And a question so we could perhaps make this briefer, are you sharprm?
What do you think Goatf*cker?
I remember along time ago Dusty posted a pyramid. My intuition said urs were wrong. Now, I can’t find the proper diagrams which I did a little later (I post them on my deviant account in a few days), but there are ways to work out tileable pyramids and the answer was that
1) Your pyramids had the layers too close to each other (ie. It was too steep) and my intuition was right
2) It is possible to construct a pyramid that shows all the faces. Just interesting.
It was a case of right and wrong and what did I get? Your little straw man: “I was pissed off at the comic”, you said. How is that scholarly?
The straw man does apply to me now because yes I am pissed. Check this out:
http://www.pixeljoint.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=7285Altering a color reduced digital painting is not okay.
Altering a color reduced photo is not okay.
BOTH these restrictions are no longer followed by PJ. This flip-flop is EPIC (soon they’ll invite back Jocher, no?)
Well, actually, altering a color reduced painting was never a problem. Fantastic composition for this ‘mass’ drawing:
http://www.pixeljoint.com/pixelart/20235.htm Here’s a ’line’ drawing to boot:
http://www.pixeljoint.com/pixelart/7649.htm Both predate the previous thread.
Not knowing of these examples though, I tried to get PJ to accept color reduced paintings the hard way. I proved they can be passed off as pixelart by entering these two without mentioning the method:
http://www.pixeljoint.com/pixelart/38491.htm http://www.pixeljoint.com/pixelart/39335.htm I also wrote a long, god awful essay, explaining the limitations of placing ‘each pixel by hand’:
http://gamesarentnumbers.com/archive/what-are-merits-pixel-art.html Not to mention this digital drawing done earlier:
http://sharprm.deviantart.com/art/PixelDump-151682238Oh yeah, the color reduced photo thing:
http://www.pixeljoint.com/pixelart/50320.htm?sec=showcaseInteresting how he mentions Helm’s piece. You see, in true 1984 fashion, history is being revised (is this scholarly?):
http://www.wayofthepixel.net/pixelation/index.php?PHPSESSID=ac7bd2a864e606810163fbe6a4aa3403&topic=9913.0Two contentions made by Helm: Helm was never a pixel purist, color reducing a painting is new. Both false. I was entering my own color reduced painting (and being pretty vocal about it) while he was still in denial:
http://www.wayofthepixel.net/pixelation/index.php?topic=8464.msg95345#msg95345There’s a difference though, I drew mine because it is a superior method, not because of some bullsh*t intellectual posing.
Wait, what is pixelart anyway? It’s the sum of every small digital piece a particular person thinks is good. It’s arbitrary, differs from person to person and is an utterly useless word (aside from naming the result of PJ’s filter). When people say pixelart is good, they’re saying absolutely nothing. When they say that something isn’t pixelart, all they’re saying is they don’t like it. Sometimes this is only because they couldn’t draw it themselves (eg. Simon the Sorceror backgrounds)!
How do we define pixelart so that everyone agrees on what it is (not what it should be)? Simple, just show the history of every PJ rejected piece (with counter examples). Did they go for it? (Did they even get it???)
http://www.pixeljoint.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9656Nope.
Maybe Helm can rip that idea off too. “I don’t know how a system that resembles a well functioning legal system makes me feel ...”
They still wouldn’t go for it. Why? Because then they wouldn’t be able to flip-flop back again!
Lastly what’s up with all the abusing Helm? Think about it. Guy fails comic college (maybe Marvel comic lecturer was mean). Guy is upset. Guy pretends marvel comics aren’t good. Guy makes up garbage theories to compensate. Now is that scholarly?
Show Posts
