Long answer 2:
You completely misunderstood what I mean by "garbage" within pixel art and started accusing me of something again. Let me explain, stylistic peculiarities - there are stylistic peculiarities, but there are also things that are perfectly acceptable within the framework of pixel art, for example, properly applied banding, which you can see in the works of many pixel artists, but still newcomers are hammered into their heads that "banding is a mistake", I was talking about such traditions.
I'm afraid to disappoint you, but in the works of Valery Kim, whom you think I should unconditionally imitate, there are many colors that you call useless. They are present literally in the last work. In addition, your argument that I as protege should imitate my mentor is wrong and shows that you have absolutely no idea how the educational process works.
Once again you've wrapped my argument in such a way as to make me look wrong and elitist. Why would you do that? I absolutely did not say you can't learn anything without formal education, you made that up. I was talking about the fact that there are a lot of people in pixel art who have no formal education. I'll let you in on a secret, but without formal education you can learn anything. Only, if you don't have a teacher, it will take much more time and in the end you may know less than you would with formal education. These are the very gaps that affect pixel art. If you claim otherwise, then you are saying that teachers are a useless profession and schools, colleges and universities are unnecessary.
You also mentioned professionally qualified pixel artists, may I ask how you qualify them?
My thesis that certain stylistic features in the tradition are changing in no way goes against the thesis about the youth of pixel art. You see, certain things in the tradition change, but the skeleton remains. And the skeleton can be strong and aged, or it can be young and weak, not yet strong. I can reveal this idea if you need it, but I have the impression that you don't want to listen.
I see no further point in talking to you. I was hoping for a constructive and interesting dialog, where we would exchange opinions, listen to each other, you would learn something new, I would learn something new, but for some reason you started to engage in eristic, accuse me and prove me wrong in everything, interpret my arguments in an unfavorable way for me and make me look like a stupid rebel who does not understand what he is doing. It's really sad... 
But thanks for publishing the work anyway!
Long answer 1:
I don't know why you would think I have an aversion to PJ. I have a lot of respect for PJ, it's a very good place to share your work, participate in different activities. It's one of the few places just about pixelart, that's why people still sit on it. I don't really understand what PJ profile you're talking about, because in the PJ rules it's written that you can use a lot of colors if there's a compelling reason for it. You chose to ignore my explanation, but I already described why I use noise in my artwork, if you find that reason unconvincing, that's your opinion.
Noise is very common in traditional fine art, as well as in cg, as it is a powerful compositional technique. I use noise specifically in this work to separate the masses of light and shadow. The viewer immediately pays attention to the cleaner areas of the work - these are areas of light, so I compositionally emphasize them. And all the unlit details and shadows are written off and go into the canvas, which also has the texture of noise, which generalizes the shadow and background, further emphasizing the light areas. Besides, in life there is really less clarity in the shadows, because less light gets there.
and also the texture of the background resembles the texture of the sheet on which the sketch is drawn. That's why I wrote off the legs and they also go into the background as unimportant.
In addition, the noise creates materiality of the object, because a pure spot of light is no longer pure, and small shimmers appear inside it.
Lest you once again ignore my explanation. The two paragraphs above are specific purpose or why I can use noise in PJ.
Why are you accusing me of eristic loopholes, since I just wanted to know what you mean by traditions? If there is no document that establishes a list of these traditions, then each person can mean different things by traditions. So I don't understand what you are accusing me of: I didn't break PJ rules and I used a lot of colors for a specific purpose, I repeat, if you think it's not enough - that's your opinion and you are entitled to it, but your opinion and PJ profile are different things.
The PJ rules are quite old, but they are quite liberal and tolerant of everything. They allow any means of expression within the pixel canvas as long as the end justifies the means. Apparently, reading the PJ rules, you have decided that they are a guideline of some pixel art tradition and, as a pixel nazi, you accuse me of not following the rules.
