The abstractionist should not make their resolution that fine so that in the single pixel no longer feels like it belongs.
I don't understand what you're saying, is someone able to rephrase this for me. By "their resolution that fine" do you mean small resolution? "single pixel no longer feels like it belongs", what does that mean? Maybe I'm just out of touch with feelings.
Fine resolution generally refers to more pixels in less space. Each pixel is less significant, as more pixels are used to draw the total picture.
For example: in a 32x32 picture, there are 1024 pixels. Each pixel can be said to have a significance of 1/1024 (though grouping of pixels can result in a given set of pixels with N members having much greater significance than N/total_picture_pixels)
In a 16x16 picture, 256 elements, each pixel 1/256th important.
64x64 -> 4096, and so on:
...
256x256 -> 65536
...
400x300 -> 120000
512x512 -> 262144
As the total number of pixels drops, so does the pixelliness rise. In my observation, 400x300 or 120000 pixels is about at the threshold between 'the individual pixel still signifies' and 'it doesn't really matter if that pixel's a bit out of place.'
Others might place the threshold lower, but the idea's the same; devaluation of currency(pixels) through excess supply
.
Anyway Helm sort of implicitly described a good heuristic too: Add a lone pixel to an existing picture. Can you make that pixel mean something in itself, without adding any other pixels? If not, the resolution may be too high to be pixelly.
