How did the old masters create their pixel artwork (e.g. Simon the Sorcerer)?

[Cence]

Hey,

I regularly get caught in admiring pixel art from the past and just finished watching a Simon the Sorcerer II longplay:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6QKTEVJiX8

I'm a programmer and don't have a knack for detailed (pixel) art. That's why I always ask myself how they used to achieve such beatiful art like in Simon the Sorcerer in the past and what programs they used to do so.
I can't imagine that they painted every single pixel one by one, especially for the large background scenery which would take ages to get done. What was the technique they used?

Thanks!

Cence

[Helm]

Deluxe Paint or Personal Paint or other variants on the Amiga.

[Gil]

There are certainly parts in Simon the Sorcerer that would hardly be called pixel art by today's standards. Deluxe Paint in capable hands is able to do many things that only resurfaced later on with PhotoShop and PaintShop on PC.

[Helm]

Photoshop came out first on Macintosh computers actually and it was a shock to deluxe paint users on their Amigas at the time, I believe. That shock can be seen in the high-color artwork their demoscene went on to do, and how little respect they had for pixels in the end run.

[JJ Naas]

The difference between Deluxe Paint and Photoshop is that Photoshop was created for photo manipulation purposes, where as all the tools and features in Deluxe Paint were strictly meant for doing pixel art and animation.

[Gil]

I don't agree that Deluxe Paint was made for pixel art. Most of the special brushes in Deluxe Paint do not offer pixel perfect control.

It was a great tool for making pixel art, but it was also made to create elaborate CG pieces that had nothing to do with pixel perfect skills. If you go and look at the Simon the Sorceror games, you will find areas that have little in common with our current definition of pixel art.

Photoshop came out first on Macintosh computers actually and it was a shock to deluxe paint users on their Amigas at the time, I believe. That shock can be seen in the high-color artwork their demoscene went on to do, and how little respect they had for pixels in the end run.

Yes, that's more accurate, I was oversimplifiyng a bit of course

[Helm]

Deluxe Paint wasn't made to do pixel-level precision and control pixel art at all. If anything it was made to as elaborately as possible, hide the pixels. That people used it for pixel art is because it was a remarkable piece of software, not because it was fundamentally geared towards any sort of purism.

[questseeker]

The younger generations need some historical perspective on the remarks on Deluxe Paint by Helm and Gil.

Today we have a few classes of specialized image editors, and those that are specialized for pixel art are rather similar to Deluxe Paint 20 years ago; but in its heyday, Deluxe Paint was state of the art and it filled the same non-niche as Photoshop today: everybody used it for any image editing need.

We tend to think of Deluxe Paint as a pixel art tool because in the technological middle age when it was made any image had a limited colour palette and a small resolution (typically married in some restricted and often bizarre video mode); even in photographs single pixels mattered, and any image was effectively pixel art.

There was a long push towards higher resolution and less restricted colour: video cards improved their DAC from 2 bits if you ask nicely, to a large palette of 256 colours, to "hi-colour"  modes (15/16 bits without a palette), to the current standard of 8 bits per channel. Meanwhile game graphics had to trade off resolution against colour depth, making the most of dithering, palette animation etc., and affordable high quality scanners and digital cameras were yet to come.

Image editing software obviously tried to automate realistic effects, slowly "evolving" from pushing pixels to fuzzy brushes of uncertain size as image resolution increased. The most discontinuous step in the evolution of image editors was abandoning true palettes to emulate them in 24/32 bpp images as partially as the software developer cares to.

[Helm]

Well said.

[Mathias]

The younger generations need some historical perspective on the remarks on Deluxe Paint by Helm and Gil. . .

How I wish I could've been in graphics back then, to see the evolution.

[JJ Naas]

Younger generation? Me? Ha! I've been using DP since I got my Amiga 500 in 1990.

I guess I never got to upload any photos to my Amiga so I never tested how it'd handle photos, I still used DP after I switched to PC in the mid 90's, and I remember that there wasn't a single tool on DP that couldn't have been utilized for making pixel art (at least up until DP4, that was last one I've used). Photoshop ( 4,5 ), on the other hand, was filled with features not relevant for making pixel art. So whatever the intentions of the makers were,  DP 2 on PC was for long the one I turned to when I did pixel art, because it didn't have any useless photo filter and print graphic features.

And the animation feature on DP 4 is still better than the one on the latest Photoshop.. on CS3 anyway.

[questseeker]

I still used DP after I switched to PC in the mid 90's, and I remember that there wasn't a single tool on DP that couldn't have been utilized for making pixel art (at least up until DP4, that was last one I've used). Photoshop ( 4,5 ), on the other hand, was filled with features not relevant for making pixel art. So whatever the intentions of the makers were,  DP 2 on PC was for long the one I turned to when I did pixel art, because it didn't have any useless photo filter and print graphic features.

Everything in Deluxe Paint is appropriate for pixel art simply because nothing more advanced could be done at the time, not by design; later software like Photoshop parted ways with your needs but kept the basic "philosophy" of remaining technologically current and offering the greatest resolution, colour fidelity and fancy tools; for example, Deluxe Paint boasted support for the Amiga's new and advanced graphical capabilities, a technological feat not unlike using the GPU for computationally intensive image processing filters in today's Photoshop.

Users like you repurposed Deluxe Paint as a pixel art specialty tool and imitated it in newer software, but in its "life" it never was one. The only proper pixel art tools are modern, specialized "retro" creations that enjoy their niche and are willing to throw away mainstream features for "purity": quite the opposite of old software, which even if it was functionally similar was actually constrained by small resolution and palettes, and of its typical users, who would have been glad to be less constrained.

Pixel art became a specialty rather than image editing tout court over the course of a few years when, because of technological advancements, pixel-oriented techniques ceased to be relevant to the state of the art of computer imaging, and Deluxe Paint suddenly became obsolete compared with Photoshop and the new generation of direct-colour image editing software.

[STE 86]

you know, as one who WAS actually working there during your "halcyon" days of pixel art, i can honestly say that some of you talk a "a right load of cobblers" about "pixel art purity" and all your other guff.

ofc Dpaint was a pixel pushing app, as was Koalapaint before it and Degas Elite along side it.

Steve

[Helm]

Steve please explain to us what these 'load of cobblers' are in particular, we will appreciate your wisdom.

[TheOne]

Yes STE, what are these cobblers? Please detail your cobbles. I’ll give an example to help you out:

“Everything in Deluxe Paint is appropriate for pixel art simply because nothing more advanced could be done at the time, not by design;”

Is a cobbler because:

More advanced programs for photo manipulation came out before Deluxe Paint 4.5 (which versions are we talking about, all of them?):

http://www.atarimagazines.com/compute/issue90/Reviews_Digi-Paint_For_Amiga.php

DP4.5 had advanced non pixel art features such as Ham support, shade and perspective tools.

DP was made by EA and used to make EA games (such as Budokan). You could argue that it was designed for this and making game art with 32 colors corresponds to ‘pixel purity’.

Or is it ALL cobbles?

Are you saying a generation of people living without computer restrictions and not making computer drawings for a living cannot understand the perspective of a generation who worked within real restrictions to make money? Or are you suggesting that the cobbles is part of a deliberate misunderstanding (similar to Harold Bloom’s analysis of poets):

http://thesatirist.com/books/anxiety_of_influence.html

[STE 86]

i guess basically what gets to me is terms like "pixel purity" and the making of rules and regulations as to what does does and doesnt classify as "pixel art"

pixel art to the generations that never got paid for has now taken on a "fine art" slant with many on here it seems. with much talking about the "trade" couched in such "arty" terms that i guess it just winds up "graphic designers" (or maybe its just me:) )

u have to understand that to many in the trade, it used to be a real "them" and "us" between fine art students/artists and graphic design students/artists.

basically what it came down to was "we" worked for a living and "they" lived on government handouts unless they got very lucky

realistically what i suppose i take exception to when i say "cobblers" is a percieved (by me) "fine art" drift of a trade that was very dear to me and so it really sets my teeth on edge a bit like listening to someone spouting pretentious crap about a pile of bricks in a gallery trying to impress his lady friend

back to the realms of reality and the applications tho, i do appreciate what u say about it being a pixel app simply because thats all it could do, which is completely true. i would ask you to consider that the truth is, if it could have done more, would we have used these options?

YES we would. tbh we would have killed for photoshop airbrush and where would the "purity" have been then? basically YOUR "pixel purity" stems from the fact that OUR apps couldnt do all we would have liked (is that very deep and philosophical or what)

lastly (thank god u say) i have seen since reading this type of forum many, many crits and tutorials that seem to tell any newbie that to show any pixels or jaggies is bad form. i cant say i can agree with this at all. pixels are your media to deny them and to disguise them all makes IMHO for a very flat and boring image. the way i look at it is that its like an oil painter not wanting to show any brushstrokes, it not natural to me.

hopefully some of this will make sense and explain my "knee jerk" post previously in some way.

Steve

[TheOne]

I don't think it was a knee jerk reaction to say the idea of "pixel purism" is pretentious crap. I mean, our Administrator himself said as much:

"What's fascinating for me for the average pixel artist regurgitating those philosophical bullet points (many of which I've endorsed in Pixelation for what will soon be a decade) is how self-delusional they are." http://www.wayofthepixel.net/pixelation/index.php?PHPSESSID=609038b1f0fa07e091c48946fe205cb9&topic=9913.0

The good news is that not everyone bought into the cobblers. Here's an example where someone approached Simon the Sorcerors graphics with the right attitude:
http://www.pixeljoint.com/pixelart/14250.htm

PS. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a game that had jagginess in its graphics (and that was good). Do you have examples? Perhaps jagginess was less of a problem on CRT monitors.

