AuthorTopic: Pixel art genres  (Read 23383 times)

Offline RAV

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 293
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Blackbox Voxel Tool

Re: Pixel art genres

Reply #60 on: July 24, 2013, 02:03:24 pm
Maybe our disconnect comes from discussing copying in different context unaware? I speak of copying in a value-free manner, you seem to mean copying as in ripping other people's work off uncredited and for personal profit -- I am against that. As much as I am for fair use.

However, in that sense, when looking at photography strictly, does every photo show only assets owned by the photographer? Are photos showing objects not in your possession ripping someone else off? Or is it the arrangement itself that makes you own your photo, and an obvious effort in arrangement of photo-sources that makes you own the mashup?

Obvious effort in arrangement makes the difference. Just copy pasting someone else's carefully arranged photo art, and that's fuck all, is rats, we agree altogether wholeheartedly. But if the new work is so intensely involved that small samples of various sources become an almost unrecognizeable and minor footnote each on its own, I don't think that's rats, or kinda everything is rats on merest inspiration in any form of art. Frankly, as much as photographers "do not simply flatten reality", photo-sourcers, as demonstrated some day earlier, do not simply "copy&paste", there is definitely much skill involved. There is obvious care in creating the illusion of light, ambiance and composition, and real photography is not any better than the chopping and arranging of objects real life as well. All that talk of differences is romantically super-inflated, to be honest.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2013, 02:10:41 pm by RAV »

Offline ptoing

  • Moderator
  • 0101
  • *
  • Posts: 3063
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • variegated quadrangle arranger
    • the_ptoing
    • http://pixeljoint.com/p/2191.htm
    • View Profile
    • Perpetually inactive website

Re: Pixel art genres

Reply #61 on: July 24, 2013, 02:13:36 pm
When I mean copy I mean in the sense of plagiarism. Like what most of the demoscene artists did and many still do - translating a piece by someone like Vallejo into pixelart.

I agree that it is possible to take a photo that is not yours and using it in your art for reference. Many artists, esp in the comic world have done this. Moebius, an artist I hold in high esteem has done this. As long as the artist doing it brings enough of his own to it, and it is in a larger context of the artwork, that is generally fine.

Of course photos showing things other than what is in your possession is not ripping someone else off. Then you could not photograph nature, a city scene, or most things. And even if you would photograph stuff only in your house where you own everything, you likely have not made everything in that house yourself. But this is a kinda nonsense argument. The way in which you capture the scene is what you bring to the table.
There are no ugly colours, only ugly combinations of colours.

Offline RAV

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 293
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Blackbox Voxel Tool

Re: Pixel art genres

Reply #62 on: July 24, 2013, 02:20:00 pm
It is only a non-sense argument if we are not talking about the same kind of copying, the kind that was discussed in the other thread, the concrete show-off cases of artists at work. That in particular really was not plagiarism, and I thought that everyone talking about copying here is aware of that context. As I explained, like you say for photography "the way you capture the scene is what you bring to the table", I say the way you create a scene is what you bring to the table in photo-sourcing as well, by that it be judged, and it is that obvious effort there that differentiates it absolutely from rip-off the same way photographing random objects outside is not.

Offline Helm

  • Moderator
  • 0110
  • *
  • Posts: 5159
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Asides-Bsides

Re: Pixel art genres

Reply #63 on: July 24, 2013, 02:23:12 pm
I likewise mean plagiarism with copying. It's worst when it's 100% stealthmode uncredited (hello, demoscene). Stolen strength.

Rav, what makes great photography great first of all is that the end result (the photographic series) evoke strong emotions. Art that delivers will be taken seriously. There's a lot of technique that goes into getting such an end result as I'm sure you know (I realize you're playing devil's advocate with the photography parallel) and even then it might not stir up emotions. But art that does achieve that ,even one tenth of the time is art that in the public imagination has the *capacity* to achieve emotional resonance.

