next »

[shinygerbil]

They're trying to say that his overuse of MS Paint's Curve and Ellipse features means that most of the pixels were not hand-placed. This leads to a discrepancy between the actual shape of the car and the shape of the line achieved by using the curve, which is not necessarily as close to the real thing as if he placed every pixel by hand. Nor is it "true to the spirit" of pixel art.

So essentially he is achieving nothing by using Paint, except for possibly some more website hits. He'd have been better off using vector graphics (which are more suited to high-resolution graphics with lots of lines and curves) for a more accurate picture.


That's just what I perceive; I must add that although I see their point, I do find the views of those against his art quite strongly expressed, with little to back them up.

[BMcC]

Right.

A distinction needs to be made here.  "Pixel art" is about hand placing pixels.  It's not simply art that involves pixels.

Xion is right (and not an idiot -- watch your mouth).  The reason some people are (rightfully) getting worked up over this is it's pretty insulting, for a number of reasons, to "true" pixel artists.  Artists who have created much more impressive and artistically sound works, IMHO.

[Alex May]

Comments about how he <i>should</i> use a vector graphics program instead of MS Paint, how his technique is sloppy

He should be using a vector program to do what he's doing - the bulk of the image, the parts that are well executed, are executed not by using the tools of pixel art, but by using curves, the tool of the vector artist. The detail is poorly executed, yes, it's sloppy.

(even though he comes out with fabulous results),

His results are far from fabulous IMO - as I said before the areas of detail are actually not very good at all.

and how he uses the paint brush, the "worst tool ever concieved". 

The comment about the worst tool ever conceived was not made in connection with the paint brush but the spray can. Personally I think that if that gets you the effect you want then use it as much as you like, and agree with the estimation that such comments are elitist.

But no one actually said anything that indicated it wasn't pixel art. 

I don't personally want to class his work either as or as not pixel art, he uses elements, if we're going to be picky, of both vector and pixel techniques in his work.

And your last two points are strawmen so I needn't address them.

[Inane]

But what pixel techniques DOES he use in his work? At the very bare bones, pixel art requires control over where the individual pixels are placed (Which still leaves room for stuff like the fill bucket, since the outline is carefully defined by the artist) which is easily broken by extensive use of the spray can. Then there's color conversation (How many colors were actually used can't be easily gauged since he saved his picture as a jpeg, which leads to it having 61411 colors...).

And then there are fundamental flaws in his artwork. The Idi picture appears to have three light sources, the wheels are ill-defined, and the whole thing was directly copied from a photograph (From what I can tell, and that is reaffirmed by someone on the video saying he has the picture).

And I won't withdraw my comment on the Spray can, because really, I can't think of a worse tool. And as for the "If it's used right" thing, remember, even bad tools can be used well by masters.

As for real good pixel art, check out this and this.
Both of which were made by the same guy (Snake), who if I remember rightly, uses MSPaint.

[xix]

Considering we're an indie games board, shouldn't we be a bit more inclusive?

[Alec]

..?

[Anthony Flack]

I used to consider myself a pretty good pixel artist back in the day, and I could do some pretty good things with a 16x16 grid and a four-colour palette. But people are so touchy about it these days I don't think I would want to go there again. It almost seems a little bit cult-like, the rules and hierarchies of the pixel-art community.

And (here we go) even though I can enjoy and appreciate it, I don't recall ever seeing any display of pixel-art virtuosity that genuinely awed me or made me think that these guys were operating on a level far above what I could achieve if I got down to it. Compared to some of the amazing cel animation work that is out there in the world of not-videogames, which I am completely humbled by. Good pixel art is plenty nice, but it is neither as difficult nor as impressive as many people make it out to be.

See also: programming a computer.

[xix]

I used to consider myself a pretty good pixel artist back in the day, and I could do some pretty good things with a 16x16 grid and a four-colour palette. But people are so touchy about it these days I don't think I would want to go there again. It almost seems a little bit cult-like, the rules and hierarchies of the pixel-art community.

