THE TAO OF PIXEL ART : An interpretation

[ilkke]

Helm, this is very nice.
Only crit that I can possibly have is that most if not all of what was being said applies to much broader topics than just plain pixel art. Not really a crit, and this is a pixel forum after all, but in true spirit of those teachings why limit one's scope? Just thought I'd say that, I'm not implying anything. Moving on...

"Do not deny the classical approach, simply as a reaction, or you will have created another pattern and trapped yourself there."

Apart form your interpretation, I'd say this works on a larger scale. Many people try to keep the external pressure form crowding in on them and forcing them to work in this or that manner. Being anti-anything is in a sense as much limiting as being a conformist. Both are basing your actions on external pressures, just in juxtaposed manner. In other words, try pixeling approaches that others have made you despise, 'cause it's not about them, it's about yourself.

Also, I'd compare the physical fitness/technique practice with traditional art skills/pixel technique. Practicing composition, textures, colors, light etc and especially working from nature/reference all help pixel pushing, especially since pixel art has a layer of technical limits on top of everything that can prevent one from focusing on the art itself.
Maybe someone else has another interpretation? That is what I believe is the topic of the thread, not teaching fish to fly.

[Helm]

Yeah it's much wider if you want to look at it widely, this was just a playful pun on the banner bruce, really.

Practicing composition, textures, colors, light etc and especially working from nature/reference all help pixel pushing, especially since pixel art has a layer of technical limits on top of everything that can prevent one from focusing on the art itself.

This is very true. A lot of people become great technicians with pixels while masking real defeciencies on traditional skills below.

[sharprm]

In regards to it being wider, I found this article interesting:

http://www.martialdevelopment.com/blog/advice-from-a-blind-kungfu-master/

[Helm]

Yes. There's technical work in traditional skills and technical work in pixels. I said that a lot of people mask their technical deficiencies in traditional skills with their technical merits in pixel art. However:

I guess what I'm saying is that becoming a great technician in a medium is just as noteworthy as learning the fundamentals found in all media. It's merely a difference in priority; focusing on one medium and becoming extremely good at it, or learning the basics and being able to approach any medium. It's kinda like the difference between two characters in an RPG; let's say someone chooses a Fighter, focusing everything they have into Strength and Vitality (and thus becoming nearly immortal in melee, but a sitting duck in a magic fight), while someone else chooses a Rogue and has decent stats across the board (thus being good enough to get by in all situations). Both are effective in their own right.

I think this might be a comfortable (?) rationalization on your part because there really seems to be to me less merit to a pixel art technician without trad. skills than to one that knows both aspects of drawing. To carry your analogy, the artists that seem to have the best chance to make me feel the impact of their work are the ones that multiclass Anatomy/Composition/Mannerism/Pixel art. It might not be so for you, but I think it's an easy case to make that it is so for most.

[Cure]

I'd forgotten why I posted here or what my original comment was in reference to. Hmm.

[Shrub]

There is no spoon. Only your mind.
This means... uh, I dunno.

[zez]

My answer to your question is: MU

"Upon hearing this, absolutely nobody was enlightened. Primarily because nobody could understand Chinese."

On a vague aside, am I the only person who gets an overwhelming sense of isolation from Xelados' avatar? No, really... It cant just be me, the way the sword is clearly the focal point, and its radiating all this energy, and then everything around it is just flat and vaguely representational, but just feels totally hallow, like nothing but the blade has any sort of soul?
Cant just be me...

[zez]

The first bit is a little tongue in cheek, and is basically philosophy for round eyes. One of the more common mistakes made in interpenetrating Taoist  and by proxy zen writings, comes from not catching the significance of the word 'Mu' and frequently leads to people either totally missing the point or using it to reinforce nihilist beliefs and/or general ego masturbation. That was also a direct quote from the principia discordia, as it seemed important. Mu, btw can be literally translated to no-thing, but rather then meaning literally that the answer to the question is nothing (generally done either too reinforce nihilism, or used to reinforce some sense of understanding of a deeper untranslatable meaning,) is actually a reference to the question itself holding no meaning or information.
The second part was actually literal truth. I did get an emotional reaction and impression from your work. If you WANT to take that to mean that art is purely in the eye and soul of the viewer, you could. If you want to take that to mean that someone unconsciously (or consciously at times,) puts a part of them self in everything the create, and that in itself makes it art, you could take that meaning away from it as well, however I wasnt actually making either statement, and was simply expressing my personal reaction to the piece.

[Mathias]

The first bit is a little tongue in cheek, and is basically philosophy for round eyes. One of the more common mistakes made in interpenetrating Taoist  and by proxy zen writings, comes from not catching the significance of the word 'Mu' and frequently leads to people either totally missing the point or using it to reinforce nihilist beliefs and/or general ego masturbation. That was also a direct quote from the principia discordia, as it seemed important. Mu, btw can be literally translated to no-thing, but rather then meaning literally that the answer to the question is nothing (generally done either too reinforce nihilism, or used to reinforce some sense of understanding of a deeper untranslatable meaning,) is actually a reference to the question itself holding no meaning or information.
The second part was actually literal truth. I did get an emotional reaction and impression from your work. If you WANT to take that to mean that art is purely in the eye and soul of the viewer, you could. If you want to take that to mean that someone unconsciously (or consciously at times,) puts a part of them self in everything the create, and that in itself makes it art, you could take that meaning away from it as well, however I wasnt actually making either statement, and was simply expressing my personal reaction to the piece.

So mu means "nothing", got it.

[Helm]

Exactly, so when asked 'what is there to express [with art]?' The only answer that comes to mind is...