/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>2249900
that's a very good point, but I have to respectfully disagree. I don't think that referring to all digital images as pixel art ignores the approach that artists have developed. If anything, I think it's the other way around. If we only think of pixel art as a humanistic approach, we ignore the computerized approach to pixel art, with the implication that art that was not approached from a humanistic pixel standpoint means that the art actually "doesn't use pixels at all."

Don't get me wrong, I would feel very awkward to go and find any digital image and call it pixel art, because I fully understand that the approach/intent is different. The artist (or the computer) isn't thinking about how the pixels work with each other. The goal is only the end result of a desirable image. If anything, I call digital images pixel art on a technicality, that they are pixel art because technically "they are made out of pixels."

I absolutely agree that the approach needs to be focused on, and at least the way I see it, I'm not so much trying to ignore the humanistic approach many artists have developed. If anything, I'm trying to include the computerized approach. In essense, both approaches have a common goal, to create a desirable image. The humanistic approach to pixel art however, adds extra steps that say that the way the pixels themselves interract with each other, the pixel techniques used (dithering, AA, selout etc.), the palettes chosen, the use of each color, how limited it is or isn't, should all be appealing too, not just the final image.

(as an example in pic related, I resized the reference picture Cure used for his as a comparison for a computer's pixel rendering of the image and Cure's pixel rending of the image.)

1/2