Short answer:
You have chosen to ignore my arguments about noise. For some reason you started accusing me of some kind of rebellion, delitantism and rhetorical tricks. I don't understand why you are doing this, because I am just sharing my position with you and I am ready to listen to what you think about it. Why insult me and accuse me of gimmickry, of being mean to PJ and so on. You are apparently very offended that I use noise in my work and publish my work in PJ, which according to you is a "traditional" pixel art gallery with its own profile, but I have not violated the rules of PJ, which allow the use of a lot of colors for a certain purpose. You can't articulate what you consider traditional in pixel art and hence accuse me of sophistry. According to you noise is not a tradition, so it has no place on PJ, but PJ rules allow using noise for certain purposes, if you find them unconvincing, that's your opinion, not PJ rules.
Longer response 2:
Asking for a list of traditions is more insulting to you than to me. If you try to use your pretending that you don't know what tradition is, as an eristic loophole, it won't work.
Yes, "specific purpose" can be anything, but it has to be convincing, or it will appear dilettante. So far, you have presented none. You just wrote that it is a conscious artistic decision. Great! ... for modern pixel art or enchanted pixel art.
Your argument about time is useless. You are not the one to decide how much time needs to pass for something to be called traditional. Just because pixel art is young in your opinion (it is not, really depends on what you compare it to; if sculpture, then yes; if tik-tok video meme, then no). The term is in use, and you can accept it or pretend you know better. The latter seems rather juvenile.
The argument about the Hall of Fame is a very weak one. The page is old, and it does have old works; what is wrong with that? It is obvious to every PJ user who has paid attention for a while that the hall of fame is historical, and an adequate state of curerent pixel art can be found in the monthly top 10, for example. Your attempt to discredit PJ's educational role is very shallow and seems like a cheap trick. PJ Discord is filled with beginner artists getting feedback or joining collabs. This is clearly a result of confusing the historical part of PJ and its current continuous existence.
The analogy with calligraphy stands, because time has nothing to do with it. And you have disproved this argument by yourself before, writing that what constitutes a style will be different 100 years before and now. It would be exactly the same for the the art of architecture and for the art of parkour. The argument that people come to pixel art with no artistic education is simply an elitist one. You don't need a formal education to learn anything, and it has been proven many times. Jaco Pastorious, the greatest bass player of all time, was self-taught. The difference in quality between the works of a newcomer and a seasoned and skilled pixel artist is obvious, and so is the fact, that practice pieces by beginners do not constitute rules. In pixel art and in anything.
I will accept your artwork now, because I feel this is the only way to end this. Please feel free to continue your fight. I simply fail to understand. If you don't like what PJ stands for, have trouble accepting its guidelines or find them "wrong", and even are disgusted by PJ's historical works, why do you want to be here anyway? Everybody else doesn't care how firm the definition of traditional pixel art is at this point. They just post clean pixel works here and "dirty" ones on other galleries, which are plenty. I myself had edited many of my works to place them here. They looked different, yes. Sometimes even worse. So what?
Longer response 1: Just because something is vague and can be interpreted in different ways doesn't mean you can just ignore it or make it your battle cause for no reason. People can cooperate in harmony and politely agree to some things, if they do not cause harm to anyone (and formal requirements of an internet gallery doesn't hurt anyone), or they can waste time for pointless fights over not so important things. Pixel Joint has its own profile. You can take it or leave it.
Yes, we all know that nowadays we are not limited by the number of colours. That is why sometimes songs have 20 minutes and cinema movies sometimes have 5 hours. This only proves my point.
There are notions like "modern pixel art" or "enchanted pixel art", and "traditional pixel art". You are just trying to ignore the fact that they are already functioning, and time has nothing to do with it—just your arbitral decision to defy what everyone else finds easy to agree with.
Yes, the number of colours is only one aspect of palette management, but actually the easiest one to follow ;)
Your use of the argument that traditions are fluid is flawed. Of course they are. Of course, traditional painting meant something different 100 years ago. We are talking about how we understand traditional pixel art today; 20 years in the future it will be different. We will talk then about them, not about what we have today.
Your argument about noise used only in separate clusters is interesting. It still doesn't change the PJ profile, which takes colour recycling and colour number only as high as necessary, as crucial for the traditional style.
