Bramblethread

[Atnas]

This topic was split from the Ramblethread to keep it on topic. It is full of prickly opinions, beware.

If you have anything to say about how the thoughts in the Ramblethread are taken in a social context, please relegate them to this thread, if you must. If you would like to (and I encourage this) continue to analyze pixel art and develop theories to advance the medium, by all means contribute towards the Ramblethread.

https://twitter.com/Michafrar/status/660469369286189057

this whole twitter thread lol

thankless work.

[Ai]

To be blunt, it seems like he has no clue what cluster theory is, and no intent to get one; principally evidenced by the way he believes that it's a 'rule'. It's just a principle, ie. a way of thinking about the structure of a pixel art, and probably one which he uses even if he doesn't realize it.

IMO 'it takes the art in pixel art and makes it more 'pixel science' " is a problematic attitude for someone who's writing a guide to pixel art. There's non -sciencey parts to pixel art, but most of the things that distinguish pixel art are in this category, because pixel art is so tightly constrained.

Like everything it can be taken too far, but that's not the fault of the theory; most theories relating to pixel art are straightforward. It's the responsibility of the person to apply it as needed, rather than mindlessly.

[32]

 
This confuses me, the only aspect of cluster theory I've ever seen talked about that seems even vaguely like a rule is the "no single pixels" part and that is not at all complicated  Plus I haven't seen anyone really espousing that outside the cluster study thread.

[Ai]

IMO if you understand how dither works (eg. why the standard 2x2 25%-50%-75% set, or impressionistic dither with a set of related clusters, produces cleaner results than other options), you already understand most of the ideas behind cluster theory. I really think that thread is mainly him reacting to his own confusion about what cluster theory is about.

[Atnas]

I'm extremely aggravated by this attitude I see going around.

These terms were developed to describe things that appear in pixel art. AA, Banding, Clusters, selout, dithering, etc, these words are all symbols. The incarnation of each is fully mutable and subject to the artists discretion.

People think these terms are tools to pull off your belt and accomplish a look. They fundamentally misunderstand what the obsession with SCIENCE was and why it will continue to be important.

This is making my head hurt trying to read about it, glad to hear it's mostly irrelevant

ONE pixel artist, who is well known and yet technically average, said ONE thing, and it is now an AUTHORITATIVE RULE to this person (and who knows how many others) that it is now IRRELEVANT to consider clusters in pixel art. Like what the fuck pixel art is made of pixels and pixels that join are clusters and the boundaries of some clusters tesselate differently and describe different shapes. The instant you stop looking at pixel art as a weird collection of staircases nesting with each other is when you are dealing with clusters.

There are NO rules. They are not even suggestions. These are observations of what works and what doesn't.

Fuck.

[Ai]

I'd rather err on the side of being less reactive rather than more..

I do believe, in that vein of false authoritativeness, that it's relevant that this guy is being paid to write a pixel art guide. If you contributed to his campaign, I'd urge you (if you understand cluster theory) to challenge him to explain exactly what it is and give specific examples of how it is used -- ie. pass Chesterton's Fence.

Because a reasonable person, looking at that thread, could quite understandably conclude that he is dismissing it unreasonably *because* he doesn't understand it, not because he understands it and reasonably considers some related topic to cover it adequately.

IMO, the above would be a constructive thing to do.

[Atnas]

I did not contribute to his campaign, but I will send him a message.

I'm aggravated because I have invested a lot of energy in teaching people what I always believed to be a correct path, or at least point them in the right direction. I have been wrong on many occasions, and someone always helped point that out to me.

Some have invested much more energy than I have teaching and helping people. Perhaps it is because I haven't been active with helping others lately that I feel particularly sensitive to misinformation.

Using ethos to discredit a misunderstood concept flies in the face of all of that effort.

If this didn't rub me the wrong way... I would be much less likely to do anything about it. Who would?

It would be a shame if he applied a negative spin to the work everyone has done in this thread and outside of it trying to push the medium further.

[ErekT]

Humm,

Reminds me of the way hardcore atheists argue against religion; so much aggro going around. I don't understand that hehe. When you dismiss something just because you perceive it as dogma, then aren't you being equally dogmatic about opposing it? Yes cluster theory is not fact it's theory. That's what humans do, theorize, categorize, conceptualize the world to understand it better. Theory is a tool, there to help.
 

I do believe, in that vein of false authoritativeness, that it's relevant that this guy is being paid to write a pixel art guide. If you contributed to his campaign, I'd urge you (if you understand cluster theory) to challenge him to explain exactly what it is and give specific examples of how it is used -- ie. pass Chesterton's Fence.

Because a reasonable person, looking at that thread, could quite understandably conclude that he is dismissing it unreasonably *because* he doesn't understand it, not because he understands it and reasonably considers some related topic to cover it adequately.

So it's some kind of veiled self-promo thing? Ah well that makes sense I guess...

[Ai]

ErekT:
I try to avoid reading in to people's conscious motivations, so I didn't mean to imply that he was intentionally trash talking it to promote his stuff.. I don't think he specifically mentions his guide once in that thread. I just meant to point out:

 a) the more basic human psychology of tending to rationalize a thing we don't understand as being crappy rather than allowing ourselves to admit that maybe we don't understand that thing;

 b) his 'more science, less art = ' comment : if I was a backer of his pixel art guide, this would be a huge red flag, the very opposite characteristic of what I want to see in someone writing a guide. It also makes the explanation a) more likely, IMO.


Atnas: Your interpretation of reactive may be different to mine. I certainly don't mean to imply that you should have no feelings about the matter. When I say 'reactive', I simply mean 'acting out of feeling, rather than considered thought'; it's hard to genuinely act out of considered thought when your feelings are running too hot.
In this context, reactive can especially mean taking a 'I'm right, you're wrong' attitude, which generally results in a pissing match, no matter how objective you attempt to be in what you're saying.
Obviously, I'm not you, I don't know what's going on inside your brain. I'm just strongly aware that when a person (michafrar) is behaving reactively, it's both very easy and very unhelpful to react in turn to their reactions, rather than stepping back and thinking 'what will help this person actually consider changing their mind?'.

[Night]

Never really looked into cluster-theory much myself; but the fact he discourages people so vehemently from even looking it up, making it sound as if it can only hinder their progress if anything, and does so without even offering an actual explanation as to what cluster-theory is when asked; makes him come off as rather pretentious and foolish, to me.