AuthorTopic: Pixel purism and the PixelJoint  (Read 41131 times)

Offline deziresoft

  • 0001
  • *
  • Posts: 25
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

Re: Pixel purism and the PixelJoint

Reply #60 on: February 28, 2009, 08:58:56 am
An "automated tool" could be considered the square or circle tool.  So, if pixeljoint found out that like the best creation there used the square tool, because of lack of time, and a bit of laziness, they would lose a piece?  This is by far, the worst statement I've ever heard.  To me, Green Raven was a fair man, now I lost my respect for him.  To allow something like this?  Wow, no.  I've got friends over at PJ, and they'll leave once they hear about that.

Offline Cure

  • 0011
  • **
  • Posts: 565
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • http://pixeljoint.com/p/2621.htm
    • facebook.com/logantannerart
    • View Profile

Re: Pixel purism and the PixelJoint

Reply #61 on: February 28, 2009, 11:40:51 am
I'm not entirely sure what post you're referring to, but we do not and have never had a problem with the circle or square tools.  If GreenRaven really did make such a statement, then it is of no consequence, as he is not a member of the staff.

On this note, I worked out a rough definition of pixel art for PJ:
The usage of tools is not restrictive to those tools that serve only to speed up the creation process.  The effects of tools that place any pixel in a manner unforeseeable by the artist are forbidden in the final piece submitted to the gallery. Such effects must be cleaned up manually by the artist to ensure pixel precision.  This applies not only to pixel arrangement, but color quantity as well, as such tools that create computer generated gradients, blurs, auto antialiasing or are in any way used to create colors not manually chosen by the artist must be refined before submission to the gallery.   The aforementioned methods are allowed only during the work stages of a piece, full control over each pixel’s place in the final product is required.

I realize that it's a bit wordy, and perhaps does not say everything that the community feels needs to be in a comprehensive definition.  Perhaps it even says too much.  Which is why I'm posting here.  If anyone would like to lend their suggestions, we are open to hear them, and would appreciate the pixel art community's input.

I would also like to note that I have reinstated Miascugh's unfairly revised work
No word yet on whether or not the circle tool was used ;)

Offline deziresoft

  • 0001
  • *
  • Posts: 25
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

Re: Pixel purism and the PixelJoint

Reply #62 on: February 28, 2009, 03:56:49 pm
I'm not entirely sure what post you're referring to, but we do not and have never had a problem with the circle or square tools.  If GreenRaven really did make such a statement, then it is of no consequence, as he is not a member of the staff.

On this note, I worked out a rough definition of pixel art for PJ:
The usage of tools is not restrictive to those tools that serve only to speed up the creation process.  The effects of tools that place any pixel in a manner unforeseeable by the artist are forbidden in the final piece submitted to the gallery. Such effects must be cleaned up manually by the artist to ensure pixel precision.  This applies not only to pixel arrangement, but color quantity as well, as such tools that create computer generated gradients, blurs, auto antialiasing or are in any way used to create colors not manually chosen by the artist must be refined before submission to the gallery.   The aforementioned methods are allowed only during the work stages of a piece, full control over each pixel’s place in the final product is required.

I realize that it's a bit wordy, and perhaps does not say everything that the community feels needs to be in a comprehensive definition.  Perhaps it even says too much.  Which is why I'm posting here.  If anyone would like to lend their suggestions, we are open to hear them, and would appreciate the pixel art community's input.

I would also like to note that I have reinstated Miascugh's unfairly revised work
No word yet on whether or not the circle tool was used ;)
Oh, sorry, I was talking about the first post.  And I meant staff on PJ.

Offline greenraven

  • 0001
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

Re: Pixel purism and the PixelJoint

Reply #63 on: February 28, 2009, 05:13:59 pm
Well, I was always thinking of making an account here. I suppose now's as good a time as any. What a first post, eh? :lol:

An "automated tool" could be considered the square or circle tool.  So, if pixeljoint found out that like the best creation there used the square tool, because of lack of time, and a bit of laziness, they would lose a piece?  This is by far, the worst statement I've ever heard.  To me, Green Raven was a fair man, now I lost my respect for him.  To allow something like this?  Wow, no.  I've got friends over at PJ, and they'll leave once they hear about that.

1) I'm confused on what it is that you think I said. I'm getting the feeling like words are being put in my mouth. If I did say something like that, then I clearly don't remember saying it, care to show me a link to said statement? ???

