pixeljoint weekly challenge

[Derek]

That's a good answer, Ptoing.

But whether we vocalize it or not, we've all made artworks we thought were masterpieces, right?  Every now and then I make something I think is bloody brilliant.  A few days later, of course, I think it's absolute utter shite, but still... it's that cycle between creative ecstasy and loathing that drives me to keep working at it.  Without either I don't know if I could be bothered to keep at it.

Dali liked to toot his own horn and he was a consummate showman, neither of which makes him particularly pretentious in my eyes.  And he could draw, make sculpture, make films... all of which have had tremendous influence on artists that followed him.  So if Dali enjoyed being Dali, I wouldn't hold it against him.

Regarding the piece, I really like it.  The only criticisms I can offer is that 1. the colors are all so low saturation that nothing really stands out.  It'd be cool if you bumped up the saturation of the red bandana and jacket to bring them out, perhaps.  And 2. it's hard to discern what the face is supposed to look like.  Great job, though!

[Helm]

I would also say there are quite a few artists which were not self-obsessed, like Klee or Moser for example from what I read about them.
All depends tho on how you interpret the term "self-obsessed". Is painting a self portrait already self-obsession or can it also be just a way of reflecting upon yourself.

Yeah. To the uninitiated for example, Klimt is just a narcissist (and Dali just a fraud) but things are more complicated, yes. Also for example, I've been told I am in love with myself too for the number of self-portraits I've done, and I don't even enjoy drawing myself really, I just find things there.

Dali liked to toot his own horn and he was a consummate showman, neither of which makes him particularly pretentious in my eyes.

Dali liked to pretend a lot, though. I do suggest reading a biography of his or Bunuel's perhaps (who was the surrealist 'straight man' as far as personality goes, in my opinion) to see the why and the how. He overdid it on purpose, it was his surrealist experiment.

On the art: the newest edit by Adarias: a talk of pixel art mathemagic. Wouldn't you say that on the pants directly vertical outlines do not deserve the black color? I'd say you should make the vertical line purple, and then the minus degrees outline below the knee with a black outline where there's even less light. And I'd lose the red single pixels on the shoes. Generally, it's slowly dawning on me a profound truth (hehe, take this with a grain of salt) on the strength and weakness of the 'single pixel'. Do not use single pixels generally unless you're trying to convey a sharp specular. The power of the single pixel is that it stands out like a motherfucker. It stands out way more than two same pixels in a row. So if you're going to colormix the red on the shoes, either do more of it, or don't do it at all. Single pixels just burn holes through the shoes. Granted, they sorta melt into the closeby dark purple lines, but they do not melt in a good way, they burn. Just an idea. I am thinking about the single pixel a lot, lately.