Show Posts
21
General Discussion / Pixel purism and the PixelJoint
« on: February 24, 2009, 07:27:35 pm »
Lately I've been reading on PixelJoint that Pixelation is somehow more elitist and purist than their own little place on the internet. These statements got me thinking on the matter and it dawned to me that this might be jus a longstanding misconception dating back from the early days of PJ.
I think the tables these days are exactly the opposite and while Pixelation has embraced the newer technology knocking on the door, the purism on PJ is really really hurting the site.
Pixelation now has the Low Spec forum and a higher toleration for pieces (especially mockups) containing less pixel perfect elements. In fact, the last major purist debate probably dates back to the DayDream incident a few years back.
PixelJoint on the other hand is really hurting itself lately with rampant deleting of pieces that contain the slightest hint of anything other than a paint bucket or pencil tool. They alienated an important group of demoscene artists as a result, even inventing their own little accronym (NPA) that they now even use on other sites (I've seen it here and on DeviantArt and before that gmpixel), which is actually a meaningless concept not existing anywhere else in the same form. On the other hand I notice a lot of inconsistency as some cearly "NPA" pieces are allowed, strangely even making the weekly showcase and winning contests.
Take for example this piece from DayDream (actually a friend or colleague of mine at one point in the past):
http://www.pixeljoint.com/pixelart/31751.htm
Take a further look in his gallery and note a lot more even dubious (to PJ standards) pieces, even the piece that started the huge purist debate years back, which are happily accepted and even praised.
I personally embrace the future, as most here on Pixelation have, but I have a feeling that PixelJoint is going to crumble under the weight of its own agenda, which is a shame, since I do want it to be the premiere pixel art gallery site on the web. It does receive recognition from a lot of industry veterans (lately seen by Paul Robertson's account), so they do have something good going, it's a shame to see the site struggle like this.
I think the tables these days are exactly the opposite and while Pixelation has embraced the newer technology knocking on the door, the purism on PJ is really really hurting the site.
Pixelation now has the Low Spec forum and a higher toleration for pieces (especially mockups) containing less pixel perfect elements. In fact, the last major purist debate probably dates back to the DayDream incident a few years back.
PixelJoint on the other hand is really hurting itself lately with rampant deleting of pieces that contain the slightest hint of anything other than a paint bucket or pencil tool. They alienated an important group of demoscene artists as a result, even inventing their own little accronym (NPA) that they now even use on other sites (I've seen it here and on DeviantArt and before that gmpixel), which is actually a meaningless concept not existing anywhere else in the same form. On the other hand I notice a lot of inconsistency as some cearly "NPA" pieces are allowed, strangely even making the weekly showcase and winning contests.
Take for example this piece from DayDream (actually a friend or colleague of mine at one point in the past):
http://www.pixeljoint.com/pixelart/31751.htm
Take a further look in his gallery and note a lot more even dubious (to PJ standards) pieces, even the piece that started the huge purist debate years back, which are happily accepted and even praised.
I personally embrace the future, as most here on Pixelation have, but I have a feeling that PixelJoint is going to crumble under the weight of its own agenda, which is a shame, since I do want it to be the premiere pixel art gallery site on the web. It does receive recognition from a lot of industry veterans (lately seen by Paul Robertson's account), so they do have something good going, it's a shame to see the site struggle like this.
--> 
