AuthorTopic: Pixel art genres  (Read 50905 times)

Offline RAV

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

Re: Pixel art genres

Reply #50 on: July 24, 2013, 08:47:04 am
Categories are so innate to the working of the human mind -- we do it regardless whether we talk about it consciously or not. But the moment we verbalize it, at least it becomes questionable and directable as you become aware of how you tick. Even this discussion about the sense of it uncovers what needs to be uncovered. Just that you are not better off having no discourse at all, but the right discourse at the right measure. I guess as of now we have established what this should be about and what not.

re: photo & "copy", since we are at it...
Post-modernism has not only defeated the idea of authenticity, but of originality at large. It's not anymore about whether a work is derivative, but more or less complex composition of derivative -- what transformative effort was added. Photo-sourcing is only consequential philosophically. The integration of literal photo copy into artwork is no invention of computers, it existed long before in kinds of installations/collages/mashups; Photoshop merely "perfected" this artform, not least on non-literal grounds. It's a different effort rather than less, as is a different taste. Personally I come from the modding scene of games; the approach of re-use, interpretation and modifaction of assets is a natural idea to me, and I recognize admirable skill there in its own right, it's not so much about some cheap "tricks", it's about having good ideas, it focuses on the conceptual aspect of art -- that's why few are actually good at it even though everyone thinks it looks easy enough to be good at it; like, most custom maps in Warcraft3 terribly sucked, it needed very special personalities to pull off the good stuff, and I don't mean Dota...

Frankly, it is weird I find myself "defending" techy art here, when in other places I mostly held high the classic history of arts at large and pixel art in form of age old cross-stitches and tapestry in direct ancestry. I don't think there is just this big mainstream of anti-classic art out there. Now there are countless of concurrent streams out there, non of them really threatening the other. Maybe there is this sense that some form of art is felt under-appreciated than it deserves. But in the end it's all ... you know... holistic. It's all there to learn from and have fun in. Aside from a professional job in which you serve demand.

Classic and pixel art should not feel so high-brow as to ignore trend and Zeitgeist. Rather it should search for ways to invade every other (plat)form, an active effort for relevancy, rather than taking attention for granted. That is to say, the artist must realize his existence beyond egoistical interest, and absorb society's interest as part of his own. A wholly growth experience, a grown-up existence. "I" is nothing without "we". "you" are irrelevant, and "we" are incomplete.

So the purpose of this topic might as much be the past of pixel art as its future off-spring, with their own peculiar challenges but obvious lineage in translation.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2013, 09:09:17 am by RAV »

Offline Arne

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 431
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Panties.
    • View Profile
    • AndroidArts

Re: Pixel art genres

Reply #51 on: July 24, 2013, 10:42:27 am
Pixel art was really only a subject to truly forced restrictions for... what, 10-15 years? There was only one time in history when computers were barely able to do graphics, and that time is already over, and it has been well documented. From that perspective, the works done during this unique window are very much historically significant, I'd say. It's also closely coupled with a technology which changes mankind more than any other.

On the other hand, this window was so narrow that not many people experienced it or remember much of it.

On the other hand, there's a certain economical beauty to it which might have a universal, timeless appeal. Looking at you Arecibo pixel-man.

Offline Helm

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

Re: Pixel art genres

Reply #52 on: July 24, 2013, 12:00:29 pm
On copying, we had this conversation before, as in, where is it? Where is the great art that has been created using copying? I have not seen it, it has not affected me, therefore it's hard to be excited in principle.

Offline RAV

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

Re: Pixel art genres

Reply #53 on: July 24, 2013, 12:11:51 pm
I have seen it in various expressions. But I sense nothing I tell or show you, you would like. Like, you don't want to like, and likely you are looking out for the "wrong" aspects by which you judge it. To each his own I guess. :)

The techniques you have seen so far are much more than just "copying", and they are more than just clicking Ok in a tool. If there is nothing you found interesting in what you've been shown, what more is there to say.

Besides, photography itself is just one more form of literal copying off of reality. I guess there is nothing artistic about photography as well? Other than the arrangement of the real set pieces maybe? But then why wouldn't the re-arrangement of photo content as set pieces suddenly not be...?

Really, it's in your initiative as an artist to explore on potential when you see sense in the thought. Maybe it would be more decent to have no opinion on it for the time being rather than pejorative until proven otherwise.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2013, 12:56:53 pm by RAV »

Offline Ai

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1057
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • finti
    • http://pixeljoint.com/pixels/profile.asp?id=1996
    • finticemo
    • View Profile

Re: Pixel art genres

Reply #54 on: July 24, 2013, 01:06:16 pm
@RAV: Quite flatly, that seems like a copout to me. Either a work stands up on its own or it doesn't. If it stands up, there's no reason not to show it when challenged.

My own dislike of copies is essentially about the metaphorical archaeology of art. A piece of art being like an historical artefact -- perhaps even a kind of journal entry -- showing more than anything else, what, in a general sense, was going on in the mind of the artist when they produced it.

When I look at demoscene copies, most of the history that is apparent is merely in terms of technique; there is a glaring absence of the artist's personal relationship with the -subject-. To be frank, it is stark enough that it does not 'read' as art at all; 'impersonal' and 'mercenary' are two words that come to mind to describe it. No matter how much effort they put into it, the final result is not much moved from the source(s); it conveys a collage or factory/filter process, no matter how sophisticated.

