Double-Pixel style

[tocky]

I mean that "is this or is this not a style?" is not a thing you can discuss neatly, because style is not one of those things that lends itself easily to definition. What is style for Mathias is not style to you, but I bet you could argue with him about it for a while and not get anywhere. If you think that that is a healthy discussion, though, have it.

[Dusty]

I mean that "is this or is this not a style?" is not a thing you can discuss neatly, because style is not one of those things that lends itself easily to definition. What is style for Mathias is not style to you, but I bet you could argue with him about it for a while and not get anywhere. If you think that that is a healthy discussion, though, have it.

Not always. The point of a discussion is not always about 'winning'. Sometimes it's nice to hear others views on subjects and compare notes, so to say.

[Mathias]

When working with limited palettes, the artist's decisions are governed by the restrictions, he has to stay within them. You're right, that alone doesn't mean he's creating pixels according to a certain style, he's just adhering to a set of rules. Style comes from a consistent methodology applied regardless of restrictions.
There are several guys whose art I can identify as belonging to them simply by recognizing certain traits present. We call this their personal style. There seems to be two types of style - personal style: defined by an individual's natural disposition to use certain methods consistently in what they do. And then global style: styles probably proliferated by certain artists or groups of artists, practiced by numerous people, all intending to emulate that global style, think of the "cave story style".

Then I guess it would make more sense to call pixel art a genre, not a style. Yet the difference does feel ambiguous even still. Afterall, music has styles and it has genres. And genres have sub-genres. Just ask Helm to list all the metal genres. How did they come about? In the case of metal, certain musicians began to diverge from a defined genre, playing and structuring songs differently, it evolves, and eventually a new genre, or sub-genre, is born. Is it a style or genre, though? When Pantera debuted, they nearly single-handedly made power metal a major metal music type because they did it so well. I like to think that with the changing of the times, they gradually evolved from glam metal (yes, they were glam at first) into power metal. Now, just how does one define when they clicked over into the next genre, once their music changed enough  -OR-  did their personal style just take on new characteristics, all the while remaining their style?

I guess it's fair to say I am optimizing these images for 2x, but what if I continue to apply the same "optimizing" techniques to everything I do thereafter, that would become my personal "style". So, reasons for the methods are a factor. Dang it's late . . . going to bed

[ndchristie]

Generally accepted definition of the term 'style' for the sake of criticism and art-historical essays in post-1980 America, as taught by ever professor I've had at 6 universities and as used by every essay I've ever read:

Media, format, method of presentation - these are not styles but simply physical qualities.  Style has more to do with the process and vision of the piece regardless of how the media enhances or inhibits that (assuming that it is not preventative).

For instance, a pixel piece created by the placement of a full spectrum of points or dots which at a distance converge as an image but close dissemble into noise of (at least) 3 opposing hues, conceived from the outset to do so and covering the whole of the image is still in the pointillist style.  To be strict about it, it's perhaps not in the style of Georges Seurat in the sense that his process involved paint and chalk, but you could argue still.  Size has never been indicative of a style, nor even has output - a photocopied into black and white conte sketch of an orangutan using Rembrandt's mark-making techniques and process is still in the style of Rembrandt.

when having a discussion it's not very useful to pull the "everyone has their own definition" like a special Mr. Roger's snowflake argument.  Why?  Because it means that everything that anyone says becomes isolated, non-integrated and mostly just undermined by the fact that nobody else needs to even acknowledge it's relevance.  If you're going to have a proper discussion, use definitions that most parties understand and accept as common so that you can actually listen rather than dismiss.  "I think it's a style because I call style something different" is not offering anything nearly so much as making a platform within an established point of debate.  I'm not saying that every discussion has be to useful, and I agree that there's no winners (nor need there be), but really, if you're just going to say "this is how only I feel in my bubble on my island," how is that engaging in discourse?

[Helm]

Personally I feel that even pixel art meant to be viewed at a higher zoom ration than 1x zoom on a big monitor should be designed with the vantage of both 5x zoom or more and 1x zoom holistic look. Alternating between the two, trying to get the art to both behave as a collection of pixel clusters and as something much more together than that. I do not see the reason to remove dithering from a piece meant to be viewed at 2 or 4x zoom nor do I think less/more contrast should be used, nor should the aa methodology change. Pixel art works as it does because the artistic process includes both the telescopic viewpoint and the more up-close as vital aspects. Pixel art will always look 'together' when made like this, and its aesthetic will shine, even if it's no longer faking a higher resolution out of a pretty high one, but just a highish resolution out of a pretty low one. Faking resolution is not the *only* concern of pixel art. Beautiful placement of clusters in a way that belies an inner consistency is another. When I zoom in at a piece to look at its AA up close, I am effectively destroying its capacity for faking a higher resolution, right? Well then why do I gain pleasure from zooming in? Because I get to analyse how things work in context to make the piece hold together as it does. Do not underestimate this fetishism, heh