theory has become synonymous with Pixelation and because Pixelation is a place with history and continuity, it has been painted by Pixelation's power. Any historical institution (as a long-lasting web forum) generates power, and that power turns things from radical new concepts into old stone to be smashed by new young punks. All well and good, honestly. That's why I left, to try to divorce the cluster theory stuff from my persona, Helm, a long-time moderator in Pixelation. That's why I'm so glad cure reconceptualized and cleaned up the ramblethread into a compact, neutral and highly useful tutorial. I think that knowledge has gotten around in that form in a much more useful way.
Obv. it's not enough and now cluster theory (which is pretty fucking out there compared to LET'S MAKE SOME GAME ART, GUYS!!) is seen as an old, conservative thing, highly academic and not worth the trouble.
I'm glad several people stuck up for concepts and methods that have positively impacted their artwork in the past. Thank you :)
-
The problem is that a lot of people seem to take your simple line of "no single pixels in pixelart to have it clean" as a dogma.
You don't have to get upset about how people use your perspective on things.
After overthinking all the stuff you said as I practiced and experimented over the last years since you came up with it, I think your approach definitely has it's good points - but only seen in relation and in balance to certain styles of pixelart BUT it also can hurt other styles quite significantly.
The problem I think which arises is that people who don't have practised enough, can't see the big image of techniques and how they correlate, because they just haven't had the time to experiment with all techniques.
THey don't ended up with their own solution, which they really think is the most superior way of handling things, they replicate a "slice of knowledge".
What I learned is that beginners tend to take one simplified "concept" as a "rule" which then gets used for everything. And the simpler it's to reproduce, the more it will affect the total beginners.
Just think of dither, or hue shift and how it gets "misused" by beginners and the same happens with "cluster hypothesis" (it's no theory according to my understanding of science)
There is another discussion going on:
https://twitter.com/jonasvanman/status/694185352291094530 (https://twitter.com/jonasvanman/status/694185352291094530)
People are pro-"cluster-hypothesis" and others "con-cluster-hypothesis"
I don't get why people quarrel about techniques and what's right and wrong. I don't get why there needs to be just one right way - I know that there are several successful solutions to a problem all with their advantages and disadvantages.
I mean one is anyways always right with his stuff if he believes in it.
And it's just art, noone gets hurt by it.
What I learned from that whole cluster thing is that one has to be really careful by putting out thoughts.
And no, you shouldn't get upset by any means.
Just shrug and let it stand as an idea/concept.
-
I never wanted these ideas to be condensed into any sort of ruleset. It's just that the gravity of history and the continuity of a place like Pixelation makes it seem like they are.
-
I never wanted these ideas to be condensed into any sort of ruleset. It's just that the gravity of history and the continuity of a place like Pixelation makes it seem like they are.
this is how i interpreted your insight. i dont get why people assumed you were being dogmatic because your language wasn't ditsy and unsure of itself. i think this is just a sour case of a few misinterpretations ruining the whole discussion.
-
I aim for the destruction of all established methods, rules and definitions.
I believe once we deconstruct every technique no matter how big or small and kick the pedestal out from under every respected or controversial figure we can make further progress.
Of course we will find that some of these ideas can be reassembled as they were.
We see a lot of people stacking up the teachings of others and hurriedly writing their own quick bibles to stand on top of and preach to others.
The medium of pixel art is extremely new and the barrier for entry is minimal. There is (always) danger in words.
Of course I am a commercial artist and less than 1% of my work speaks anything but the most economic way to create trendy images with techniques and styles and ideas stolen from thousands of other artists. If I want to speak on this matter or do any real investigation I need growth in directions I haven't yet taken.
I think this ramblethread (so far) has done a lot of good towards deconstructing concepts and reconstructing them in a new light. It was misinterpreted as the opposite... Perhaps the framing was wrong, the words chosen, the length and depth of the discussion... But no one person is directly responsible.
Cure's tutorial is a wonderful gift towards the community and definitely espouses the ideas from this thread in a digestible manner.
@Helm: I hear people regurgitating your name and thoughts in everyday discussions so frequently that it makes me uncomfortable. I don't think anyone can fault you for wanting to leave this sort of thing behind you.