And (here we go) even though I can enjoy and appreciate it, I don't recall ever seeing any display of pixel-art virtuosity that genuinely awed me or made me think that these guys were operating on a level far above what I could achieve if I got down to it. Compared to some of the amazing cel animation work that is out there in the world of not-videogames, which I am completely humbled by. Good pixel art is plenty nice, but it is neither as difficult nor as impressive as many people make it out to be.

See also: programming a computer.

Yeah. I feel kind of bad making this post, but I feel like it's necessary in this case.

Not many real artists will quibble over "your art is totally misplaced blah blah blah". The kind of efficiency and "proper technique" pandering in this thread is more akin to programmers showing off their "1337" skills at coding efficiency than artists seeing and critiquing each others' work. And while, yeah I guess it's cool to prop up that kind of proper pixel art as some sort of mastery, it's also very demeaning to say that other - should I say less efficient? - forms of pixel art are lesser.

And, seriously, are you really mad that he calls himself PixelGod?

[Alec]

I get the feeling that Anthony is going to kill us all. 

[Inane]

Can you honestly blame him?

[Derek]

Well the guys who are really good at pixel art would probably make pretty good cel animators, also.  And maybe vice versa.  But there's still a learning curve that you have to get past to make good pixel art, techniques you need to know... it's not as easy as it looks!  Especially when you get to animating.

I mean, Paul Robertson... come on, that guy needs to get some props for what he does.  I don't think you could achieve what he does, Anthony, without a lot of hard work!

I agree that I'm a little put off by the fanaticism sometimes, but I think it's all in good fun.

[Xion]

I didn't mean to start all this  .
But I stand by what I said anyway. Dude might have skills, just not on a pixel level.

Remember, just because it's not tiny or high contrast doesn't mean it's not pixel art.

That's not what makes pixel art. You can have a massive canvas and a million colors, so long as each pixel is accounted for, I guess would be a good way of putting it. I mean, with filters and photoshoppage and whatnot, there can be colors that are like "where did I use this?" or pixels that are like "I didn't put you there!" as opposed to looking at your palette and saying "I know I used all these colors and what they're for," and "I know that this pixel right here smooths things out a bit." So it's not about using a 1*1 pixel tool to place each pixel but rather just having the control over them to the point where each is...I guess accounted for. (But still, a massive canvas and a million colors would be better suited to straight CG, because it's the result that matters. Just like that "pixel god" might have better results if he worked in vectors, for the result he seems to be aiming for.)
At least that's what I think.

But alas, I digress.

I hate posting without adding something the original purpose of the thread, so...
http://www.zoggles.co.uk/asp/tutorials.asp?show=index < a few tutorials, I guess.

(PS. Yes, Paul Robertson!)

[Anthony Flack]

I don't think you could achieve what he does, Anthony, without a lot of hard work!

Well... it's all going to be hard work, sure. Animation is a time-consuming and painstaking process. But I don't know how I can say "yeah, I can animate to that standard" without sounding like an ass. Except to say that I know my limits, and I've worked with pixels for years, and I've been animating for a long time too. And there is plenty of animation out there that leaves my jaw on the floor (I recently got ahold of a copy of Richard Williams' The Thief and The Cobbler, Recobbled Cut, and there are certain scenes in that which are just astonishing). But I know that I could totally sit down right now and do sprite animation at the level of guys like Paul Robertson, and if I was still unemployed and single I'd go right ahead and prove it. But since I'm not, I'm just going to have to say it without proving it and sound like an ass.

But I don't want to be disparaging about these guys, or about pixel art - it's all good fun, sure. It's just that people "in the scene" seem to elevate the skills of certain pixel artists stratospherically, and then there are the debates about whether something is "real" pixel art or not... I guess my instinct is to stay far away. It's kind of like how I like shootemups, but hardcore shootemup fans make me want to stay away from that area.