2) Telling all your friends to 'pack up and leave' instead of working past problems isn't all too mature. No one is forcing you to stay, and no one is certainly forcing you to leave. We all have freewill to make decisions for ourselves.


Now then, as for this whole debate:

I think that we, PixelJoint as a whole community, need to sit down and hold some sort of town meeting of sorts to decide on new rules and guidelines.

Second of all, I may disagree on quite a few rules on PJ, and I make plenty of NPA. No one is stopping me from making NPA, yet at the same time no one is forcing my hand on that 'submit' button. I find it a bit ridiculous every time someone throws a hissy fit and storms off because something didn't get accepted into the gallery. What belongs on PJ, I submit to PJ. What doesn't, I don't. Otherwise I'm just there to browse the gallery and enjoy a fun atmosphere with my friends.


That's all I have to say for the moment, but I've got lots more to say overall, all in due time.  :hehe:

As for getting new mods on staff over at PJ, I have only this to say: "A good food critic does not necessarily have to be a good chef." (I guess that's my little way of saying 'I'm up to it' (Or at least I think I am.))  ;)

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 #64 on: February 28, 2009, 07:02:18 pm
I think it would be good to go over the whole ruleset and try to clean it up in a fashion that breathes professionalism and is not ambiguous in any part.

Your new definition on tool usage is good, but maybe a bit wordy. It's hard to condense though, since every word provides clear meaning. I like it.

Offline The B.O.B.

  • 0011
  • **
  • Posts: 699
  • Karma: +3/-0
  • currently losering it up...
    • View Profile

Re: Pixel purism and the PixelJoint

Reply #65 on: February 28, 2009, 07:55:44 pm
Guess I'll say my part.

   Being a mod at Pixel Joint, I must admit, I've actually sent more pieces back for not being of "good quality" more than I've sent back supposed accused "NPA" pieces. I've always held it firm, that the usage of a tool shouldn't matter, in terms of pixel art, as long as the user attains full control over his piece. I know of some users who actually draw their pieces on paper, scan it, reduce, than pixel over it. THIS IS FINE. Why some users feel we don't allow this, is beyond me. What I DO have a problem with, is stealing and copying. Just blatantly copy and pasting ANOTHER PERSON'S creation, editing it, and calling it their own. That's just down right wrong, in my book. This is also the reason why I'm weary of some Demoscene artists that join PixelJoint.
   They are great artists, no doubt, but their methods aren't clean to begin with, in my oh so humble opinion. Several create pieces in the method mentioned above, and others use an un-godly amount of colors in their pieces that makes one wonder "Why? Why not just ease your pain and do it in hi-res digital? What is the point in doing a piece like this?"...So in that respect, I do have a prejudice against high color count, and will definitely be prone to sending something back. Does high color count mean NOT pixel art? NO. In my personal believe, it's a quality issue.
   I'm always under the belief that if something is submitted under a pixel art category, it should respect it's history. It wasn't even called pixel art back then, but more so just drawing in a digital format, using software applications. And these applications were hindered to technical limitations, and restrictions. Later on, technology grew, and less limitations became apparent, giving digital artists more freedom. However, that's where our fine lines began to have been drawn, over what belongs where. No one likes to be labeled, but it's hard to deny the visual traits certain things have. More to the point, a user who pixels something with a color count in the triple digits and beyond, that isn't a game, or multi-layered mock-up is merely missing the point of pixel art: Learning how to work with a palette wisely enough and work within set restrictions to make a said piece. That being said, pixel art can be fun without restrictions, and sometimes it's ok to work outside the box. However, to keep with tradition, it's always good practice to work within set limitations, for creative growth.
   Yes, the previous paragraph does have some gray areas, with things that are, and aren't accepted. But that comes with the territory, any time you try and label something, or try to define the undefinable. It's really a matter of personal taste, over what is what. Good and evil have different meanings upon different cultures and beings. After all, I don't walk into a grocery store and ask them to fix my car, and question why. That's just down right silly. Cause I know that's the way they run business there. It's there way of life.(blegh, I'm blabbering)

   At any rate, it's always been difficult for me to see why some users complain over the site's issues. Maybe I'm just blind to the problems, or have been there too long to even notice. The only thing I can say, is that the other mods on our team have been fairly wonderful in terms of solving some of our user base's main issues, and have done well behind the scenes, where ABSOLUTELY NO PRAISE is given' for what we do to help keep the site tidy, or going. But again that comes with the job, I suppose. All in all, I can say(with the exception of a previous mod) that everyone of them have performed fairly well with PJ. But I'm glad that our team is finally approaching these issues with an open mind, as there are some things mentioned that I've asked in the past, that I think are finally going to be put into fruition, and it seems we're all on the same page now.

