I do not see the need for Pixelation to endorse a value-judgment based system of belief because it is not a person. It is a forum and a forum is built around communal interests. To the degree that Pixelation endorses some practices and not others it is only in what ways Pixelation can help pixel artists with their art.
@ALL: OK. I've edited all my posts and corrected my thoughts translation in this thread to be clearer. I don't want to represent pixel art or pixelation, I just want to discuss/share/debate.
Allow me to address your first point concerning Eboy's art.
It is difficult for me to imagine their work as anything other than art, I mean their works are color and lines in an aesthetically pleasing fashion.
I think this fits the basic premise of a two dimensional work of art.
(I would really like to hear what you think makes their works not art, so I could elaborate in a more specified manner.
ok. after re-examining the situation, I have to correct things and thoughts to explain where I came from. My reaction is connected with the eboy (and their long list of copiers) extreme popularity among the general audience thus making them so-called pixel art gods (at least this is my conclusion when using web search engines to look for pictures with keyword pixel art). So what I'm saying is that eboy, sadly, are engaged into a form of pixel art monopoly leading, among other consequences, people to think that pixel art is by nature isometric.
They also have chosen a set in stone way to represent pixelling: oversimplified shapes and shading, huge and non-homogeneous palettes, stationary style,
mass produced art (this last point makes me think that they are skilled blue-collar workers more than artists). For these reasons, I find harmful that the equation pixel + art = eboy is considered valid in the public eyes.
Personally I carry an extremely broad definition of the word art, I include everything from film, music, sculpture, paintings, graffiti, sidewalk chalk drawings done by a three year old on the pavement, screen printing on t-shirts, idle doodles in the margins of notes, album covers. I could go on and on, but I think you get the point.
Now, for the "art" definition, yours seems to be more a list of examples than a definition so I want to hear your deeper views on that. Regarding the "art or not" matter here is my present location on the road to understanding, I consider that an artwork implies at least:
A human aesthetical intent (aware of being an intent and aware of being aesthetically pleasant or unpleasant) to translate an invisible idea into visible reality in order to provoke/deliver an emotional response to the spectator.
But please note that my definition is a temporary one (mainly because so far I don't fully understand what is aesthetic, I thought I did but I realized I don't) and is built on moving foundations.
However, let me pose this question to you.
What if the watercolor artist had painted a mural of a building on a hilltop, then scanned the image and "pixelled" the building.
Leaving a final image of watercolor style hill and a pixel art building.
Can he still come here for critique on the pixel portion of his painting? Or must we completely disregard his artwork because it follows some but not all of the requirements here?
I have to skip this right now because I'm running out of time, but I will transmit my answer later
One additional question for you, Anarkhya, do you think architects are artists?
Well...Let me think about it... Thinking of them as artists would force me to look at their creation as artworks, and the move is not natural to me but well I have to admit that the vision of some buildings affected me, however, was I affected because I felt beauty or because I admired the skill? This is difficult, I think you're leading me to the "craftsmen
or artists" question...
Show Posts