[Zaphos]

It's a little silly to get so concerned about this PixelGod guy.  He doesn't seem to have any intention of doing "pixel art" as you might mean it.  He's just showing off that he can draw a car in MS Paint in 3 hours and it looks kind of decent.  It's not supposed to be a great final product.  It's just, "hey, look, he has this weird skill!"
Of *course* he would be better off with a vector graphics program, but it would no longer have the talent-show / freak-show appeal that makes it a youtube success.


Pixel artists complaining about pixelgod is a bit like horn musicians complaining about

because he doesn't actually manage to create great music.  Great output is simply not the point!

[Zaphos]

... there is plenty of animation out there that leaves my jaw on the floor (I recently got ahold of a copy of Richard Williams' The Thief and The Cobbler, Recobbled Cut, and there are certain scenes in that which are just astonishing). But I know that I could totally sit down right now and do sprite animation at the level of guys like Paul Robertson, and if I was still unemployed and single I'd go right ahead and prove it. But since I'm not, I'm just going to have to say it without proving it and sound like an ass.

Paul Robertson makes his videos for fun in his free time, while Richard Williams couldn't finish The Thief and The Cobbler even doing it professionally, as a full time job -- and it was a 26 year project by a "master" of the art.  So the comparison is a bit skewed.  But I think it actually gets at a great strength of pixel art -- its accessibility.  With other mediums, (1) you have expensive, often-intimidating tools, (2) you get very little insight in to the process by looking final results, and (3) learning it is often expensive.  With pixel art, you just need a computer and a whole lot of free time.  There is a tendency to look down on pixel art because of that -- as if difficulty determines value -- but I don't think the accessibility of pixel art should demean it, or mean the techniques which make it good are any less real.

Do people on the Internet take it too seriously?  Yes ... but people on the Internet take everything too seriously.

[moi]

Pixel artists complaining about pixelgod is a bit like horn musicians complaining about

because he doesn't actually manage to create great music.  Great output is simply not the point!

Or more accurately, like nerds arguing about the number of episodes in Star trek TOS

[Anthony Flack]

Paul Robertson makes his videos for fun in his free time, while Richard Williams couldn't finish The Thief and The Cobbler even doing it professionally, as a full time job -- and it was a 26 year project by a "master" of the art.  So the comparison is a bit skewed.

Oh, absolutely, and I'm only mentioning it as a way of illustrating the difference between frighteningly hard-core animation moving fluidly in 3d space, and a bouncy 8-frame loop. The project itself was a mess, but some of the animation in it... yikes.

And I feel a bit ugly taking this kind of negative stance, which doesn't really reflect how I feel (I liked that Pirate Baby Cabana Battle video); but I do get a little tired of the "mad skillz" of pixel artists being overhyped. Celebrate their imagination and hard work, by all means, but as you say the nice thing about pixel art is that it is accessible to everyone and not particularly difficult to achieve good results with.

At least, it is when people aren't arguing about whether you're doing it right or not.

[Zaphos]

The project itself was a mess, but some of the animation in it... yikes.

True -- I've only seen the

but already my mind boggles.

At least, it is when people aren't arguing about whether you're doing it right or not.

You're right -- if people build up this whole elitist, perfectionist culture around pixel art, it really cuts away at the friendly nature of the art.  I would usually shrug it off as an inevitability, but that doesn't make it any less unfortunate.

[Anthony Flack]

It struck me earlier, that this phenomenon isn't restricted to nerdy computery internet stuff, either. Jazz went the same way - it started off by opening up new possibilities, and then along the way it became kind of elitist and closed, with an unwritten set of rules you had to adhere to if you wanted to be "in". I guess it's human nature...

[Inane]

Pixel artists complaining about pixelgod is a bit like horn musicians complaining about

because he doesn't actually manage to create great music.  Great output is simply not the point!

Or more accurately, like nerds arguing about the number of episodes in Star trek TOS

Or more accurately, when someone insults a Star Wars nerd, but the insult relates to Star Trek.