-
this is how i interpreted your insight. i dont get why people assumed you were being dogmatic because your language wasn't ditsy and unsure of itself. i think this is just a sour case of a few misinterpretations ruining the whole discussion.
Right. Apologizing and equivocating is no way to effectively communicate concepts. It's not the writer's responsibility to create a message that is perfectly accurate -without- context in part or in whole*, it's the reader's responsibility to ensure they get some of the context provided by thinking about the whole.
In the case of something like this thread, that means reading the entire thing, and hopefully grasping that seriously putting forth an idea does not mean that you believe said idea is the last word or even anything more than 'a useful tool, for now'. If we were all dogmatists in this thread, I'm sure it would look more like a continuous fight :)
* which IMO would generally look very insipid, political, and communicate very little.
-
<rant>
I think plenty kids out there trying to make a name for themselves are just waiting to construct a big ol' enemy they can then vaingloriously "deconstruct". The more dogmatic your target looks, the smarter you look for smashing it. I am all for rethinking stuff, not being intimidated by established knowledge, lively experimentation, daring exploration, etc. But I take issue with how some people interpret "respect" as a fundamental problem. Just as much as it is silly to obey the sacrosanct, the way efforts and persons of the past are mistreated often resembles more blanket malice and mindless spite than actually useful continuation of discourse.
Many make it just way too easy on themselves. Like they have no respect for something, I have no respect for them. It's not necessary to treat things badly, borderline shit talk someone, and sell that as valuable progress on the matter. No, kid, you gotta deliver substance. You actually gotta get some hard work done, a counter that has the substance to measure up to what you're criticizing. Impress me. Come on. put some effort into it. The mindset of the best people doing the most revolutionary work, was to honor the past, understand the past's problems, why people did what they did, their struggles, their hardship, and why it got you where you are now. And from that point of appreciative understanding, reassemble knowledge with loving care.
Much of that pseudo revolutionary twittering simply is not contributing actual progress, it may as well hold back progress. It's rare to find something that's worth even deconstructing. And as if that would be the only means of making worthwhile contributions. And yet with or without that, everyday things happen for me that are wondrous and magical. Whether someone thinks it's revolutionary or established, who gives a fuck. Show me some good hard bloody work, that you meant business.
Someone out there gotta see your stuff and think "oh, now I feel inspired, able to do something." That's really why you do what you do, no matter old or new, inspire creativity. Sometimes you gonna ruffle some feathers with your work. But one day, whatever you do, someone's gonna turn that table on you. Remember that. And I tell you what, not only established respect is intimidating and holds back things, it's also worries about inconsiderate shitstorms on other people's business, that goes both ways.
You never heard Einstein whining about Newton. Never did he think in his work "Damn, that Newton was just way too full of himself! Too many people look up to him! gotta do something about him! Show the world that he's an idiot and I'm not!" This shit never factored into his work, that's why it's actually good. And even when he got all this backlash, and they argued with Newton in his face, he didn't go smear Newton, he didn't try kick the pedestal from under him, he didn't say "You people better stop reading Newton, it's a waste of time now, relatively speaking, and the guy was way too convinced of himself at the time! Who cares about his rules or laws!", that shit simply wasn't necessary nor fair nor in any way relevant to the work. It's all about your work. All you gotta do is believe in your own work and show why it's good, beautiful and useful, not why someone else's is not, or why someone else's would hold you back.
And that I am suckered into adding just another dumb rant on top of heap of shit, just shows why that makes me bitter. Now fast forward here, and see Cyangmou's latest post, in which he ponders about something substansive, and you got the answer why I'm here, why I like it here, and not silly tangential chatter about a person or about work, instead of just doing your god damn work.
</rant>
-
Well, anyway... /grumpyModeOff ... wasn't aimed at anyone, just adding another perspective.
I'm not really free of sin anyway, doesn't make sense hurling boulders in that glasshouse.
For example, I also been sometimes critical about HD Index painting or demoscene oriented approaches. But only within the context of concretely thinking the merit of my own work. I'm not gonna relativate every damn sentence, instead what you see me do is either not having squabble in trying to convince someone that their work is bad, and above that, often even Fav-ing their art anyway, because it still looks cool, even if it's not within my own work's objectives.