Toodles!
my back hurts...

Offline Willows

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

Re: Pixel purism and the PixelJoint

Reply #66 on: February 28, 2009, 09:01:52 pm
As for getting new mods on staff over at PJ, I have only this to say: "A good food critic does not necessarily have to be a good chef." (I guess that's my little way of saying 'I'm up to it' (Or at least I think I am.))  ;)

A good food critic does not have to be a good chef, sure, but he's not gonna be a good food critic unless he devotes himself to his art... and even if he does, an excellent chef will probably still be better able to identify the smaller flaws that occured while cooking than the good critic.

I guess what I'm saying is both a critic and an artist may be able to identify the flaws in a piece of artwork, but the experienced artist is more likely to see the source of the flaws, having actively experienced them himself at least once in his career.

(Sorry for doubting you at the beginning, 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 #67 on: February 28, 2009, 10:09:19 pm
The usage of tools is not restrictive to those tools that serve only to speed up the creation process.  The effects of tools that place any pixel in a manner unforeseeable by the artist are forbidden in the final piece submitted to the gallery. Such effects must be cleaned up manually by the artist to ensure pixel precision.  This applies not only to pixel arrangement, but color quantity as well, as such tools that create computer generated gradients, blurs, auto antialiasing or are in any way used to create colors not manually chosen by the artist must be refined before submission to the gallery.   The aforementioned methods are allowed only during the work stages of a piece, full control over each pixel’s place in the final product is required.
That's a damn good definition as far as I'm concerned. It does need some editing down (and a paragraph break), which I'm working on presently.
One thing is that the first sentence puzzles me (as a linguist, or even as a layman). The immediate idea that comes out when I read it is that of tools using tools (a facetious commentary on the value of pixeling? :). Obviously this is not what you meant. Did you mean 'restricted' rather than 'restrictive' (this makes a little more sense to me, I'm still not entirely sure what the thrust of this sentence is, though.)? Could you clarify here please?

My other main concern is that the English used is perhaps a little too professorial. We know that people with different native languages will be reading this, so IMO we need to cut out words such as 'aforementioned' and 'unforeseeable' if possible.

You seem to have focused mainly on adding colors (blur, gradients, auto-aa, any effect that adds colors). Spatial distortion is also relevant.

A rough edited version follows:
Quote from: Ai
The usage of tools is not restricted to those tools that serve only to speed up the creation process.  The effects of tools that place any pixel in a manner unforeseeable by the artist, such as:
* gradients
* blurs
* auto antialiasing
* image warping
* any effect which is used in any way to create colors not manually chosen by the artist
 are forbidden in the final piece submitted to the gallery.
Effects of this kind must be cleaned up manually by the artist to ensure pixel precision. Both pixel arrangement and color quantity must be refined before submission to the gallery. Such methods are allowed only during the work stages of a piece, full control over each pixel's place in the final product is required.

The list IMO serves to break up the definition text and reduce the 'wall-of-text' impression.
If you insist on being pessimistic about your own abilities, consider also being pessimistic about the accuracy of that pessimistic judgement.

Offline deziresoft

  • 0001
  • *
  • Posts: 25
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

Re: Pixel purism and the PixelJoint

Reply #68 on: March 01, 2009, 06:26:44 am
Raven, I'm not putting words into your mouth, but as the first post stated, a piece, that used an automated tool, was removed for that reason.  The fact that it's still pixel art shouldn't take it's right away from the gallery, it's all I'm saying.

Apologies if I came off to strong. ^^


~Joe

Offline greenraven

  • 0001
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

Re: Pixel purism and the PixelJoint

Reply #69 on: March 01, 2009, 07:31:36 am
It's ok. Coming off strong just means you're passionate about something. I won't have it any other way when people are talking to me. :P

I was just slightly confused about what it is that you think I said. Because I'm often sad when awesome pieces never leave the queue due to 'technicalities'.

It's the little technicalities I think we need to talk about in our PJ town meeting. If and when we ever have one.