[#36005A]

I think part of the divide in opinion comes from some people looking at pixel art as an exact, precise, fine art form, and other people, who are looking purely for nostalgia. Of course these aren't the only two types of pixel art fans, nor are those two categories mutually exclusive, but I think it helps make a little sense of why there's so much of a dispute. Pixel art may have all stemmed from the same source, but it has evolved into a large and compartmentalized community that holds many different beliefs and ideas as to what pixel art is and why it is important to them.

[Gil]

Sorry STE 86, but there IS a difference between what we call "pixel art" on this site and any image made before 1994. The times you reminisce about didn't even have pixel art.

Notice the pixel ART bit. We strive to put a scholarly background behind the world of pixel art, this was the original intention of the people starting this forum in the first place (Tsugumo, FrozenEMU, etc). Deconstruct earlier work and try to find methods. Encourage members to follow classical schooling first, then take up pixel art. Find specific patterns in how pixel clusters work together and how these patterns can be used to enhance your own work.

We work in an atmosphere of serious art critique, where other members are encouraged to deconstruct and reconstruct work.

All this has elevated the medium we use over the years and resulted in a whole slew of improvements. Early demoscene work for example is in my opinion full of artwork lacking basic fundamentals such as decent color theory (for 8bpp pieces and up), composition and proper lighting.

"Pixel purism" is an elitist dirty term, but the effort to put a base of scholarly knowledge behind the trade is not.

This is all my opinion, it doesn't necessarily mean the mods and members will agree.

u have to understand that to many in the trade, it used to be a real "them" and "us" between fine art students/artists and graphic design students/artists.

I am very glad we got rid of that part

[STE 86]

ah but u see i dont actually reminisce about pre 1994 as "pixel art" in fact i had never even heard the term before frequenting these boards last year. to me it was enjoyable graphics design, but it wasnt life changing art. only the current crop of "artists" seem to view it as that.

also i would never refer to myself as an "artist" only ever a "designer". i work for a living. once in games now in advertising.

see, "classical schooling" makes me want to retch already. i'm afraid in this quest for scholarly knowledge u mention, u seem to have turned what should be a fun and interesting passtime into something which comes across as sanctimonious and utterly pretentious.

lighten up people. its graphics not fine art. it should be FUN and EXCITING and DYNAMIC not deep and meaningful and boring as fuck.

Steve

[Atnas]

steve where have you been all this time <3

not much to add, I'm really enjoying this. It's like you've come through in a time machine to do battle, you add a whole new dynamic to the tired argument which has had the same tired participants saying the same tired things. and it's awesome

[7321551]

Correct me if I've misinterpreted, but:
graphic designer : spontaneity :: fine artist : theory ?
That's almost the opposite of how I conceive it...

Wouldn't a graphic designer, who wants to get the job done & create a picture with a distinct practical purpose in mind, just adopt the theory & employ it much like a carpenter would use his tools? That's the role of good theory for me. Tools of the trade.

In contrast, wouldn't someone who wants to be considered a fine artist, & who wants their pieces to be seen as imbued with some more elusive/intangible/indescribable concept of meaning & significance, have more motivation to avoid theoretical interpretations (or maybe adopt an obscurantist theory) in fear that thorough inspection results in revealing the piece to be meaningless?

[ptoing]

So what you think is or isn't "FUN and EXCITING and DYNAMIC" has to be the same for everybody?

What this is starting to turn into is the old and futile discussion about what is art. Alphonse Mucha's main body of work is mostly commercial illustration, same goes for Toulouse-lautrec, and lots of other "artists". Still their works are in museums and considered as art and enjoyed by many.

I do not see a problem there. People are different and perceive different. I for one do not think that most pixelart is "art", that does not mean it can not be, that it can not have depth and meaning (without being boring). Thinking about something and figuring things out about a painting or whatever piece of art, can be fun and exciting as well.

But to close this, the main point of this forum is to help people get better with pixelart, the craft. And many people here are actually professionally active in the games industry working as artists (me included). And still I do pixelart for fun at home which often has nothing to do with games or has no application. I do it because I enjoy playing with the medium and the aesthetics which are unique to it.

[TheOne]

‘So what you think is or isn't "FUN and EXCITING and DYNAMIC" has to be the same for everybody?’
Isn’t that what you call an ad-hominine? Instead of addressing the point Steve made, which is that theory can get in the way of fun drawings, you say ‘Steve’s a nazi’.

‘But to close this, the main point of this forum is to help people get better with pixelart, the craft.’
So draw (or link to) a picture which replicates some good features of Simon the Sorcerer (and where the method is set out). None of the feel good history lesson and labelling of DP prior to Steve’s comments relate to the forum goal either.

‘In contrast, wouldn't someone who wants to be considered a fine artist ... have more motivation to avoid theoretical interpretations?’
Not unless they are a poor artist and need to prop up their art with a wordy explanations.

‘Wouldn't a graphic designer ... just adopt the theory’
Not unless the theory is bollocks that can’t be applied. For example, claiming that a person’s drawings will look like themselves because it is a "subconscious process" says nothing and justifies poor drawings.

[7321551]

‘Wouldn't a graphic designer ... just adopt the theory’
Not unless the theory is bollocks that can’t be applied. For example, claiming that a person’s drawings will look like themselves because it is a "subconscious process" says nothing and justifies poor drawings.

I agree that your example theory is bollocks. It's not grounded in observation, it's just some groundless assertion derived from psychoanalysis. Do you mean to say that those sorts of theories are commonplace on the forum? I think there's a qualitative difference...

@blumunkee: uh good point.

[blumunkee]

Shut up and pixel.

[Helm]

What a fascinating thread.

I don't think it was a knee jerk reaction to say the idea of "pixel purism" is pretentious crap. I mean, our Administrator himself said as much:

"What's fascinating for me for the average pixel artist regurgitating those philosophical bullet points (many of which I've endorsed in Pixelation for what will soon be a decade) is how self-delusional they are."

You might be misunderstanding me not so much in what I mean but the scope of my statement. There's certainly a lot of pixel art that is made outside of what you seem to consider 'proper' channels that I would consider extremely effective as art or that I find enjoyable or that touches me, take your pick. I didn't say that everyone is delusional about what it takes to make art in Pixelation, Pixeljoint, or wherever else. Most people *will* take the easy outs, but they did the same back in the demoscene and they did the same back in the whatever period of art history you want to go back to. Bullshitting is an art-form in itself.

There's many things more that could be touched upon but personally I find it most telling and interesting that the user STE 86 has an avatar of what appears to be a copy of a photo from Lethal Weapon, telling people here that basically 'they're doing it wrong'.

Which isn't to say that my observation above is a scathing remark meant to make you shut up, to the opposite, I'm very interested in whatever further you have to say, it's illuminating about many things. That pixel purism is a 00's thing I was aware of, it's good to see other points of view on that. That you would have killed for photoshop paintbrush I was aware of because the moment 'the scene' did get photoshop paintbrush, the 'pixely' aspect of it was 90% dead overnight, but it's good to hear your opinion on it. That there are however proponents or leftovers from the 80's mentality of 'cutting edge cgi' having passed through the pixel art realm that both claim their (largely copied or derivative or both) art is better than the little nintendo-inspired sprites and game mockups and doodles that 00's kids post while being made with a completely different mentality and toolset but also that their said art is MORE true to some pixel ethos is something else I've noticed...

[ptoing]

‘So what you think is or isn't "FUN and EXCITING and DYNAMIC" has to be the same for everybody?’
Isn’t that what you call an ad-hominine? Instead of addressing the point Steve made, which is that theory can get in the way of fun drawings, you say ‘Steve’s a nazi’.

‘But to close this, the main point of this forum is to help people get better with pixelart, the craft.’
So draw (or link to) a picture which replicates some good features of Simon the Sorcerer (and where the method is set out). None of the feel good history lesson and labelling of DP prior to Steve’s comments relate to the forum goal either.

I agree that my first comment was a bit snarky, but hello?, I did call no one a Nazi, thank you. It just seemed to me that Steve is a bit closed minded when it comes to different perception. For some people THEORY is fun, does not mean it has to be for everybody. Also he goes and says there is a difference between graphics and art, but is there? They are at least both visual media and as such I think both have the quality to be art. Making distinctions like "THIS is graphics! THAT is art!", and saying they are mutually exclusive is not very helpful.

To address your comment on the 2nd bit you quoted just look around the forum, you will find plenty of helpful posts people have done, and then specifically the feature chest

That said, this will probably be the last post I make in this thread, since I have better things to do than to discuss what is art and what not.

[STE 86]

oh ho, i would like to ask why exactly i am "close minded" simply because i object to people telling new guys that "u MUST work like this because THE RULES say so" quite honestly i would say that YOU are the close minded one for insisting on rules at all. also u suggest that i am saying that "fun exciting and dynamic" have to be the same for everyone? again i refer u to the fact that u quote "rules" and "methods" not I.

exactly what is the point of being narky about my avatar? my avatar was done by me on a commodore 64 in 1989 and was the last non commercial pic i ever did on said machine and was possibly my most remembered. it has no "deep and meaningful" significance. its just a nice piece of 80s c64 graphics. kind of like the point i have been making about "prententious cobblers" maybe?

oh and point of order, i am telling nobody on here they are "doing it wrong" simply i am saying that is EXACTLY what all your rules and methodology and copious "do's" and "do nots" seem to do.