Pixel art doesn't have this capacity, I do not think, in the public imagination, though I agree I've seen pieces that do things for me. VIDEOGAMES, now, they do have this capacity (arguably). But it's not the same thing.

Art made with new means, photosourcing, public domain 3d models etc, what I've seen mostly looks cheap and utilitarian and it itself seems to feel fine with that. Much of it is fanart, it's a mode of self-expression that has communal benefit (as in fan-art needs fan-communities). But it doesn't have high goals and it doesn't try to bring out big emotions. That painting with truth coming out of the Well did, for me. I sat there and looked at it for minutes on and it was an experience. It might just be me.

Offline hapiel

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 138
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Wannabe game artist
    • hapiel
    • http://pixeljoint.com/p/9092.htm
    • View Profile
    • OpenPixelProject.com

Re: Pixel art genres

Reply #64 on: July 24, 2013, 02:35:44 pm
Bla bla bla bla you guys know how to talk! Teatime :)


So are we at the yearly "what is art?" discussion again? Bleh...


Quote
I also would agree with Helm on the "no great art in pixelart" thing.

Yup, I agree too. That is why this topic was never intended for super serious pretentious ego boosting.

But great or not great, we can't deny that there quick developments, different genres and preferences, different influences and inspirations..
Shall we try to get away from the 'is pixel art worth discussion' topic (which magically branched into 'what is copying', don't ask me how) and get back into discussing pixel art?
Come check out the OpenPixelProject!

Offline RAV

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 293
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Blackbox Voxel Tool

Re: Pixel art genres

Reply #65 on: July 24, 2013, 02:39:13 pm
@Hapiel
We'll come back to it when it's time hap, no worry, but this here is interesting enough to warrant a little detour.

@Helm
You see, that painting did for me as well, I absolutely am a fan of that kind of almost mythological or super-sense-ical stuff, it probably is my personal preference as well. But I also can very much enjoy a broad spectrum of art altogether, each for its own merits. I have you know that I am indeed playing devil's advocate here as you assume, it's not that I have my own creative stake in it, but this touches a lot of philosophical interest I am curious about indeed, and I believe this needs in-depth debate as has happened. I like this place here.

What evokes emotion is in the eye of the beholder I believe. It probably is problematic to make the title of art depend on one persons impression of emotion. Maybe it's better to search for the creator's intend, and many of them, cheap and utilitarian they may be in the aspects you care most about, have other aspects you can clearly see an artistic aspiration, that work on someone open for it.

For example, on that fighting choreography fan-art video, you can clearly sense the animator's experience with dancing, which by itself is a form of emotionally expressive art, as is martial arts in its forms and traditions. In many moments of that video you can sense beautiful elegance and emotional impact. Aspired movement as an emotive language, and thus animation, is art, as is arrangement of scenes, and dramaturgical direction, even if the assets themselves are doubted in their artistic origin, the result contains artistic effort enough to be art. The paper and pencil, as tools and you may even call them assets, are not art, but the drawing is, and that the result also contains "doubtful" elements beyond as a means to an artistic end, you may call these assets also tools as much, still makes it art in the end.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2013, 03:18:52 pm by RAV »

Offline Helm

  • Moderator
  • 0110
  • *
  • Posts: 5159
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Asides-Bsides

Re: Pixel art genres

Reply #66 on: July 24, 2013, 03:26:34 pm
This isn't a debate for me on what art is, but what great art is. I'm 100% fine with that fight choreography being art. But it didn't touch me. And of course it's subjective, I make no qualms about this. But the wider impact and cultural relevance of a piece of art can be measured and analysed by how it is integrated in popular imagination. I do not think the fight choreography video with the public domain 3d models will ever achieve this, but I could be wrong.

