AuthorTopic: Pixel purism and the PixelJoint  (Read 41156 times)

Offline Gil

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1543
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Too square to be hip
    • http://pixeljoint.com/p/475.htm
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio

Pixel purism and the PixelJoint

on: February 24, 2009, 07:27:35 pm
Lately I've been reading on PixelJoint that Pixelation is somehow more elitist and purist than their own little place on the internet. These statements got me thinking on the matter and it dawned to me that this might be jus a longstanding misconception dating back from the early days of PJ.

I think the tables these days are exactly the opposite and while Pixelation has embraced the newer technology knocking on the door, the purism on PJ is really really hurting the site.

Pixelation now has the Low Spec forum and a higher toleration for pieces (especially mockups) containing less pixel perfect elements. In fact, the last major purist debate probably dates back to the DayDream incident a few years back.

PixelJoint on the other hand is really hurting itself lately with rampant deleting of pieces that contain the slightest hint of anything other than a paint bucket or pencil tool. They alienated an important group of demoscene artists as a result, even inventing their own little accronym (NPA) that they now even use on other sites (I've seen it here and on DeviantArt and before that gmpixel), which is actually a meaningless concept not existing anywhere else in the same form. On the other hand I notice a lot of inconsistency as some cearly "NPA" pieces are allowed, strangely even making the weekly showcase and winning contests.

Take for example this piece from DayDream (actually a friend or colleague of mine at one point in the past):
http://www.pixeljoint.com/pixelart/31751.htm

Take a further look in his gallery and note a lot more even dubious (to PJ standards) pieces, even the piece that started the huge purist debate years back, which are happily accepted and even praised.


I personally embrace the future, as most here on Pixelation have, but I have a feeling that PixelJoint is going to crumble under the weight of its own agenda, which is a shame, since I do want it to be the premiere pixel art gallery site on the web. It does receive recognition from a lot of industry veterans (lately seen by Paul Robertson's account), so they do have something good going, it's a shame to see the site struggle like this.

Offline Larwick

  • 0011
  • **
  • Posts: 738
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • Larwick
    • http://www.pixeljoint.com/p/3794.htm
    • View Profile
    • Artstation

Re: Pixel purism and the PixelJoint

Reply #1 on: February 24, 2009, 11:27:01 pm
Who said this? I remember reading it but thinking it was silly, and i believe it was refuted immediately afterwards. Or am i wrong? Can you say where this quote came from? I am talking of who said Pixelation was more purist. I personally do not think so and never have.

The difference between Pixelation and PJ is that PJ is foremost a gallery. For artwork to enter the gallery it must meet criteria. For artwork to enter the forums it needent enter criteria (or at least so specific), and once it has it may be critisized. On PJ it must be critisized BEFORE being shown publically, and this is the problem. PJ and Pixelation should not be compared on this basis.

Perhaps PJ should have more than one section in its gallery? One for 'pure' pixel art and one for pixel art that lies on the edge with a warning on the piece itself? (I mean on the piece's page). Maybe we should simply have less specific restrictions and the areas of a piece that are not pixel art atall (ie. gradient fill) should just be pointed out to the viewer? It's hard to know where to stop and draw the line.

Unfortunately i have read that Paul Robertson himself thinks the administrators for PJ to be pixel art nazi's due to a members comments and the situation he was in at the time.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2009, 11:33:10 pm by Larwick »

Offline Gil

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1543
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Too square to be hip
    • http://pixeljoint.com/p/475.htm
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio

Re: Pixel purism and the PixelJoint

Reply #2 on: February 24, 2009, 11:52:26 pm
Yes, the comment was just the catalyst for the thought, I think it was disputed pretty quicky.

Consider Ptoing Miascugh's piece that was just removed too. It was accepted, then when a mod read he used an automated tool, it was removed. As if the knowledge of use of a tool can invalidate the pixel perfect nature of a piece that was conceived by anyone who didn't read his comment.