I too have posted on here a few times and on the pixel joint. but generally my advice to new guys amounts to "stop trying to make it up" and "use real world refs" when they ask for crits. maybe i should start adding in phrases like "luminance quantization" and other invented pretentious rubbish to get noticed?

Steve

[ptoing]

I for one do not care about rules too much when it comes to making pixelart. Tho in a way "pixelart" as many people see it is different from what people did back then when there was nothing more "advanced", for lack of a better word. If I do commercial work I could not care less about the amount of colours or the tools I use as long as it gets the job done and the client is happy, but I also enjoy working with restraints when it comes to my personal work I do in my free time. I guess I just enjoy fiddley stuff like that.

I agree to a certain degree that the whole NPA thing and people saying, this is not pixelart for this and that reason has gone a bit out of hand in places.

[TheOne]

"Bullshitting is an art-form in itself"

Maybe to you.

"luminance quantization"

oooh! tell me more. How does it relate to pixelclusters?

"That said, this will probably be the last post I make in this thread, since I have better things to do ..."

Good thing you put the probably. Ptioing I know you are generous with your time and knowledge. Your AA tute is interesting and useful for example. But that doesn't mean you weren't trying to win an argument with a trick. Same with 7321551, I never said it was common, that's a straw-man argument.

Here's the thing. How frequent the cobblers are isn't the issue. What is important is that if someone sees a cobbler on a thread anywhere in pixelation, he/she should be able to address it without other people resorting to narky comments about their avatar or other forms of denial (btw i thought the likeness is pretty good ste86). That would reduce the cobblers and everyone would be better off.

Lastly (still there?), don't just think only ideas and theories can be cobblers. Serious critique has serious limitations. Avoiding doing bad things in a drawing is not the same as producing a great drawing. Drawing by committee sucks!!!!

[Helm]

Steve: the point about your avatar is not that it's bad, it's that it's old. It's from the 80s, and your point of view is from the 80's as well. This doesn't make it good, bad, correct or incorrect, it just makes it old and that explains a lot about what you're saying about art, about 'graphics and design' and ultimately about 'cobblers'. You talk about being a professional in the field as if that's a badge of legitimacy, where a lot of people on this forum also quiety work in the field today and have the opposite views to you when it comes to how pixel art is. It's mostly your problem that you cannot adjust to new circumstances and you're trying to argue about how the circumstances should drift back towards your comfort zone. Pixelation's not going to change in that way, there will be no distinction between 'art' and 'design' and 'graphics' here. There WILL be a lot of 'blind leading the blind' in the critique section of the forum which will always lead to slow but assured positive movement for the whole of the userbase. Critique will never be exhausted to 'use reference more'. If you can live with that, stick around and post your new art for critique and/or help others with your wisdom! If it doesn't suit you, you should find somewhere else where your point of view is the norm, not reactionary.

TheOne, your points of view being what they are I do not see how Pixelation is of any use to you. You could stick around and try to affect change on this thread as long as you're civil, but I don't think Pixelation is ready to give up on critique because you feel it's limiting. Do you have something better to do with your time? I feel like that sometimes too and then I don't post my art on Pixelation for critique (=I go do something better with my time).

I do think that critique has an 'expiration date' as far as the growth of an artist goes and it doesn't so much have to do with hittiing a high enough skill level so that critique becomes irrelevant, it has to do with the psychological effects of 'being told you're doing it wrong': for some stages in an artist's evolution, it's very good to hear these things, at some other stages it's either irrelevant or even detrimental. Sometimes one artist can go from critique being beneficial to him to being detrimental and then back to beneficial. One has to look at his own situation honestly and judge if a place like Pixelation is useful to them at that point in their lives. People that outgrow receiving critique in Pixelation are welcome to stick around and just post it. People that do not believe in the critique process altogether can hit the road and do us all a favor.

What is important is that if someone sees a cobbler on a thread anywhere in pixelation, he/she should be able to address it without other people resorting to snarky comments about their avatar or other forms of denial (btw i thought the likeness is pretty good ste86).

No you see, what is important in Pixelation is that people are encouraged to post critique (even if it's unfounded, strange or even blatantly bad critique) and let the original artists take from it what they want, without disruptive people like you that have a score to settle breathing down their necks. It's an issue of atmosphere and of community. All denials are equal, Pixelation has a scope that needs be maintained for it to be useful. If you have different thoughts on how an art critique board should be ran (and it seems you do) by all means, go start the board and I'll be eagerly watching how it grows and what it does differently. I learn better from example than I do by being told 'I'm doing it wrong', that's just how Pixelation made me.

You have voiced your concerns here in this thread and they're up for public discussion, please keep it to this thread though and make a further effort to be honest and courteous to people. You might want to drop the irony and such for this.

[Jakten]

"u MUST work like this because THE RULES say so"

I'm kind of confused... You make it sound as though this forum is ruled with some kind of Iron fist. It's not like people are busting your knuckles for not putting AA underneath that eyeball or something. Over the years people have found what works well and generally encourage people to use those things to make their images look nicer. This especially applies to pixel art due to the fact that such a small image needs to be able to be recognizable. Working in the industry I want to be able to make attractive art, I want people to be able to tell what it is I am making.

I agree that art should not be bound to any sort of rules, but you have to have some kind of guidelines or methods other wise you are just scribbling. You should always have fun with what you make but I don't see anything wrong with wanting to have fun in a more skilled way. Wanting to be better is not bad...? Understanding what makes an image look good to me only means you can have MORE fun with it. AND You can make it more FUN for the viewer to see it in the process. Imagine how fun it is to be able to reproduce your imagination vividly. I remember having fun drawing stick figures as a kid, I remember how often what I made was misinterpreted too. They are guidelines not rules.

Anyways a lot of people here like to see what makes things tick, it's fun to them. I like taking apart mechanical things and finding out why it works, Its similar to that.

[TheOne]

More straw-man arguments. I pointed out critique has limitations that’s all. YOU extrapolated it because there is actually nothing wrong with what I said. I’ll say it again in case you didn’t get it the first time.

Great drawings requires focus. Input from too many users (with different ideas about what the piece should be about) is a detriment to the piece. Avoiding doing bad things is not the same as making great drawings. Great drawings can still have mistakes! http://insomnia.ac/essays/on_criticism/

Why point out these obvious facts? Because people talk about critique like it’s magic.

“We work in an atmosphere of serious art critique, where other members are encouraged to deconstruct and reconstruct work.

All this has elevated the medium we use over the years and resulted in a whole slew of improvements.”

Yes I do have something better to do with my time  . Like smoke pot, feed my cats and deal with highschool exam flashbacks.

[Helm]

Good luck with all of that and thanks for the Schopenhauer.

[NaCl]

Interesting essay... but it seems very irrelevant. The only similar thing between this discussion and that seems to be the word "critique". He is describing art critics, people who judge art and compare art and artists against each other. In this forum, for the most part, critique is pointing out technical errors and suggesting solutions, sometimes through an edit. It has nothing to do with praising or condemning the artistic value of something. Schopenhauer specifically says, "In appreciating a genius, criticism should not deal with the errors in his productions or with the poorer of his works, and then proceed to rate him low". I firstly do not suspect anyone on this forum is a genius, and secondly I do not see anyone rating anyone else.

Anyway I'm not sure I understand your position... I'll assume it is that "critique has limitations", because that is what you said in your most recent post. No one is arguing that critique is limitless though... so I think it is you who is fighting the straw man. Critique is not magic, it's the fact that it takes time to learn how to create art, and some people are better at executing it then others. From that you have to draw the conclusion that better (better at executing specific things) artists helping worse (worse at executing certain things) artists is a good thing.

Sure great drawings require focus, and probably can not be made by input from too many people. But the two errors in that statement are:

- Assuming that aside from the critique, the person would be able to make great drawings. Not many people on this forum are at a point where making great drawings is even a possibility.
- Assuming the critique on this forum is about "what the piece should be about". It rarely is. The vast majority of the time it is about helping a person overcome technical errors in their work.

"Avoiding doing bad things in a drawing is not the same as producing a great drawing", I agree, but whose to say that producing great drawings is the immediate goal? For most pieces I post for critique the goal is to learn and improve.

[TheOne]

Damn. I guess my last ironic statement will backfire because no-one reads Helm’s blog.

Nacl if you want a clear position and argument then let’s start a formal debate! 3 posts each say and a word limit on each post of your choosing. You can start. Here’s the topic based on what Gil said: “Pixelation’s scholarly attitude and critique process has elevated pixelart above the level of Simon the Sorceror’s backdrops”

You’re probably right I likely misread people’s wooly self-gratifying statements and attack moronic straw men.

[NaCl]

Uhhhhh no. I have said what I wanted to say, on the topics that I care about. That is basically, "I find the critique provided on this board valuable". I don't care whether pixel art has been elevated or not.

[Sherman Gill]

Jesus Christ, TheOne.
It's really not doing you any favors by pointing out 'straw-man arguments', there is room for compromise between your opinion and theirs, so please, drop the attitude and debate tactics and consider being civil.

[Helm]

Also, here's a strike for you for being a jackass 

And a question so we could perhaps make this briefer, are you sharprm?