Offline RAV

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 293
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Blackbox Voxel Tool

Re: Pixel art genres

Reply #67 on: July 24, 2013, 03:34:46 pm
Actually we both agree on this. Whether you know it or not, we probably agree on a lot more than disagree. Just this moment I wanted to point out the same, that this really shouldn't be a discussion about whether this is art at all -- be it the choreography or advanced creative photo-sourcing by the same tenets, that's how it came heavily implied in many comments really, so this was up to clarification in my mind -- but whether a particular work is great as an art, or at least whether you like it personally. I also certainly agree on all the nitpicks you would do on the results, the same I want to point out what about it I like still.

I want to get back to topic now as well, I later will put up to discussion what personally interests me in this topic here about styles and pixel art.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2013, 03:52:18 pm by RAV »

Offline RAV

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 293
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Blackbox Voxel Tool

Re: Pixel art genres

Reply #68 on: July 26, 2013, 01:08:34 pm
*bump*

In a transitioning interlope to topic, let's talk about this greatness of art.

Is art shallow when it doesn't claim "something deep", is art pretentious when it does?
Is something deep only if it is melancholic, mysterious, sad and tragic?
Great only if you are compelled to stare at it for hours, great for all people?
Great only if it has lasting mark historically on culture, maybe a great message?
Must you have put a lifetime of effort into a work to have it be any great?

I like Albrecht Dürer, but if every work of art were to become like his, because it is so great an art, it would have a harder and harder time affecting me, no matter how great it is technically and symbolically, its greatness cannot be greater than my moment of mood. The human soul is varied, and so is the greatness of art, and every element of this variety is deeply heartfelt, even the most cheesy romantic giggly huffpuff, even aggression, even hyperventilating rush, cruelty and mockery, or maybe tranquillity, maybe elegance, cliché beauty, or arrogance in technical superiority, and everything else... it's all part of how it feels to be, it's all truly deep, and it stops being deep without all the variety, that's when it becomes shallow and pretentious.

But you can look at this and say, this is the cutest thing I've ever seen, omg look, so cute! and marvel giggling stupid at it for hours, and for you that's a deep experience, as is for the one creating it, while everybody else deems you two shallow, maybe because they are too sad to feel the depth of simple happiness, and vice versa. Or you are mesmerized by a detail of the work, a specialist accomplishment, maybe even something about the process of work, and the big picture doesn't matter for you, maybe not even the result (some even say any result itself of art at work is worthless, and audience can only be shallow), at this moment all you care about is this little something that captured your curiosity, whatever it is, it is so peculiar, it's great, this little thing is a deep world for you, and right now you couldn't care less about the deep greatness of those other big things that are great art, and no one else's opinion changes that, while at the same time you become super shallow for super-imposing its greatness on everything else, to everything's disgrace.

Maybe rather than "great art", we should say "This artwork is great at ... when you are looking for ...". It doesn't need to be super popular to be great, it just needs to be great at something to someone, not at everything it wasn't meant to be, to everyone who cannot see. Popularity is a quality in itself, yet it doesn't measure every other quality of it in greatness nor graveness.

You know Kant's "the critique of pure reason"?, we're talking the artistic limit of pure critique here.
And beyond either limit is the true greatness, and the only way to get there is humility -- a great critique roots in appreciative humility and curiosity in a benefit of doubt.
So that the notion of "great art" doesn't devolve into a question of "real art" -- maybe an oxymoron.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2013, 06:53:07 pm by RAV »

Offline Pix3M

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 265
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile

Re: Pixel art genres

Reply #69 on: July 26, 2013, 03:37:16 pm
Oh boy. I've had more than enough experiences over at various art communities to know the wide variety of artistic tastes you can find on different people, probably as wide as the variety of art styles people work with. There are people who really like the artists who work with comics while there are people who like artists who work with more semi-real or realistic styles. There's the possibility I could shrug off differing opinions as "Oh, that person isn't as well-read in art as I am so it's probably an 'idiot' opinion", but ultimately I'm not the one who decides what 'great' art is. There's a good amount of art that is bad on a technical level but there are other things, big or small, that people appreciate about it.