What Are the Merits of Pixel Art?


icon

The latest entry in the blog Games Aren't Numbers poses some questions regarding Pixel Art, including the ever interesting question of what defines Pixel Art and what's its place.

Share some knowledge, folks!


Posted by Jo @ 1/21/2009 08:51  |    11

Discussion

If you would like to comment you will need to be logged in. Register now. It only takes a moment and it's free.


user
Metaru (Level 8 Brigadier General) @ 2/6/2009 14:32
so as far as we consider it art it may be art?

user
Adarias (Level 11 Special Agent) @ 2/5/2009 17:12
My understanding of Serious Artists was that he meant "gallery artists" or "fine artists," as opposed to commercial artists or illustrators, decorators or designers.  People for whom the art is the ends, and it doesn't serve to make a game or cover a book or beautify a house.  Of course, this is a bitchy/blurry distinction.  Someone like Michelangelo in his day as considered a craftsman (like a cooper or blacksmith, with the exception that he was VERY good) while now we tend to consider him in Fine Arts even though his purpose was to examine, illustrate and decorate (there's no conceptual edge that he brings to the interpretation of the bible, etc).

user
Larwick (Level 8 Regional Boss) @ 2/5/2009 10:48
He pretty much debunks himself in that last paragraph.

user
Metaru (Level 8 Brigadier General) @ 2/5/2009 08:37
I see then. i always had the curiosity if pixel art could be considered as pop art...

user
Antiboton (Level 8 Cannibal) @ 2/5/2009 08:07
Pixel Art is a technique while Pop Art is a style. So you can Make Pop Art with Pixel Art.

user
ptoing (Level 7 Underboss) @ 2/4/2009 22:23
Eh, Metaru, Pop Art was an art movement that basically took things from everyday popular culture, such as comics, consumer goods and such, and then used it in their art in a way, placing it out of context of it's original place in popular culture. This also went against traditional perceptions of art and tried to oppose those traditions. Pixel Art is something that sprung from a popular culture phenomen, but it is NOT an art movement, it is a medium, more than anything.

user
crab2selout.png (Level 4 Deputy) @ 2/4/2009 19:52
Good points Adarias. Many of his points could really use some further pondering. He wonders if serious artists give pixel art any attention. How do you define a serious artist? Is Arne, a well-respected and accomplished artist over at conceptart.org a serious artist? I've seen pixel art be well received at many of what I would call serious art boards. Does the fact that the wikipedia definition of pixel art doesn't have some textbook or website cited source really mean anything?

The argument about double the resolution=better is also pretty boring. To me it it's the kind of argument you find among people who think that  everythiing should have at least 5x more bloom and think games where every single texture looks bump mapped metallic are pretty. Increasing resolution can lead to a prettier game, but not because having more graphic information automatically makes it better


And why didn't anyone mention cave story was getting double-sized? How do people feel about the new sprites? I'm a little disappointed at the moment. If he's gonna double-size the sprites, then the space should be used to add in more information and colours. The redone background is coming off as a bit plain now/ I hope he fixes up the repetitive tiling while he's at it

user
Stickman (Level 7 Sheriff) @ 2/4/2009 19:50
Nooooo!!! I hate Pop Art!!!

user
Metaru (Level 8 Brigadier General) @ 2/4/2009 12:34
call me ignorant but i do want to believe Pixel Art feels like Pop Art.

user
Jo (Level 5 Rokkyu) @ 2/4/2009 08:08
That's the whole point of posting this as news, actually: the post is flawed as hell, which leaves room for thinking and commenting, the "sharing knowledge" bit :)

As I said on other places where I posted this, could I be a 'lil abusive and ask you to post those points as comments on the blog? That way, more people get enlighted, I guess.

(I prolly should've wrote this on the news itself, but it was also on the chatterbox by the time I submitted it.... mea culpa.)

user
Adarias (Level 11 Special Agent) @ 2/4/2009 07:53
The guy's arguments are a bit strange :

- because something hasn't received attention, it shouldn't.

- Twenty-five years is REALLY OLD for an art form, and if it doesn't
receive recognition in that time, it must suck.  Watercolors must suck
because they took about 4000 years since their invention to be
considered a true art form by academia, reserved in the meanwhile for
illustration and practice.

- If a blogger hasn't heard of an artist or group of artists, they don't matter.

- because other technologies have replaced it in mainstream culture,
it must be flawed.  Throw out all etchings, woodcarvings...hell, why
not throw out traditional art forms altogether? the mainstream media
barely uses pencils or paints anymore, so they must be stupid!

- simply being unique does not merit preservation.  If being unique is
the only quality possessed, a thing should be thrown out, just like we
do with all other rare things like endangered animals and gemstones.

This Week's Pixel Art

Aconita icon/pixelartLaser icon/pixelartRichard Pryor icon/pixelartTachikoma and Friend icon/pixelart
Play party games with QuizBash app
Play party games with QuizBash app

Recent News

Donate

Want to give some dough back to all those amazing pixel artists? Donations provide prize money for contests, help cover hosting costs and support new initiatives.