While I can't speak for others, I am confident that this aspect makes up at least part of the reasons that copies are frequently regarded with disdain or even contempt. So, any argument for the artistic merits of copies could begin with a solid rebuttal to this assertion 'copies only demonstrate technique, not relationship to the subject'. And demonstrate confidence in the artistic merits of copies by clearly displaying some outstanding concrete examples of meritorious copies.

BTW, I say this as a *consumer* of art, that is, it's a statement about what I don't want to *consume* -- what fails to appeal to my artistic palate as a *consumer*. My experience of producing -- performing the process of copying is not favorable either, but it's far less clear to me that -doing- a copy is unconditionally unrewarding. I would never recommend it, but I'm not condemning it either -- just saying that when I look at the result from outside, I find it outstandingly dull.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2013, 01:22:53 pm by Ai »
If you insist on being pessimistic about your own abilities, consider also being pessimistic about the accuracy of that pessimistic judgement.

Offline RAV

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

Re: Pixel art genres

Reply #55 on: July 24, 2013, 01:15:28 pm
Examples have been already given, but it seems to me that the focus in critique has been too lopsided, and I don't expect that to improve. You may have missed my edit in the earlier post fielding points about photography itself as art as much as literal copy technique, the *arrangement* is the relation to subject. If you've ever been impressed by photography, you've been impressed by copying. And if not, your definition of art seems narrow to me. I don't think that's a copout.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2013, 01:18:06 pm by RAV »

Offline Helm

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

Re: Pixel art genres

Reply #56 on: July 24, 2013, 01:19:25 pm
I might sound hard-assed or whatever but I am not inordinately predisposed against the possibility of something great being made with reappropriated material, I just haven't seen it yet. I have my ear on the ground, if it shows up, let's discuss it. If a photo-sourced super metroid screenshot is it (which was decent) then I vote a loud yay for these means to act as a entryway for people into their creativity but a nay as to whether these means have produced great art yet.

I do not mean to discourage anyone from making art in any capacity and by using any means. I am excited for their excitement. But as a person with limited time/means, I have to filter and be selective and go for essential experiences in art. Other people don't have such a fussy filter, that's fine, I have no bone to pick.

re: photography, of course it is arrangement, but it's not copying because our real life 3d experience is not 2d and snapshotted. The power and capacity of photography is in distilling real moments into unreality, making canvases out of fleeting microseconds. Of course that's not copying.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2013, 01:23:05 pm by Helm »

Offline RAV

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

Re: Pixel art genres

Reply #57 on: July 24, 2013, 01:23:55 pm
So it comes down to nitpicking definitions. :) From my point of view photography is or is not copying, as much as photo-sourcing is or is not copying, really, because creatively there is no difference between a real life set piece and a photo-source of a set piece as a set piece re-arranged in an artificial photo -- other than some mythical authenticity, and we've been over that.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2013, 01:25:44 pm by RAV »

Offline PypeBros

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1220
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • Pixel Padawan
    • PypeBros
    • View Profile
    • Bilou Homebrew's Blog.

Re: Pixel art genres

Reply #58 on: July 24, 2013, 01:48:12 pm
I'd say photography capture light, ambiance, composition into a frame. People who practice photography do not simply "flatten reality": they do their best so that the flattened reality speaks to the audience better, or communicate some feeling. That's why shooting photographs of your holiday turns to be so disappointing unless you mastered the techniques.

As for "copy-paste" in arts, it make me immediately think about those miniature (japanese?) gardens that you build with items, flowers, plants, moss, etc. to mimmic a lilliput place. Up to a level, it is art, and yet, it's merely pre-existing material chopped and arranged, just like photosourcing (iiuc) chops and re-arrange pre-existing images.

just my 2 cents.

Offline ptoing

  • 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 #59 on: July 24, 2013, 01:58:44 pm
So are we at the yearly "what is art?" discussion again? Bleh...

On the subject of photography. Being a good photographer takes a bunch of skills. You have to recognise a good scene, you have to be able to frame that scene in a compositionally nice/interesting way. Also how you do this will to a certain degree have something to do with how you are as a human, your personality. So I would not say that taking a photo is a copy in the sense of painting a painting/photo or something else that someone else already painted is. Most modern artists who do figurative work at all used and use photos, in most cases ones they have done themselves, nothing wrong with that. Old masters and painters before the camera was available often used wire grids for their paintings up to a certain point. You could also argue that this is cheating (I don't think so).

Everything has to be seen in the context of what the painting is for. If it is contract work, if it is pure l'art pour l'art, if the artist is experimenting with new approaches, what have you.

I also would agree with Helm on the "no great art in pixelart" thing. Technically there is a lot of great stuff. Most of my stuff I would say is not overly deep or anything, I just like to try and make fun stuff which also is interesting to make in some way, as far as process goes (limitations and such). But there are not many pixel pieces I can think of which are very evocative. One that pops to mind is this one by Arachne:



But as far as putting real work into the "meaning/evoking complex reactions" phase in pixelart is very rare.
People like Elk might put 100s of hours into their pieces, but they just look like a scene from a AAA videogame reimagined in pixelart. So I guess I have to be boring here and fully agree with Helm.
There are no ugly colours, only ugly combinations of colours.