next »

[JoGribbs]

I don’t think I’ve ever read a definition for art that wasn’t stupid.  Generally speaking, when a person constructs a thought-machine of this kind, what they’re actually trying to do is determine what isn’t art.  I have always been white trash, and will never cease to be so; what that means is that I was raised with an inherent distrust in the Hoity and a base and brutal urge to dismantle the Toity.  This is sometimes termed anti-intellectualism, usually by intellectuals, when what it is in truth is an opposition to intellect for intellect’s sake.  The reality is that what “is” and “isn’t art” is something we can determine with a slider in our prefrontal cortex.

If this thought-machine had any purpose other than to create a world with less art, I could cut it some slack.  But it doesn’t.  Its entire purpose is to rarify art, controlling expression thereby.  The aperture must be cinched, and quickly, before someone creates a cultural product without elite imprimatur.  Its effete and its fucking disgusting.

Thernz that is beautiful.

[antybaner]

Ok. The way I see it, we have a troll who doesn't know the definition of pixel art, does not understand how limitations help reach a goal, and has probably close to no pixeling skills. Give the guy some slack and tell him that pixelart is not just stupid poor sprites.

Pixel art, in my oppinion, is safer and easier to edit.
I went from this

to this

in about 2 hours.
how long would it have taken be to do it in vector? Probably more.
(This i a bad example but I just wanted to point that out. This is a year old background that consist of 5 layers. Each scrolling at different speeds. it looked pretty good)

[HöllenKobold]

it is about the burning desire to endure the stark to achieve harmony

and that while flaming homo-eroticism may seem to incorporate elements that are off-putting to some, in the end, it is very much beautiful and perhaps more so than the mudane and banal social relationships we regard as "normal", i.e romance novel covers.

the pitch black is hatred threatening to engulf him despite his vigorous efforts to stay lit. he trudges slowly but proudly, brandishing a metaphorical weapon (as a flame sword is hardly practical, especially if it is made of flame) that represents his mind more than a physical and brute force.

[1982]

it is about the burning desire to endure the stark to achieve harmony

and that while flaming homo-eroticism may seem to incorporate elements that are off-putting to some, in the end, it is very much beautiful and perhaps more so than the mudane and banal social relationships we regard as "normal", i.e romance novel covers.

the pitch black is hatred threatening to engulf him despite his vigorous efforts to stay lit. he trudges slowly but proudly, brandishing a metaphorical weapon (as a flame sword is hardly practical, especially if it is made of flame) that represents his mind more than a physical and brute force.

Good try but it doesn't work like that. You need to learn to watch pictures.

[HöllenKobold]

maybe you're watching pictures wrongly

[1982]

maybe you're watching pictures wrong

There is no chance of that.

[DavidCaruso]

The actual content is again completely average. There is no "story" to tell, no imagination, no message, no vision, ...no good art. Sometimes pictures still work without any of this, but this example is way too unfinished looking. The character has not even been placed anywhere inside the frame. If that is supposed to be night or darkness, it would still a lot better if the surroundings would have gotten some artistic touch instead of plain 0 0 0 black.

You don't think there's any imagination or vision involved in trying to construct a detailed figure like that with only four colors (full red, full green, full blue, black)? The image would have probably gotten too noisy with a complete background, given those restrictions he imposed on himself (or maybe he could have pulled it off, idk.)

[HöllenKobold]

how do i watch pictures

[1982]

You don't think there's any imagination or vision involved in trying to construct a detailed figure like that with only four colors (full red, full green, full blue, black)?

Sure, but that alone is not enough. I personally are quite idealistic about "restrictions provoke better creativity", and that's what that 4-color palette is all about. It is very well done and color usage is pretty darn cool. But, that alone wont take that image very far. There has to be *something in the image itself. It is much easier to point out what it is when it's there, than point out what is missing. Caspar David Friedrich's art is great example of seemingly average landscape paintings containing a lot stuff.

[1982]

how do i watch pictures

Start by analyzing these:
http://www.google.fi/search?hl=fi&cp=22&gs_id=29&xhr=t&q=caspar+david+friedrich&pq=friedrich+von+caspar&safe=off&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.,cf.osb&biw=1920&bih=1044&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=TzL-TsWPI9CK4gS78MCNCA

[HöllenKobold]

the deliberate reconstruction of nature to use unnatural composition, scale, form, and placement for an everlasting message: how boner am i and how will it all end

[Dugan]

Cant we just wrap this up with the very simple:

Like what you like, dislike what you dislike, be open to change, dont be upset if someone dislikes what you like

[s0]

maybe you're watching pictures wrong

There is no chance of that.

no u