I failed to see any expression in the noise, but that might be my fault. I would then ask you to explain to me what I cannot see. Sometimes it is worth listening to what artists have to say to justify their use of means of expression. Asking about it would make no sense in an open gallery for everything, but Pixel Joint is not for everything; we also don't store 3D renders, and someone would be offended by that. If I were to find your explanation interesting, it wouldn't change that Pixel Joint artists are required to use the traditional pixel art limitations to express themselves. Like single colour clusters or dithering. You can post works with modern techniques in other galleries. This of course may change in the future (and most certainly will), but we are not there yet.
Your opinion that traditions in art are "garbage" is yours to have. Brings nothing to the topic. I can give you plenty of examples of wonderful rule breaking too. You are missing the point. The act of creativity by cleverly navigating within the boundaries of a style or a medium and the interesting new ways of breaking rules to achieve new artistic goals would not be possible without having "garbage" rules to begin with. Some are more strict, like a sonnet or haiku in poetry, and some are much more fluid, but they always are. Without them, there would be no styles or genres, and no progress nor discovery in art. And no discussion like this. The sets of rules also have their core, which is hard to break without simply making something completely different, and edges, which are much more plastic and less defined, making them much easier to play with.
My quick answer would be: You announce that Valerii Kim is your mentor. You apparently are very picky about what aspects of this style you wish to emulate, because a very rapid analysis of his works proves that he has great control over his palettes. Every single colour matters, and is used for a reason. You won't find dozens of indistinguishable colours or barely noticeable grain, used only to defy rules without any reason.
5.
> I came up with an analogy to illustrate this. You are allowed to make calligraphy with a sharpie and it will be cool and may look good, but it will not be traditional calligraphy then. A gallery with a traditional calligraphy profile won't accept it not becasue it is wrong or bad, but just becasue they defined their profile. They won't accept a calligraphy made with a sharpie the same as an oil painting.
This analogy is incorrect, first of all, because calligraphy is also much older and has professional schools that are guardians of traditions. Pixel-art is quite young and people coming to pixel-art often have no artistic education, which also affects the quality of "traditions". Secondly, there is no declared traditional style in pixel art, and PJ rules are invalid because they are guidelines containing a "specific purpose" clause.
Thank you, for your reply, I would be glad if you supplement your position! I look forward to your response. 
4.
> Pixel Joint aspires to not only store pixel art works and educate new pixel artists but also preserve the traditional style.
I'll say it again. No firm tradition is formed, it is a rather vague concept. If you call tradition what is written in PJ rules, then first of all PJ rules provide for "specific purpose", which already breaks tradition, and secondly they are simply outdated.
How is PJ meant to educate new pixel artists? A newbie who is going to open a Hall of Fame and see these horribly aged works containing a lot of not-so-great decisions is not going to be a good pixel artist. And new work by people who have outgrown those not-so-great decisions in the Hall of Fame doesn't get in for known reasons. Because Hall of Fame shows the works with the most likes and you get such a vicious circle in which only old works exist.
If there are certain traits of traditional style as you understand it, I also ask you to declare them. 
3.
> People deconstruct those "rules" successfully if they know how, and have a good artistic or conceptual reason for it, so it is allowed to experiment and try to "break the boundaries and limitations", but having the background grain which is barely visible without any reason could be named sloppy, and does not look good. At least if it is not justified by any deliberate artistic decision.
No, the presence of barely noticeable grain cannot be called careless and it is not done for nothing. It is a conscious artistic decision.
It's from PJ's rules:
> Pieces must exhibit proper color palette control. Having too many similar / indistinguishable colors that serve no specific purpose may have a piece denied entry to the gallery. Use PJ Image Specs to analyze your piece for such issues.
You do realize that "specific purpose" can mean anything, so the rule itself is useless. I used noise in the piece we're commenting on for a reason. I had a specific purpose. It's not just the background that is noisy, but also a certain shadow part of the character, which creates a contrast to the cleaner light part, which gets more light, so it's cleaner. This is how it is done in traditional painting. It gives an extra separation of a large patch of light and shadow from each other and therefore a greater contrast of these masses.