And another: do we need the grief?

I have the answer to that last one, we don't.

Consider your next post carefully!

[Fool]

Not sure if I follow the discussion all the way (lost in translation), but it is sounds a bit strange to think of critique as of trimming tool that aimed to crop pieces to the certain standards. People offer an opinion for artist  and thats all good as long as he will understand why he agree or disagree with it . In learning process it is priceless. Besides many (some, perhaps) pieces around here is leaning towards medium technique study and suffering with lack of general drawings knowledge and sometimes that is something hard to figure it out on your own if you unaware. Sure drawing is fun thing to do, but I think it is  dumb  to stand in the position of unappreciated genius when somebody ask wtf is it that? Of course it could be a piece appeared before its time, that happens - I remember when I took my only oil paining I made in my garage at nights to the art teacher to show. She looks at it for a while - all right, that is good, composition could be improved that way and what that horsy doing in here? I start explaining thats not a horsy, that is a fetus and it represents bla-bla-bla, point is - what is good  if nobody can understand the language you use? Critique here does the trick as well, again not from the statements how it should be.
I guess same goes  for the limitation - nobody state how many colors your art should be before it could be called art, mostly talking about questionable choices in palette you make - I recall in school art class teacher took  black and white tubes out of boxes  saying there is no such  colors around you, figure how to make it look black within remaining set. It did sounds Nazi back then, but teaching again not exactly about art  but rather thinking in certain direction and understanding choices you make. Plus technique in medium and such. After  tool chest is well packed everyone can do what ever fits their best.

Sorry if I am on the wrong trial here.

[vierbit]

This is a interesting discussion here, really enjoy reading it.
I´m personally not much of an art(yeah,yeah what is "art" anyway?) person myself, doing mostly game related stuff or
other "useful" graphics, and getting payed for it(maybe that influences my point of view?).
-
I often get the feeling most of the critics are opinions anyway, which is not necessary a bad thing.
If most people have the same opinion on something then isn´t de facto the norm?
Which in itself makes the "rules", and from my experience critique consist mostly of telling people the rules.
And I´m not a big friend of telling people how to draw their stuff. If there is something serious wrong with their "art"
they get it sooner or later them self.
-
Well just my two cents on critique, but maybe it´s total bollocks what I write here.

[STE 86]

I'm kind of confused... You make it sound as though this forum is ruled with some kind of Iron fist.

hmm. judging from a couple of helms posts to the one above are u absolutely certain of this? they do contain implied threat of banning to me.

but anyway,

my point of view has not changed at all in 20 years. i have always and will always loathe pretentious "arty" evaluations and crits. i WILL always opt for practical ones.

to me quoting some method or rule attributed to someone the reader will never even have heard of is not in the least useful to a newby. all it does is attempt to make the quoter feel self important and superior. many other people will have discovered the same method. they just wont know the pretentious name for it. i will guarantee it.

better by far to post a practical example of a real world photo or illustration or even just say "move x pixels slightly to the left and make them blue and your image balance will be better"

and i am getting the distict impression on here its "my way or the highway" despite all the senior members protestations otherwise.

Steve

[sharprm]

And a question so we could perhaps make this briefer, are you sharprm?

What do you think Goatf*cker?

I remember along time ago Dusty posted a pyramid. My intuition said urs were wrong. Now, I can’t find the proper diagrams which I did a little later (I post them on my deviant account in a few days), but there are ways to work out tileable pyramids and the answer was that

1)   Your pyramids had the layers too close to each other (ie. It was too steep) and my intuition was right
2)   It is possible to construct a pyramid that shows all the faces. Just interesting.

It was a case of right and wrong  and what did I get? Your little straw man: “I was pissed off at the comic”, you said. How is that scholarly?

The straw man does apply to me now because yes I am pissed. Check this out:

http://www.pixeljoint.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=7285

Altering a color reduced digital painting is not okay.
Altering a color reduced photo is not okay.

BOTH these restrictions are no longer followed by PJ. This flip-flop is EPIC (soon they’ll invite back Jocher, no?)

Well, actually, altering a color reduced painting was never a problem. Fantastic composition for this ‘mass’ drawing: http://www.pixeljoint.com/pixelart/20235.htm Here’s a ’line’ drawing to boot: http://www.pixeljoint.com/pixelart/7649.htm Both predate the previous thread.

Not knowing of these examples though, I tried to get PJ to accept color reduced paintings the hard way. I proved they can be passed off as pixelart by entering these two without mentioning the method: http://www.pixeljoint.com/pixelart/38491.htm  http://www.pixeljoint.com/pixelart/39335.htm I also wrote a long, god awful essay, explaining the limitations of placing &#145;each pixel by hand&#146;: http://gamesarentnumbers.com/archive/what-are-merits-pixel-art.html  Not to mention this digital drawing done earlier: http://sharprm.deviantart.com/art/PixelDump-151682238

Oh yeah, the color reduced photo thing: http://www.pixeljoint.com/pixelart/50320.htm?sec=showcase

Interesting how he mentions Helm’s piece. You see, in true 1984 fashion, history is being revised (is this scholarly?):

http://www.wayofthepixel.net/pixelation/index.php?PHPSESSID=ac7bd2a864e606810163fbe6a4aa3403&topic=9913.0

Two contentions made by Helm: Helm was never a pixel purist, color reducing a painting is new. Both false. I was entering my own color reduced painting (and being pretty vocal about it) while he was still in denial:

http://www.wayofthepixel.net/pixelation/index.php?topic=8464.msg95345#msg95345


There’s a difference though, I drew mine because it is a superior method, not because of some bullsh*t intellectual posing.

Wait, what is pixelart anyway? It’s the sum of every small digital piece a particular person thinks is good. It’s arbitrary, differs from person to person and is an utterly useless word (aside from naming the result of PJ’s filter). When people say pixelart is good, they’re saying absolutely nothing. When they say that something isn’t pixelart, all they’re saying is they don’t like it. Sometimes this is only because they couldn’t draw it themselves (eg. Simon the Sorceror backgrounds)!

How do we define pixelart so that everyone agrees on what it is (not what it should be)? Simple, just show the history of every PJ rejected piece (with counter examples). Did they go for it? (Did they even get it???)
http://www.pixeljoint.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9656

Nope.

Maybe Helm can rip that idea off too. “I don’t know how a system that resembles a well functioning legal system makes me feel ...”

They still wouldn’t go for it. Why? Because then they wouldn’t be able to flip-flop back again!

Lastly what’s up with all the abusing Helm? Think about it. Guy fails comic college (maybe Marvel comic lecturer was mean). Guy is upset. Guy pretends marvel comics aren’t good. Guy makes up garbage theories to compensate. Now is that scholarly?

[Helm]

hmm. judging from a couple of helms posts to the one above are u absolutely certain of this? they do contain implied threat of banning to me.

I'm afraid I've been misunderstood, and I fear a lot of your points so far are based on similar misunderstandings so let me be clearer.

As long as you're civil and keep your grievances to this thread (or if you are willing, in PM) this will never result in your banning (or in your receiving strikes). TheOne is the one that got his second strike. You were a bit aggressive in the beginning but got into more detail later on that justified your position and you appear a honest person. So please don't misunderstand, whereas I do not share your opinions, you are in no danger of being banned for them. As the rules of the forum state, people generally get banned here for being assholes, not just for having an unpopular opinion. TheOne above (and I suspect this isn't his first name in Pixelation) was being an asshole so he can either shape up or be ejected, that's pretty fair for most forums, isn't it? So once more to be clear: as long as you don't insult people either overtly or by insinuation that they're morons or hypocrites or whatever, you're fine.

my point of view has not changed at all in 20 years. i have always and will always loathe pretentious "arty" evaluations and crits. i WILL always opt for practical ones.

Are you sure there are 'pretentious arty evaluations and crits' in pixelation? Have you seen how much practical critique and help is given daily in the critique section of the boards? There *are* theory threads in the general part of the forum (the one we're currently in) that can be seen certainly as arty or over-theoretical or pretentious if you're inclined to make that judgement, but do you think they get in the way with how Pixelation is run as a critique board? The raison d'etre of Pixelation is the critique board. Go look at it and show me the pretentious art crap in it. The more theory-related threads in the gen forum are for those that are interested in such things and have received much positive attention for it, I don't think they get in the way of the nitty and gritty of "move that arm 3 pixels to the left".

It seems to me you're just grabbing a chance here to tell people you hardly know that you dislike pretentious artsy guys without much provocation.

to me quoting some method or rule attributed to someone the reader will never even have heard of is not in the least useful to a newby. all it does is attempt to make the quoter feel self important and superior. many other people will have discovered the same method. they just wont know the pretentious name for it. i will guarantee it.

I have no idea what you're talking about actually. The only name quoted in this thread so far has been of Schopenhaue and I didn't bring him up nor was the text of his linked here of any strict relevancy to the matter at hand. This seems like some general concern of yours that I am not certain how it has to do with how Pixelation conducts critique by and large. Care to link to such method or rule citing by users? Are you talking about basic stuff like 'anti-aliasing' or 'dithering' or something more involved here? It might be a case of misunderstanding again, clarifications would help.

better by far to post a practical example of a real world photo or illustration or even just say "move x pixels slightly to the left and make them blue and your image balance will be better"

But startling majority the critique in Pixelation is of this type.

and i am getting the distict impression on here its "my way or the highway" despite all the senior members protestations otherwise.