So about clustering. or non-clustering.
The way I see it, this isn't really an old versus new debate.
Either has great potential for innovation, and an appealing charm.
Within the pixel grid, you basically have these two paradigms of how you can optimize it.
You can focus on conserving colour, which messes up clusters, or conserving clusters, which raises colour count.
And then you can position yourself somewhere in between that tension field.
My tool is an extreme version of cluster orientation. It is entirely tailored to that. Consequentially, the palette management is suited to make handling more colours easy. And why budgeting your cubes makes sense in 3d, I think I don't have to explain much. Either way, I still put very much emphasis on the artist's control, as I believe there are many fascinating visual tricks waiting in that. My greatest interest and most of my technical efforts go into finding new ways the grid mechanic can behave playfully.
By not being colour limit oriented, I don't mean you should be wasteful with it either. I just mean you don't go into it with that arbitrary mindset "I'm gonna stick to those 16 colours no matter what!", but make your colour count depend on a higher order of decisions. But it's clear what in that environment takes precedence if in doubt. I am of the opinion even, that cluster orientation makes the most sense in the 3d interpretation of Blackbox. It is very technically reasoned, equivalent to how colour conservation in the past wasn't simply arbitrary taste, but necessary to make decent game graphics at all.
So it isn't really a discussion of which is obsolete. I think both have a merit and potential, depending on platform, or even if it is just artistic choice, that's an entirely legit reason on its own. Right now I'm more interested in the uncharted space of Blackbox, and in that will argue more cluster oriented, more interested into reading thoughts on clusters, and my look on the other side of the art tends to be more critical within that scope. What other people do, their problem, can't be my primary concern, they'll have to see how they deal with their pixel art project themselves.
I will also stand in for the values of PJ and Pixelation, and all people capable to share decent thoughts on pixel art of any kind, as I still believe they are the best places to take care of my interest, if there is any. Many other interpretations or their ways of discussing it, are not useful to me. And in that sense, how would this place be so tyranical, if it's still suited to support an aspect of modern progressive work? It's not about perfectly agreeing about everything, it's about having a decent exchange. An old school forum like this suits that more in my eyes.
But all that said, if after all those weeks since the release, I haven't seen any concrete art research, mockup scenes and discussions, at some point I'll have to look for somewhere that has the activity needed, be it Twitter, god damn it, don't make me.
-
it kinda bothers me that this thread, such a vivid, engaging and thorough plundering of pixel art's technical aspects, is cluttered with junk, surrounded by misplaced controversy, and is now seemingly caving in on itself. (at least this is what i see? am i way off base?)
can we give rebirth to the ramblethread? And in the process could we possibly create some kind of community-built body of knowledge where it is all contained in a single place? I would love to contribute to refining the language for such a project, so that the knowledge reads in a way that inspires discussion/revisions, open to community feedback, analytical but not dogmatic, descriptive but not longwinded. I could contribute time to coordinating with members who have more of the knowledge down?
does this at all sound productive?
-
eh, I don't necessarily think that's more productive. If it were so straightforward easy to find the gold nuggets, everyone would be rich. Well, things can be more or less for the better I guess, but you also gotta flow things out sometimes. That's what the ramble thread is for. I think you can't discuss any more unproductive than on Twitter, though, and blog comments are too isolated.
-
I've split the discussion. I apologize for stoking any coals with things that didn't need to be said. I do think some good discussion has come out of this despite any unwelcome drama it may have produced. Sometimes the reason why we do something is as important as how we do it.
If you have anything to say about how the thoughts in the Ramblethread are taken in a social context, please relegate them to this thread, if you must. If you would like to (and I encourage this) continue to analyze pixel art and develop theories to advance the medium, by all means contribute towards the Ramblethread.
-
Nah, is okay, Atnas. It was maybe unavoidable that we'd address that, and it's true, there was some decent thoughts on it here, including yours.
It's just, the way such things often go on the internet, is something in general that's been bothering me for a while, and wanted to set a few things straight here for once.