Here's a comment I just noticed by Helm that is relevant here:

http://www.wayofthepixel.net/pixelation/index.php?topic=8019.msg91437#msg91437
"It seems to me the Pixeljoint rules are a fundamentalist branching of from our rules. It's really amazing for me how misconstrued the intention of the 'every pixel placed intentionally' seems to be by their administration and I think that they might feel it too, as of late. Now that they've strong-armed their version of what 'pixel purity' is so hard against so many breaches of conduct though,  it's very difficult to back down to something more sensible without appearing as flip-floppers. It's something that should be publicly discussed at some point I think because it's hurting Pixeljoint and I think it's hurting the internet presence of the medium as well."
« Last Edit: February 25, 2009, 12:31:05 am by Gil »

Offline ptoing

  • 0101
  • ****
  • Posts: 3063
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • variegated quadrangle arranger
    • the_ptoing
    • http://pixeljoint.com/p/2191.htm
    • View Profile
    • Perpetually inactive website

Re: Pixel purism and the PixelJoint

Reply #3 on: February 25, 2009, 12:20:03 am
No piece of mine was removed. I think you mean miascughs underwater one.
There are no ugly colours, only ugly combinations of colours.

Offline Gil

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1543
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Too square to be hip
    • http://pixeljoint.com/p/475.htm
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio

Re: Pixel purism and the PixelJoint

Reply #4 on: February 25, 2009, 12:31:52 am
Yes, true, fixed :)

I was thinking of one of your pieces too though. The progress animation of your robot piece clearly shows a use of index brushes to create a base to work off. Under PJ rules, that wouldn't actually be allowed. They probably just let it true because none of the pixels involved survived in the final piece.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2009, 12:34:42 am by Gil »

Offline Ai

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1057
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • finti
    • http://pixeljoint.com/pixels/profile.asp?id=1996
    • finticemo
    • View Profile

Re: Pixel purism and the PixelJoint

Reply #5 on: February 25, 2009, 12:37:05 am
I think the tables these days are exactly the opposite and while Pixelation has embraced the newer technology knocking on the door, the purism on PJ is really really hurting the site.

Pixelation now has the Low Spec forum and a higher toleration for pieces (especially mockups) containing less pixel perfect elements. In fact, the last major purist debate probably dates back to the DayDream incident a few years back.

PixelJoint on the other hand is really hurting itself lately with rampant deleting of pieces that contain the slightest hint of anything other than a paint bucket or pencil tool. They alienated an important group of demoscene artists as a result, even inventing their own little accronym (NPA) that they now even use on other sites (I've seen it here and on DeviantArt and before that gmpixel), which is actually a meaningless concept not existing anywhere else in the same form. On the other hand I notice a lot of inconsistency as some cearly "NPA" pieces are allowed, strangely even making the weekly showcase and winning contests.

Take for example this piece from DayDream (actually a friend or colleague of mine at one point in the past):
http://www.pixeljoint.com/pixelart/31751.htm

Take a further look in his gallery and note a lot more even dubious (to PJ standards) pieces, even the piece that started the huge purist debate years back, which are happily accepted and even praised.
Yes; I think some of my works would be in the same position, if I didn't insist so much on stating exactly what was involved in making a picture*. I don't use tools that will give me a less accurate result than I can pixel manually (which is to say, I use all tools except ones that are subtly random), so IMO there is not really any grounds for saying such works are unacceptable; the only difference is the amount of time required to get the result which i already see exactly in my mind, in other words PJ requires any reasonably ambitious works to be done in a masochistic luddite sort of way

* eg iLKke certainly indexpainted here: http://www.pixeljoint.com/pixelart/39713.htm# , but he didn't say so, and his piece was accepted.
whereas here http://www.pixeljoint.com/pixelart/35261.htm# I made it clear that 2 of the 24 original parts were indexpainted, and was required to remove them before my piece was approved.
Similarly, I might never submit this to PJ, since some of the antialiasing was done with the assistance of hard-edged Smudge; but it is clearly pixel-perfect, to a high level.

Quote
I personally embrace the future, as most here on Pixelation have, but I have a feeling that PixelJoint is going to crumble under the weight of its own agenda, which is a shame, since I do want it to be the premiere pixel art gallery site on the web.
THIS.
Of course standards must be maintained, but current standards are kind of like, "a pencil sketch is not a pencil sketch unless nothing but pencils were used -- no erasers, no smoothing/smudging tools", or "sex is not sex except in the missionary position" -- ie. there definitely is a real religious element to it (as Helm suggests in the message you later quote part of).
What we probably both agree on is that pixel art is a medium, not exactly a method (otherwise, tools like bucketfill would be prohibited too), and judgement of the actual pixel accuracy of a piece is really a better way to go. And there really are objective measures, even ones simple enough to implement in Java software (eg. the amount of banding is easily measured, and should typically be quite low in a high quality piece. With FFT, amounts of different types of noise (eg typical dithering vs random) are easily measured)

EDIT2: quoting always bites me!
« Last Edit: February 25, 2009, 03:06:33 am by Ai »
If you insist on being pessimistic about your own abilities, consider also being pessimistic about the accuracy of that pessimistic judgement.

