if it doesn't use pixel techniques, then in this forum I don't have much to say about it in narrow-critique mode.
However this does have a controlled palette, and that's the only pixel-arty thing about it. So about the palette: your first blue shade is too dark in my opinion. You could up the lightness just a bit and retain the contrast so the effect isn't ruined.
That's all I have to say about this piece in terms of pixel critique.
General ( art and art theory ) critique follows. Take everything with a grain of salt as I've taken 2 semesters of Art History only, so I'm not 100% validated historically here:
The piece lacks center and flow. What you are trying to do is VERY VERY DIFFICULT I think. When abstraction of detail and theme is applied, other parts of art tend to stand out, namely construction, flow, colour impression and volumes.
construction and flow: there doesn't seem to be a lot of thought having gone into the shapes, what shape follows what, where the shapes lead and what the construction suggests. I see a lot of curves going into each other and a flurry of movement that is misleading. This is
crowded, not complex. Complexity calls for minute brilliant design. You're not doing that, you're just 'adding stuff' to the piece. Helix? Why? pegwo energy beam? Why? Modern artists who have tried to strip the construction of a painting down to essentials usually put a LOT of thought into every curve, every line, every relation. in a way it's like fractals. Even 'action painters' like polloc may leave the 'shape' of the spray of colour up to chance, but everything else is so tightly controlled. I suggest you check out Modrian's middle period ( even if he was a colossal liar) for the lifeless yet almost maddening controlled precision of simple geometrics, and Max Earnst for converging curves that make you feel unreal. If you made this 'freeform' I'm afraid I have to tell you that freeform composition isn't for things so bare ( in my opinion, as well as that of many others. Not trying to spread the 'truth' here, Just give you info, you'll know what to do with it.) You have to have balls THIS HUGE to improvise a bare piece with few aspects, colours, themes and it come out with any sort of flow. You have to have a strong understanding of contrapost, of line against curve, of inclining angles, of the center of gravity, so much that they just manifest themselves subconsciously. Because subconscious is what this is, and I'm afraid to say not very interesting. If you don't want to filter the stuff that comes to you when you paint, that's fine. But you have to train yourself so the stuf that comes to mind is brilliant
People have been trying all their lives. This is fast, 'different' for the sake of being different and executed with a level of skillful intent, that doesn't excuse the sparseness of technique. It's true that many more 'realistic' painters don't have great composition too. And they know it. In fact they leave the composition up to nature sometimes, copying it, copying randomness and excusing the lack of forethought. That's why they put other strengths in their work though, on the rendering, on the vibrancy of colours, of the meticulousness in the detail etc. This doesn't have rendering going for it, and it doesn't have structure either.
colours and volume: the colours are interesting. Besides the strong blue that was mentioned, generally for such a small palette you're doing a few things with it, ok. I guess I know what you're thinking. That saturated purple being the darkest shade, it's really fresh, not done usually. I must be on to something special! The abstract design, everybody else is making game art sprites, I must be doing something really different! People make 'red ramps' or 'blue ramps' and my ramp is a mixture of three tints, I must be doing something new! Whether or not you ARE doing something different is really beyond the scope of my critique, because I don't give a rat's ass about 'originality'. I'm more interested in things that MOVE me, or inspire me, or make me think, than I am in looking at 'new omg' things. But if you want a personal opinion, it shows that you're certainly doing something that YOU haven't done before, for good and for bad. It's fresh, but it's immature. It's vital, but it's rushed. It's quirky, but it's flawed. It's very human, too human to be profound.
The volumetrics are in my opinion weak. There's no interesting shapes, there's lots of bloated things and disparate bits of cluttered detail. If I took the 'art' out of there and just left bigger and smaller circles to signify primary, secondary, triary points of interest, there'd be 3-4 cluttered big circles, surrounded by 2 or 3 small ones. All in a corner. Not good composition. Study romantic period artists. Familiarize yourself with the concept of 'the golden mean', of the hidden geometry of paintings you love, of general to specific, of how the eye catches detail, of how to convey movement. There's no balance here. And on such sparse pieces, all these things matter so much. You may be thinking I'm being unfair, but you invite this sort of critical outlook on the essentials of your art here because there's not much to say about the more mudane aspects of the execution. If you don't think I'm being unfair then you must really be interested in honest critique. This is very bare art, and sadly in my eyes bare and empty. It might excite you to make it and that's awesome and none of my business. Just telling you what I get from it, as a viewer, and as a viewer that is asked to comment.
Sorry if I sound harsh. It's that you post this with no explanation, as if it's profound, and Alex follows you up with a largely 'you don't get it, we're doing something different here!' after pju pju misses the 'point' so I had to say that I do 'get it' as far as theory of art goes. I don't 'feel it', but I get it. I've seen lots of art like this made by eager young artists at art school. This could have just as well have been made in vectors, ecolines, oils, cutouts, has nothing to do with pixel art itself besides in that you chose to do it in a small scale on a computer whose screen is made by small square picture elements. Not much to say about pixels, but on a broader point of view, that's fine. Just because some people go the opposite way and try to get really realistic and naturalistic in their rendering of art, it doesn't mean that others can't explore the founding concepts of an art piece. But just saying, most of the people that have done that in art were very accomplished naturalistic painters first. Look at what Modrian was doing when he started and where he ended. If you want to do some sort of paradigm shift ( even if it's a small personal one, as oximoronic as that sounds ) that's fine, but I don't think you're yet equipped. Other people train their whole lives and still get caught up in representing reality and getting better at that before they can go
over/ that. If you want to challenge yourself, it's fine. But you're challenging yourself to a game that you seem to not grasp the rules of fully yet, and will go undequipped to defeat - if you don't have the right attitude.
You say you are in need of comments and critiques. Those are mine.