That's really up to you, if you think there's anything you can gain or give to Pixelation, stick around. If all you're intent on doing here is voice grievances, as I said above perhaps some other place is more suited for your needs. There are many! This is not an implication of banning, this is a suggestion. Either find some positive use of Pixelation or move on, doesn't that make sense? As a moderator, making sure that a positive atmosphere is maintained in Pixelation is one of my jobs and continuous never-ending bitching about things that simply might not suit a user eventually become a concern if they cannot be solved directly. This is my attempt at solving them.

Also I don't see any senior members protesting about anything related to you grievances, care to link to them, make it clearer to me what I'm missing?

edit:

sharprm before I answer anything I have sent you a PM, please reply.

[blumunkee]

I have nothing intellectual to add, but let me just say:

What was this discussion supposed to be about?

Don't be an ass.

Shut up and pixel.

I've seen people get instabanned for much less in other forums. Getting away with so many passive-aggressive personal attacks is unheard of. The mods here openly take criticism and are atypically easy-going and lenient.

I can't remember the last good old fashioned rant-filled flame we've had here. It seems there's been an unnaturally long dry spell of drama-free productivity and harmony. I've personally found this thread very entertaining. Not entertaining to the point where I feel compelled to make some popcorn and turn down the lights, but good nonetheless. There is something refreshing about reading this, like the Pixelation's chakras are being aligned. It's made all the more satisfying when you realize this thread was started by the first (and so far only) post from a new user. Brilliant.

[sharprm]

No hlem im not even going to read your pm. Blumunkee is right, there are 3 strikes between the fake account t’the one’ and ‘sharprm’, plus the additional goatf*cker, plus even having sock puppets. Ban me. I’ve said what I wanted to say. Let everyone get on with things.

Goatf*cker Goatf*cker Goatf*cker! 

[Helm]

Alright. For what it's worth I hope I stop being a source for aggravation for you at some point.

edit: also that's a good post number to call it a day on!

[The B.O.B.]

   Holy crap! While watching the thread in the background, I remember reading the first "TheOne" post, and thinking "*sigh*...I'm guessing this is Sharprm in sheep's clothing"...who else would jump on the chance at another silly debate of defining pixel art. Didn't want to say anything, but sad to see that I was right. Great artist, with an unfortunate bad attitude.
   More on topic, though: I thought the subject of this topic was: " How did the old masters create their pixel artwork (e.g. Simon the Sorcerer)?  "? This was answered in the first couple of posts, yet the topic has been derailed completely by something so silly.
   Did something happen here? Why is it when so innocent a topic is brought up with the generic sense "of how it's done", some person with built in rage has to come in, twist and turn it to his own personal agenda of " I'm gonna' show these young whippersnappers how we used to do things in the olds days!1!"
   It seems to me that the other side of the argument isn't understanding something that's very clear to the majority; This is a website with it's own personal opinion on something. ie, this is what Pixelation would LIKE pixel art to be, though it's not the definitive of the art form. It's the sites opinion on it, just like any other site, and by members joining, they are also showing a willingness to be compatible along with it. Baseball is a form of a sport. Players don't join baseball, and expect them to start allowing on field tackling, and gladiator bat-battles at each base. It's a sport with understood rules. You play by the rules, or get out. So easy a concept to understand, and it simply boggles my mind, when people come into something with set rules, and decide that they're rules are better.
   By arguing with the users here about that subject, you're only raising it higher in your own psyche(and possibly even others), that this site's opinion on pixel art is the definitive. Which it ISN'T. Again, it's just what we'd like it to be(which I agree with, and feel it's EXTREMELY helpful in shaping good pixel artists...the number of pixel artists who used these ideals have gone on to make games professionally, with QUALITY work.)These type of arguments go no where, because no one person has the high ground, or the final word on such a silly subject. There are gray areas between all forms of art, yet you feel the need to justify your claim with " Nuh uh, it's graphic art and fine art...critiquing on a new formulated opinion is totally pretentious. We do things the fun way, not the boring way. That's the way we used to roll, and how it should be!!1!". That's too silly to even take seriously. Sounds to me like you're unwilling to change your ideals of art, which I guess is fine, as it's your opinion. This can be respected, I suppose.
   But when nips turn into biting, this starts turning into a case of "trolling." The topic question was answered, but the need to keep pestering on with something so dumb, is beyond me. I just hope that the "protesters" of the means of pixel art, can understand this one day. And if you feel so strongly about the way things are handled, why not just make another site with it's own set of ideals on pixel art? You obviously feel you have something to prove here, so why not just take it a step further, and see if it develops into something worthwhile, rather than starting something troll-like, and trying to stop the rest of us in ENJOYING what we do.

[Jakten]

Pixeljoint

I don't think anyone disagree's that Pixeljoint has stupid rules. But that... is Pixeljoint?

I don't think anyone has ever been threatened to be banned or looked down up on for their process for making their art around here. You definitely aren't going to be banned for not following some ones critiques or what ever 'methods/rules'. Anyone posting a critique just wants to help someone improve, they can take that with a grain of salt or completely ignore it or gather what they want from it and use it to improve.

I'm not sure what you mean by quoting a method or rule but how else are we to get across our points without naming them? I never knew what Anti Aliasing was when I started out so I asked, this resulted in me learning a new tool.

Not to sound like a douche to you but I actually feel that your method comes off as you are trying to feel self-important or superior. If you've learned to work well on your own that is great, but don't look down on other peoples methods of learning. Im sorry if I'm misunderstanding.

[questseeker]

I feel slightly responsible for involuntarily derailing this thread towards "pixel purity" with my two posts about Deluxe Paint; I think tools are an important factor in creative process, and I hoped for someone experienced to explain how vintage software affected their way to work and how contemporary software is different.

To come back to the topic, the flame raises a surprising amount of surprisingly relevant points, such as:

• Were the "old masters" recognized as such? By whom? And masters of what, exactly?
• Specifically, did people who liked videogames appreciate their art?
• How did the various communities of authors and audience of pixel art change, socially and culturally, over so many years?
• Was the notion of "pixel art" as problematic as it is today, or did people just draw stuff?
• Where does the artistic ideal of pixel art "purity" come from? My theory, as I explained, is that it originates from the fracture between mainstream users of general purpose software and nostalgic users of "retro" software.

[STE 86]

• Were the "old masters" recognized as such? By whom? And masters of what, exactly?

LOL no sorry, we were not masters, we were students on the cutting edge, constantly evolving and experimenting with new machines and applications we were constantly learning new skills. consider it similar to the photographic revolution in the 60s with David Bailey and Brian Duffy etc (just nowhere near as glamorous )

• Specifically, did people who liked videogames appreciate their art?

yes it was appreciated and some folks like Bob Stevenson and Paul Docherty on the c64 and later Pete Lyon on the ST were "names". although to be quite honest most were known only to the demo scene by name. the general public may well have appreciated their graphics but generally they didnt know their names. the programmers and particulary the musicians of the 80s games were far more likely to be "names" than the artists/designers.

• How did the various communities of authors and audience of pixel art change, socially and culturally, over so many years?

i can only comment from the c64 demo/compunet era but in those times artists could be very well known on the "scene" and would recieve far more attention there than commercially. after about 1989 i cant really comment because i was commercial after that totally with no activity in the demo scene.

• Was the notion of "pixel art" as problematic as it is today, or did people just draw stuff?

No nothing like this, we just drew stuff and learned from each other. just talk and observation of new techniques, no crits no hard and fast theory just do it and learn and experiment. no barriers on what you could or could not do, if u could draw it, it was acceptable. just no "digitization" which would be termed "wired" now

• Where does the artistic ideal of pixel art "purity" come from? My theory, as I explained, is that it originates from the fracture between mainstream users of general purpose software and nostalgic users of "retro" software.

I have no idea, but presumably it came after the time when applications finally enabled artists/designers to work in the electronic medium in the same manner they would on paper or canvas rather than dropping clusters of pixels on the screen by hand.

Steve[/list]

[Jad]

we just drew stuff and learned from each other. just talk and observation of new techniques, no crits no hard and fast theory just do it and learn and experiment. no barriers on what you could or could not do, if u could draw it, it was acceptable. just no "digitization" which would be termed "wired" now

ooh. Sounds good. Sounds like how I've experienced pixelation since day one. Lots of drawing, lots of checking out stuff, although plus a lot of looking at the sprites of your favourite games and then seeing what made it all tick. All of that later turned into the expressions that are regularly used by pixelation members of today when we talk about stuff like 'sel-out' and different dithering types.

Of course, us who've been around for years now use these terms like they're common knowledge. We're not trying to prove an artistical point with that, we're talking about how the hell you make the pixels do what you want them to do. I think that's how you want stuff to work too, right? Whenever someone says 'what is AA anyways?' or 'what do you mean by 'banding'' there's always someone to tell them or paint them a picture. Are we giving helpful pointers by doing that, or are we confining people into rulesets? I guess it's good food for thought. But we're not doing that cause we're pretentious assholes with a crazy agenda of making pixel art into a true art form. Haha

I think you have a good point anyhow. Us at pixelation have been circlejerking with constantly discussing the same topics, the same methods, with the same people. That way we've become better at all these things and standardized knowledge about stuff, made tutorials and the like. Thing is that it's always refreshing when someone will point out a completely different way of doing things or just explain that 'you can always just do it like this, cause it still looks good'. Someone like you.

I think you need to know that you're certainly welcome on these boards. Especially do feel free to offer critique and pointers in the pixel art section.