Offline Willows

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 223
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile

Re: Pixel purism and the PixelJoint

Reply #6 on: February 25, 2009, 01:37:48 am
I think you're (gil) looking for a problem where there isn't one. PixelJoint is not pixelation and neither intends to nor ever will be. PixelJoint has its own legs to stand on and though not everyone seems to agree with it, I believe it's been collecting more and better members as time has gone on and predicting the apocalypse at this point is nonsensical.

I also believe it to be elitist of YOU to promote one view as superior and refute the other as archaic.

Live and let live!

Offline Ryumaru

  • Moderator
  • 0100
  • *
  • Posts: 1683
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • to be animated soonly
    • ChrisPariano
    • View Profile

Re: Pixel purism and the PixelJoint

Reply #7 on: February 25, 2009, 01:47:41 am
Willows, I think you are insinuating too much of gil here. Unless I am naive, we are discussing this because we cherish our pixel art medium and there are only a handful of forums and websites that really get into it like we do, and Pixelation and Pixeljoint are arguably the most developed ones. We just don't want to see one of them being degraded or have miscommunication within the two.

Offline Willows

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 223
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile

Re: Pixel purism and the PixelJoint

Reply #8 on: February 25, 2009, 02:11:03 am
Perhaps, yeah.

I got, summed up,

"Pixelation is better than PixelJoint because we're more free with our acceptance of pixel art"

"Pixeljoint is screwing themselves because of their irrational standards"

"Pixeljoint is going to die because it refuses to adapt to change"

"Pixeljoint is struggling"

I don't believe a single one of those statements are true.

Also, "we" and "they" statements I read as hurtful and alienating, as I personally view it as the pixel art community, not exclusively pixeljoint and exlcusively pixelation.

I don't believe pixelation has the right to discuss on pixelation what should happen with pixeljoint. If the community as a whole has a problem with pixeljoint, then bring it to pixeljoint's doorstep, because this right here feels more like behind-the-back talking and creating or attempting to create a rift between the two sites.

I also believe convincing pixeljoint to change its standards is a bad move. As it is now, pixeljoint appreciates pixel art as a clean medium and offers a place for artists and viewers interested in exactly that to show or view artwork. There is none other of that kind, and it will not kill the site to stay that way, it will just push away people that aren't doing exactly that kind of artwork.

Iono, I'm probably paranoid or irrationally defensive for some reason (I don't go to pixeljoint often anymore, so I'd doubt it's loyalty) and gil, if I'm just being an ass I'm truly sorry :)

Offline pixelblink

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 144
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • pixeljoint

Re: Pixel purism and the PixelJoint

Reply #9 on: February 25, 2009, 02:20:45 am
I don't see where the "elitist" stance comes from but I do agree that we (PJ) are purists to some degree.

It's been always a constant struggle to define what the borders of pixel art is or isn't. High grade and high colour counts have always been suspect in using tools and methods that go against the traditional low colour and "pixelly" style that has often attracted most people to the art from to begin with.

It seems quite silly that one would submit a copy/trace/grid of another image thereby claiming it as their own as well and that does seem to be a large amount of the old demoscene... that's not to say ALL of them. I respect and enjoy alot of the demoscene art that comes our way and welcome everyone to the community. I also welcome their art to the community as long as they can try and understand the views as stated by both the community and the moderators. As a moderator myself, I am ALWAYS open to communication and resolution as long as I am approached without outward defiance and rants about how much of a "nazi" I am or we are. I really don't find that to be a good way to begin finding solutions.

So let's say that PixelJoint WOULD accept any and all remotely viewed as pixel art pieces? What about all the lackluster 5 minutes doodles as well? What would the outcome be? Would we just become another pixel art gallery as seen at deviantART? What are the pros and cons?

I am open to your thoughts :)