/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>2247712
>>2247718
pic related for more inspiration. Man I wish the guy made more pixel art.

>>2247711
I'm honestly not so sure. I mean I think as a first time submission to the gallery, it would probably be accepted just fine. But if the artist say, posted it on the WIP forum first, I imagine there would be a little more "controversy."

The thing is, at least going by the cure tutorial, PixelJoint's definition of pixel art IS art that "takes advantage of the medium." See the quote:

"If the pixel art loses the sense of the importance of the pixels which construct it, then I don't think it can be called pixel art."

Thing is, this is an entirely subjective definition. By this definition, anyone who thinks a particular work isn't "good" by their own pixel art standards could potentially freely say that it isn't pixel art, despite the artist's intent.

Don't get me wrong, I don't really take issue with pixeljoint having this definition. If anything, I think it's necessary because the whole point of the site is to encourage the artistic control that we can have over pixels.

I guess I just have a hard time accepting that art made out of pixels somehow isn't always pixel art. I mean, if anything digital photographs are controlled on a pixel level that is actually far beyond anything any human pixel artist can do. It may be a formula that's placing the pixels, but the fact is each individual pixel is still being placed with the intention of creating an image.

The difference is that humans can control pixel placement in ways that no computer can.