Also feel free to debate whenever you feel that someone gives critique that forces art into needless conventions. Just don't do it cause we're pretentious jerks. Cause that's not why things are as they are, and it's a silly way to describe the origin of the current state of things. Maybe you never actually said that. Then cheers, let's have some fun with those pixels oldschool ararar

[blumunkee]

Huh. I really should be following my own advice, but I need to post a counter to Jad's characteristically pleasant and levelheaded post, because personally didn't find much eye opening or refreshing about your points, STE.

And I'm not ready for this flame to die.

From the snipits you've provided about your glory days, it sounds like your experiences as an anarchist nonconformist illustrator/nonartist/whatever where similar to ours, except at the time it was popular and hightech so people wouldn't look at you like a subhuman-mutant if you brought up palette indexes and rastermodes in casual conversation among friends, and also nobody didn't not ever critique anything not once ever. And because you were able to share ideas and learn techniques without critique, it makes what you did practical and pragmatic, whereas when we in our future world share ideas and learn techniques and critique the application of those ideas and techniques, it, idunno, makes us assholes.

I feel like I've already begun to attack a straw man, so I'll go ahead and indulge myself. From your posts and the tone thereof, all I've been able to extrapolate is that we are all closed minded pretentious jerks, that the observations and terminology we've invented are rubbish, that any act of communal discussion above the level of cold emotionless technical pixel placement is unmitigated faggotry, that most of the old dogs critique for the sole intention of grooming their already massive egos, and (I'm really extrapolating here) that your 'scene' zeitgeist was somehow more valid than our 'pixelart' zeitgeist.

You suggest that your ideals are purely pedantic and functional, but I also get the impression that you think our defining of terminology and our writing of tutorials is wrong-headed, and that we should all just play it by ear and have all these important aspects of pixelart whatever embedded into the very being of our primal human consciousness in a blissful orgy of instinctual knowledge. This seems like a conflict of character traits (I read you as the anti-hippie type), and I don't think your idealized version of how things should work would do much good for the prospective pixel weenie who stumbles upon this place.

I feel, and I know several other people here also feel, that it is important that we do study and we do document these things, because they are wonderful and beautiful and precious and obscure, and if we don't people might forget about them, or never find out about them, or never even care to find out about them, or never even get the chance to internally debate if they should or should not care to find out about them.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I personally write stuff and hang out here and give people critique because I think there are useful pixel skills which can be systematically taught. I think pixel art can be approached in skilled and unskilled ways, and I think the skilled way is, 98% of the time, genuinely superior. Nobody here has ever claimed that the foundations we are attempting to build are the endall-beall way to do things. But I do feel that some sort of foundation, no matter how wobbly, will help the regular jackoff who gets interested in pixelart to not go into things completely blind.

We have and will continue get some things wrong. We will invent some bad terminology and write some bad tutorials (I am particularly guilty of both). Some of us will make some assumptions that are fundamentally flawed and be forced to rescind some established truisms. For most of us this is an underfunded archeological expedition carried out by amateurs, not a nostalgic remembrance by a council of wizened sages. We look and we think and we write about what we think. Some people will misconstrue these things as lemmas and axioms, when they are actually snapshots of our theories. What do you want from us? We dork out over pixelart and then we write about what we dork out over.

Pixel purity is balls. Everyone realizes that eventually. (?) But, is it unreasonable to expect that someone can get passionate about pixelart and and unwittingly take up the warcry of pixel purity? Humans are stupid and compulsive and operate most efficiently when their logic gates have to do as little dynamic reconfiguration as possible. Maybe pixel purity helps some developing artists build essential skills. If they limit themselves to that subset they consider legit and hardcore, doesn't it stand that by doing so they will force themselves to understand those things we see as foundational? Once that artist has matured, their thoughts can move from a mode of "If I don't use 16 colors, I might as well cut my wrists with chicken wire and bleed out on the floor" to "I can use as many colors as I want, but I'll choose use 16 colors because it makes my dick get bigger". Yes it should FUN and DYNAMIC and EXCITING but that doesn't mean you can't, at some point in life, take it a little seriously.

Okay okay, let me ask you some some straight questions, ones not laced with rationalization or justification. It would seem that there is us, then there is you. Why? Can you become a part of us? Can we become a part of you? Is there really any difference between us and you?

[STE 86]

hmm actually i think i preferred it when u wrote single line posts but hey ho.

at no point am i saying that critiques are at all bad, indeed when i taught graphics they were mandatory. but critiques must be based on practical advice tailored to the individual piece, not sweeping generalisations or rules to follow. and crits couched in pretentious sounding "techie" or "arty" sounding terminology are of very little help to anyone who hasnt frequented YOUR scene before. (i know this because when i first came here i couldnt understand what alot of your "arty technobabble" was about)

that being said, tutes on AA or general anatomy are always useful to be pointed at. however as a "generalisation" on here i would say that 80%+ of all crits on here should really start with "GO AND FIND REAL LIFE REFS" as the amount of time newbys on here have just tried to make up the subjects pose, detail etc is just exasperating.

there is absolutely no excuse these days for not google image searching for the elements u are trying to recreate.

maybe there should be a general tute/sticky on finding real refs on the net?

lastly, as real life events have just made clear to me, don't get wrapped up in your own little world of art and take it seriously. art isnt serious really, u just think it is at the moment. it doesnt save lives, it should really be fun and enjoyable.

i think THAT perspective only comes with age tho. when u realise just what DOES matter.

Steve

[Helm]

lastly, as real life events have just made clear to me, don't get wrapped up in your own little world of art and take it seriously. art isnt serious really, u just think it is at the moment. it doesnt save lives, it should really be fun and enjoyable.

I get the feeling that such statements fit the bill of 'sweeping generalizations or rules to follow'. Brief as they are, I do not know how useful they'd be to most readers, especially those that haven't had similar life experiences to yours. I remember thinking 'life is meaningless' when someone close to me died and I'm pretty certain I cannot communicate this to anyone who hasn't had such a similar experience just by saying these words to them. There could be some approximation but it'd take a lot of hard work and artistry to get such a sentiment across (which is what people are doing with art in general, propagating their idea and emotion space). So what I get from you saying such things is that you're searching for a sympathetic idea-space in this community, like-minded people or at least tolerant people, to achieve some restful state of mind. I guess Pixelation could fit the bill. But because you don't go into much detail prefacing these worlds of wisdom, it's like telling people 'don't be close-minded' or 'don't think so much', well-meant but usually meaningless truisms when directed at the generic other. You'd have to get deeper into it if you want people to understand you, you'd have to get practical, to tailor your words to the individual you're talking to.

So you have arrived at a contradiction, criticizing others for what you're doing yourself. Is that bad? I don't mind it so much personally, but if I did, I'd address it by not begrudging others for talking in 'sweeping generalizations or rules to follow'. I mean, when captured in a 'do as I say not as I do' situation it's best to change what I say, not neurotically push myself to do as I say. It would also help if I wouldn't hold them in any authority so I would not be betrayed when I test out their theories and they don't work for me. You could try that, you could let go of all the negatively charged value judgments related to 'people talking art bollocks' and just experience the social atmosphere here without such high stakes of acceptance and then perhaps it wouldn't reflect so darkly. The Pixelation userbase is good people, from almost 10 years of experience I can tell you that.

As I see in the critique board, you're giving valuable and practical help to strangers so at least that's working out, you've found a use for Pixelation (and Pixelation has found a use for you!). If you're looking for some sort of acceptance for your ideals and concepts of art and aesthetics, they're more probable to come after a long time serving the community with such high caliber critique as you offer now than it is by being an adversary to the status quo or whatever. I'm sure you know: years pass, attitudes change, moderators come and go and the tone of community drifts so who knows, in a couple of years ideas such as yours might be the norm in Pixelation. I don't really care, what matters is that people continue to help people selflessly and build a warm community.

[Gil]

Pixelation is, to me, like a library. An effort to document a specific artform (or medium, style, subset of illustrations, whatever). We have moderators that act as librarians. They try their best to make the offering of pixels as big and meaningful as possible, within a certain ruleset, mainly aimed at two things:

The pursuit of knowledge
Friendly atmosphere

If you go to the library and start shouting and kicking a football around, the librarians will come to you and say: "This is a place for reading books and we impose a rule that dictates being quiet at all times". It sounds pretty fascist and comparable to what the mods do around here. It imposes rules on how people should read books, which is wrong. Some people like reading books while listening to loud music and there's nothing wrong with that. I feel this is what you're trying to teach us. That we can't stand in the way of how people want to enjoy their hobby.

Then again, I wouldn't want to go to a library without rules, for obvious reasons. That's what I'm trying to teach you. There have to be strict fascist rules to some extent, but it's aimed at the greater goal of introducing the people of today to the wonderful world of visible squares you enjoyed so much in 1989.

