AuthorTopic: How did the old masters create their pixel artwork (e.g. Simon the Sorcerer)?  (Read 24659 times)

Offline Atnas

  • Moderator
  • 0100
  • *
  • Posts: 1071
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • very daijōbs
    • paintbread
    • paintbread
    • View Profile
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

Offline 7321551

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 121
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • a.k.a. Jarrad
    • View Profile
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?

Offline ptoing

  • Moderator
  • 0101
  • *
  • Posts: 3063
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • variegated quadrangle arranger
    • the_ptoing
    • http://pixeljoint.com/p/2191.htm
    • View Profile
    • Perpetually inactive website
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.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2010, 02:31:47 am by ptoing »
There are no ugly colours, only ugly combinations of colours.

Offline TheOne

  • 0001
  • *
  • Posts: 25
  • Karma: +0/-3
    • View Profile
‘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.

Offline 7321551

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 121
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • a.k.a. Jarrad
    • View Profile
‘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.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2010, 06:14:14 am by 7321551 »

Offline blumunkee

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 325
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Shut up and pixel.

Offline Helm

  • Moderator
  • 0110
  • *
  • Posts: 5159
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Asides-Bsides
What a fascinating thread.

Quote
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...

Offline ptoing

  • Moderator
  • 0101
  • *
  • Posts: 3063
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • variegated quadrangle arranger
    • the_ptoing
    • http://pixeljoint.com/p/2191.htm
    • View Profile
    • Perpetually inactive website
‘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.
There are no ugly colours, only ugly combinations of colours.

Offline STE 86

  • 0001
  • *
  • Posts: 51
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
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

Offline ptoing

  • Moderator
  • 0101
  • *
  • Posts: 3063
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • variegated quadrangle arranger
    • the_ptoing
    • http://pixeljoint.com/p/2191.htm
    • View Profile
    • Perpetually inactive website
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.
There are no ugly colours, only ugly combinations of colours.