[The B.O.B.]

hmm actually i think i preferred it when u wrote single line posts but hey ho.

at no point am i saying that critiques are at all bad, indeed when i taught graphics they were mandatory. but critiques must be based on practical advice tailored to the individual piece, not sweeping generalisations or rules to follow. and crits couched in pretentious sounding "techie" or "arty" sounding terminology are of very little help to anyone who hasnt frequented YOUR scene before. (i know this because when i first came here i couldnt understand what alot of your "arty technobabble" was about)

that being said, tutes on AA or general anatomy are always useful to be pointed at. however as a "generalisation" on here i would say that 80%+ of all crits on here should really start with "GO AND FIND REAL LIFE REFS" as the amount of time newbys on here have just tried to make up the subjects pose, detail etc is just exasperating.

there is absolutely no excuse these days for not google image searching for the elements u are trying to recreate.

maybe there should be a general tute/sticky on finding real refs on the net?

lastly, as real life events have just made clear to me, don't get wrapped up in your own little world of art and take it seriously. art isnt serious really, u just think it is at the moment. it doesnt save lives, it should really be fun and enjoyable.

i think THAT perspective only comes with age tho. when u realise just what DOES matter.

Steve

   Ermm, we do provide help with real life references, and anatomy. Have you ever actually searched throughout the site, before making this blind assertion? We even have a go-to thread with people posting pics needing help with anatomy, with some online referenced pics for anatomy as well.(Anatomy thread)

   If that's not enough for you, would you rather we just advertise Google image search for online references, somewhere on the site? Would that satisfy you?

   Also, if you look at just more than a couple of wip threads, you WILL see that when we notice a portrait pic(of some sort) is done a by a beginner, even in pixel art, one of the first things coming out of our mouths is to go back and try to get the basics down of traditional art before moving forward, as it's current limits are showing in the piece in question. Here's one I found in about, oh I don't know, 2 min, right at the top of the wip section!:

[WIP]-Female Anatomy[nudity]

There's even a page dedicated for non-pixel art type drawings, where most comments are with anatomy and real life references as well:

Clicky-poo

   Also, who says art is all business, and no play? Is this how you see things when dealing with art? I hope not. It's always been fun for me, and helps clear my mind from time to time, getting lost in drawing something. Maybe it is your age, playing a trick on you. I'm guessing you've been a graphic designer for a couple of years, and you've seen it deteriorate to petty advertisement, with push on media quantity, rather than quality. And with this mindset, you've projected it unto a digital art site, such as this.(just a guess, though I'm probably way off base here.) This little theory is not justified by any length on my own accord, but it's placement in this response, is. And it's reasoning is simple: from the outside looking in, it's easy to judge, especially when you don't want to give the inside a chance.

[STE 86]

actually u are way off base. :

try googling STE'86 too?

and am i not the one in almost every post i have made saying "do not take this tooseriously" and "it should be FUN"

have u actually read my posts? or was this just a kneejerk reaction to me critising your "crit methods"?

Steve

[Helm]

I went and googled you and found your c64 database entry with all your photo copies of 80's film stills/posters. Some of them have good multicolor instincts, others lack technique but it's a moot point for pieces circa 1986-7. Is there something else I missing? How is your 20-years-ago c64 work relevant to this thread?

What you're doing is not answering anyone's points in the thread and just reiterating your bullet-point contentions with this windmill you're chasing. Apparently the Pixelation you experience isn't one others are experiencing. It's almost you're like on a crusade against something you aren't inclined to understand. Either start discussing with people and actually addressing what they spent valuable time trying to present to you, or let it go.

[STE 86]

Am i really not responding to posts Helm?

'm guessing you've been a graphic designer for a couple of years...(just a guess, though I'm probably way off base here.)

My reply:

actually u are way off base. 

try googling STE'86 too?

(actually i didnt want to sound condescending by saying not a "couple" but actually 25 years)

Also, who says art is all business, and no play? Is this how you see things when dealing with art? I hope not. It's always been fun for me

My Reply:

and am i not the one in almost every post i have made saying "do not take this tooseriously" and "it should be FUN"


now the last bit about kneejerk reactions and reading could, could quite accurately be leveled at u too couldnt it Helm?

would u like to apologise for having a pop at me for no reason now?

Steve

[Helm]

I don't see in what way I've offended you but I'll apologize anyway if that helps things.

[STE 86]

I don't see in what way I've offended you but I'll apologize anyway if that helps things.

really? so u cant see that last post of your was at all provocactive, personal and condescendingl?

apology accepted.

Steve

[junkboy]

I must confess I have absolutely no idea what's going on in this thread.

[Gil]

STE 86, I really have no idea anymore of what you're talking about.

You seem to DEMAND of us to have FUN.

Why else would we visit this place? It's fun already.

[Jad]

LOTS of misinterpretation going on in this thread, from all sides. Seriously.

Steve, you're being a nice asset in the Pixel Art forums and posting great feedback. Thanks for that. Regarding this thread I'm unsure what point you've been trying to make from the start.

Except for pointing out that the pixel wankery going on in things like helm's ramble thread looks very silly and pretentious. I think... !?

Which it is! It's also great fun.

I basically feel like you got that stuff out of your system in your first post where you said that we're reading too much into the pixels and now that it's out of that system the discussion has run incredibly dry.

Speaking of dry, don't mistake Helm's dry tone for being condescending. That man isn't exactly someone who finds enjoyment in being mean to people (from what I know). I saw that you misinterpreted his warning to sharprm as a warning to you? Misinterpret less, please, that goes for everyone. Lots of people getting 'stuff out of their systems' in the thread, not necessarily targeting the arguments of the poster they're venting towards, which has created some drama.

Bearable drama, though. Just don't escalate too far, people.

[Gil]

Jad, I love how you are the levelheaded mod.

Your posts are always excellent at defusing bad moods.

This thread has been somewhat useful for some purpose or another, but I'm thinking I'd be better off not drawing it any further. Maybe it's best for all if we just let it die now.

[blumunkee]

Nonononono!!!  It's barely been 2 pages!! More flamecakes!

[Bkeegan]

*deleted*

[blumunkee]

This seems to have turned into a pretty heated thread. I agree with you Steve. I've only been hanging around these forums for a little bit but the vibe I am getting is that there are all these "rules" on what "pixel art" is exactly.

You're right. You've only been here for a little while.

We do have "rules" here. Here's a summary:

Don't be an ass!
Do not rip artwork. Ever!
Stay on topic.
Things NOT to post! (talks about porn and warez, says nothing of what constitutes pixel art)
Content tags/warnings. (talks violence and nudity, says nothing of what constitutes pixel art)
No Rants.       
Signature and Avatar.
And then some pointers on good critique etiquette and not overusing smileys.

And that's it as far a hard fast rules go. There is a supplemental entry in the FAQ on what pixel art is or isn't in the context of this board:

What exactly is Pixel Art?

Pixel Art is a discipline by which images are created with pixel-level intent or precision. It is more than an end product - It is a methodology focusing on techniques such as hand drawn dithering, anti-aliasing, shading, animation, geometry, and some color theory. Here on this forum, people develop these skills and in turn teach them to others.

When you post work that focuses on these methods, you will receive useful feedback that will help you to improve. While there's no static law that says something IS or IS NOT Pixel Art, some works can certainly be more in line with what is discussed here. For example, Oekaki, a web based drawing phenomenon, does not consistently represent the methods. Also, just because a game uses a sprite, that does not immediately qualify it as pixel art since some games have been known to convert 3D rendered models into sprite stills. Posting works like this is not encouraged.

Members at this forum are interested in many subjects and artistic mediums, and we do offer places on the forum more appropriate for the posting of non-pixel work. If you're posting reference images for pixel work, this is an exceptional case. Blatant disregard for the purposes of the forum will not be tolerated.

The last paragraph is a bit out of date now with the lowspec board, and in practice spammers/griefers seem to inhabit other boards so the big scary threat is mostly superfluous.

For example, I don't really use dithering much. Dithering is a techique used when there was an strict limitations to the colors you can used and that limitation doesn't really exist anymore on most modern platforms, so why would I use dithering?

A couple of points. First, you don't have to use dithering, but it doesn't hurt to know how. You have to know the rules before you can break them. Otherwise you're kinda make sweeping conclusions about something you don't really understand, yeah?

On that note, dithering isn't just the poor man's gradient. Many novices try to use it as such and the results are genuinely hideous. When you say "dithering" that's probably what you mean, but that's a naive definition. Why would anyone use dithering?... because it is useful for other things, like creating texture and giving a sense of style. It's a handy tool in your bag of tricks.

Using the actual shade is makes for sharper looking images in my opinion.

Yeah, but not all pixel art is or should be made of sharp looking images. Seems like it might be useful if someone explained what dithering is and gave some guidelines on how to use it effectively. Is that devil? (The answer is no).

I do see that things like dithering can have a certain appeal to them. Like the banner of this page, but that really characturizes the effect more than anything.

Hmm, yeah, texture and style maybe? It seems like your definition of dithering was based on your previous sentence, and in the process of writing it down you internalized that there's something more to it. Look there, we've learned something! And I think you where trying to use the word "characterize" in a derogatory sense, but characterize by definition means to describe the distinctive nature or features of something. In which case I'd say yeah, you're spot on. Maybe you meant it's a caricature of the effect?

So, I'll guess I'll put myself in the uncool category on this forum as a non "pixel purist".

That's fine, although I doubt most of the artists here even bother categorizing themselves and others. Maybe because they've moved beyond high school.

To be honest, I don't like many of the popular "pixel art" tools like Grafx2 or Pro Motion. I find their interfaces particular unintuitive. I don't use photoshop/gimp though. And while I'm not a pixel purist, using a lot of the tools will pretty much butcher your art.

What is this need of yours to categorize and typecast everything? I'd bet you'd be surprised at the variety of favorite tools and tastes among the people here. Granted, you probably won't see a lot of people using Painter or Zbrush as their primary weapon, but it's a pixelart board for christ's sake. And you're right, there are plenty of ways to butcher your art, whether it be in Photoshop or Mspaint.

[Helm]

Speaking of "no rants" I wonder if next time something like this comes around we should start enforcing that rule in earnest. I wonder if the cumulative 'letting off steam' benefits of threads like these are worth the negatively charged atmosphere.

[Bkeegan]

*Deleted*

[Rawsushi]

There are several reasons for choosing to use dithering in a piece. Aside from creating textures, it's also used when trying to keep color counts to a minimum, or when working with a predefined palette. I feel as though there's a stigma attached to dithering because of it's misuse. A lot of beginners use it on smaller pieces, or use only a 50/50 (checkerboard) pattern, or use it when the palette's contrast is so high that the dither work sticks out like a sore thumb. There are certainly times when it should and should not be used.

Dithering is most impressive when you can't tell that it's being used at all.

You certainly could just add another color to your palette in place of a dither pattern if you're working without restrictions, but there comes a point when you may as well just not do pixel art at all, you know? Might as well just switch from PENCIL mode to BRUSH mode.

[Helm]

Bkeegan: I checked out your thread. That comment by Shrub is certainly not in the spirit of Pixelation. Critique is free for all doesn't matter pro or commercial. So don't take his comment to heart. If Shrub continues on this path he's going to get strikes.

The problem with your art is not so much that whether it is or is not pixel art in the abstract, it is that it's not clean and controlled. Progressing towards an arbitrary goal of 'is my art pixel art?' is not really the point in itself (well it is sometimes, but I don't think in your case). People usually make pixel art because it suits their needs on how to create their art in a timely fashion, with controlled means that are reliable to apply and the end assets usable in their games or whatever else. This is where Pixelation can help you. If you want to learn to control your indexed palettes, to do proper dithering, to do proper anti-aliasing and other such techniques, you have done well to come here. If you're not interested in those things, check out the 'low spec art' part of the forum. Though probably if you post what you posted before there people'll still tell you to try to remake your pieces using pixel art techniques because that's what the climate here is when it comes to 'messy' semi-pixel art like this.

So about your complaints: it is unimportant if you're a pixel purist or not, it is unimportant whether you like dithering or not. What is important is that you take advice by people that are trying to help you to learn to convey the items you're trying to render in pixel art means better. You seem lacking in fundamental concepts on how to do art, so don't worry right now on whether some 7 post new user told you off for whatever reason and just get down and dirty and learn.

[Dusty]

I have never, ever felt smothered in the least by the rules or community here. I honestly don't know where anyone gets this feeling from. It's not like it's a gallery such as PJ where things can be rejected because they don't follow the rules. Either people will reply with their opinion, or you won't get any replies at all.

By the way, there are so many pieces here that have benefited the advice of members here.
http://www.wayofthepixel.net/pixelation/index.php?topic=2528.0
Has a few examples of pieces that started out bland/mediocre/poor and through the cooperation of the artist and the community ended up with amazing pieces.

I have had nothing but good feelings towards the community here at pixelation. Does that mean it's perfect? No. It's a community, so there will be some members that can give bad vibes, but there is nothing that can be done about it(most get weeded out pretty fast, though).

[Gil]

I'm just a bit curious bkeegan.

If you don't like color preservation or dithering or any predefined pixel art techniques, what is it you hope to achieve on this forum?

[Bkeegan]

*deleted*

[Rawsushi]

And you're at that point, sadly. When dealing with shiny objects, it's best to use dithering sparingly if at all. As not to derail this thread even further, I'll do a quick edit and post it in the "[WIP] Small icons..." thread.

[Bkeegan]

And you're at that point, sadly. When dealing shiny objects, it's best to use dithering sparingly if at all. As not to derail this thread even further, I'll do a quick edit and post it in the "[WIP] Small icons..." thread.

I was put to an ultimatum to use dithering and less shades....so that's what I did =p.

Agreed though, it's noticeable.

[Dusty]

Don't you think you're exaggerating the situation a bit?

I don't see any ultimatum's in your thread. All I see is Helm pointing out your piece as 177 colors, which is an insane amount for pixel art, and pretty much means that it's not, especially for a sprite of that size. However, did he close the thread and throw you out of the forums? No. His reason for pointing it out was because the approach was not benefiting your art, and even went out of his way to provide a great edit.  He even said that it didn't need to be a 'pixel purist' piece in the end, so much that the mindset of a pixel purist will help the art, which is true. When you work with images at that resolution, thinking like a pixel artist will benefit you no matter if you're making pixel art or not. The smaller the size, the more individual pixels play a larger role in the overall image people will see. Thus, knowing how a pixel artist would approach an image means you can manipulate these factors to create a better image. Contrast, pixel clusters, dithering, seamless tiling, patterns... knowing how to manipulate these things can only be helpful in the future, even if you're not working in pixel art. I know I've applied things I've learned from pixel art to my sketches and I think they look better because of it.

Also, I don't see where it was said dithering was needed or forced. You can pull off great shading with minimal colors without dithering. Again, the edits do a good job of showing this. I don't see why you're taking such helpful replies and blowing them out of proportion into some sort of negative thing.

[Bkeegan]

Dusty, please reread my posts I was nothing but appreciative and polite about the feedback I got.

[blumunkee]

Bkeegan, you deleted most of your responses. You said something about me sounding crass and you're right, I did. I was trying to be blunt and not pull any punches, but I should have listened to the golden rule about a page ago and not have been an ass. I just hope this thread doesn't sour you experience, and I wish you wouldn't victimize yourself so much.

Speaking of "no rants" I wonder if next time something like this comes around we should start enforcing that rule in earnest. I wonder if the cumulative 'letting off steam' benefits of threads like these are worth the negatively charged atmosphere.

Definitely. Having sipped from these brackish waters possibly more than anyone, I can tell you ranting is, in general, not worth the mental effort. I'd say pronounce this the official Pixelation 2010 Rant Thread, let people get in their last words, and shut it down.

[Bkeegan]

Bkeegan, you deleted most of your responses. You said something about me sounding crass and you're right, I did. I was trying to be blunt and not pull any punches, but I should have listened to the golden rule about a page ago and not have been an ass. I just hope this thread doesn't sour you experience, and I wish you wouldn't victimize yourself so much.

I can deal with people telling me my work is rubbish as long as they provide some constructive feedback (which they did, thanks helm and rawsushi) but when I get pointed to the "rules" section for stating my opinion on something (whether or not my opinion is right) as if I broke some rule and then be chastised for not being grateful for help with my art (which I felt I went out of my way to express gratitude).  All this happening in the first couple days of using a site does not inspire me to continue use of said site. There are plenty of ways to learn that don't involve the hassle of forum drama.

I deleted my posts because I am ceasing use of this site. The ones I kept relate to actual pixel art being critiqued and refined and not stupid drama.

P.S. Yes admittedly, I was wrong about dithering. I have used dithering effects in the past to create texture but I just thought the term "dithering" referred to the optical illusions of shades.

-Cheers

[7321551]

But you even deleted your very first post. Was that "stupid drama"? It just bugs me because it's made that useful thread sort-of incoherent. It was full of thoughtful examples & now it's unintelligible.

Even the offending response from blumunkee... I though it was pretty clear he was invoking the rules to point out that they "[say] nothing of what constitutes pixel art", not intimidate you into assimilation. & he was gracious enough to apologize anyway!

It's sort of incredible.
I love you guys.

[Bkeegan]

You're right, I'll fix those, I can at least add the original images - perhaps I was a bit aggressive.

EDIT: I've re-added what I could recall to the original thread.

Think about it from my perspective for a second. I make a thread looking stating that I'm a noobie and  for C&C, my first response is unwelcoming (i know that's not the spirit of pixelation). It then gets mostly ignored. I go to other threads and I try to provide some C&C (of course due to my experience level, what I can do is limited, but still trying to contribute) My stuff only gets some proper C&C when I inadvertently draw attention to myself by wrongly defining the scope and dithering.

So I got some good feedback from Helm and rawsushi and I tried to make it clear that I was both very appreciative and willing to try their suggestions. Helm suggested that I take a more purist approach (even if in the end I don't want to be that) so I tried using a limited palette of colors.

And then I get accused of "taking helpful replies and blowing them out of proportion into something negative", what the crap? I was even polite to the guy who actually responded in a negative way. That was really what tipped me over.

EDIT: I've given it some thought and cooled down a bit. I'd like to apologize to pixelation community. I didn't intend to cause issues, I just want to be a better pixel artist. If you guys would accept my apology and move on from this I would like to continue to be apart of this community.

[Helm]

Hey man, no worries. I can definitely remember how it is to join an art community for the first time and how even a couple of indifferent or even just one slightly aggressive post can make one think they're not welcome. It happened to me back when I joined Pixelation...5 6 7 years ago? (not sure about the exact date). One of the first replies to me was an one-liner accusation that I was ripping off St0ven that made me feel like 'wow, this place is harsh', heh.

It helps in you try to not have that view that people are against you on the whole when you get some negatively charged feedback in a new art place. I am one of the older moderators here and I do not harbor any ill will against you, for example. Feel free to peruse the forums and see if they have something to offer you, try to not draw too much attention to your opinions until they're the result of a few years of experience, heh

[Bkeegan]

Thanks Helm,

I guess it did feel like the world was against me so I got defensive. I'm also more accustomed to participating in forums in my primary field of expertise so my opinions already are based off years of experience.