Let me repeat again: this is a fully realized artistic decision, the noise was used for a "specific purpose".
2.
> This is not a rule but a stylistic characteristic, and it was not "made up" by any "dude", but emerged from decades of evolution of the style.
Pixel art is pretty young and most "traditions" (maybe you personally don't consider it a tradition, but I know a lot of people who think otherwise) are garbage that are set up as rules of "good taste" but are really just inappropriate uses of the technique itself, like "banding is a mistake", "line jaggies are a mistake" and so on. I can give you plenty of examples of when this works (with noise too). So I would be very dubious about what is called "tradition" in the context of pixel art. Still, there is a huge difference between a traditional school of painting that has been formed over centuries and pixel art that has survived a measly few decades.
Once again, I don't know what exactly you consider to be traditions, so I'd ask you to list them, if you don't mind.
In general, traditions are quite fluid: the academic school of painting 100 years ago and now are different things.
Thanks for your reply, I'll describe what I think about it.
1.
> Traditional pixel art requires the skill of palette control.
Palette management is a rather dubious concept and can be interpreted in different ways.
I think you are talking about a limited number of colors. This limitation has proven to be very convenient, as the artist works with patches of certain colors, what we call clusters. This makes it easier to interact with the canvas, helps generalize things (which is very useful in the work), forces the artist to find new solutions to the expression of the object, brings color to the work, and makes pixel art crisp in a big way. That is, palette management is just convenient, everyone uses it, which is why we can call it somewhat of a "tradition".
But nowadays there is no limited palette, artists just use some colors in their work for different things and most don't set themselves the need to fit into any palette. This causes an increase in the number of colors in the work, which in no way makes the work worse or better in itself. So even here the "tradition" has long since begun to erode.
Noise and a large number of colors when used correctly does not interfere with "palette management", because we still split the picture into certain spots and clusters, only now these clusters are not monochromatic, but have a dynamic color. This is the case both in traditional art, where noise is natural, and in cg, where noise is artificial, anyway noise is a good compositional tool that can be used to express many things.
Traditional pixel art requires the skill of palette control. This is not a rule but a stylistic characteristic, and it was not "made up" by any "dude", but emerged from decades of evolution of the style. It started as a technical limitation, and was preserved. Just like pop somgs being around 3 or 4 minutes and movies being around 2 hours is not a rule of a dude. At the beginning it was only a result of limitations of the medium, then we got used to it and it became a defining characteristic. People deconstruct those "rules" successfully if they know how, and have a good artistic or conceptual reason for it, so it is allowed to experiment and try to "break the boundaries and limitations", but having the background grain which is barely visible without any reason could be named sloppy, and does not look good. At least if it is not justified by any deliberate artistic decision.
Pixel Joint aspires to not only store pixel art works and educate new pixel artists but also preserve the traditional style. There are plenty of online galleries open to other media or mixed media or modern pixel art. We also post our artworks there, especially those which do not meet the traditional standards. I came up with an analogy to illustrate this. You are allowed to make calligraphy with a sharpie and it will be cool and may look good, but it will not be traditional calligraphy then. A gallery with a traditional calligraphy profile won't accept it not becasue it is wrong or bad, but just becasue they defined their profile. They won't accept a calligraphy made with a sharpie the same as an oil painting. I hope this satisfies some of your curiosities. If you have more questions please feel free to ask.
Thank you! But why do I have to keep track of the number of colors in my work? Just because it's a rule some dude made up? Does it matter how many colors are in the work if the work looks good?
I agree. You would have to clean the piece before we can accept it. Pixel Joint gallery stores only traditional pixel art without effects like that. It made a piece that look like ~16 colours to have 683.
https://www.linneart.com/pj/?input=https%3A%2F%2Fpixeljoint.com%2Fpixelart%2F155798.htm
It's beautiful, but you should save it out without that slight color noise on it.
Dear Darwin, I never wrote noise is bad. I wrote that noise that you barely can see, which brings nothing except artificially inflating the colour count is useless and should be cleaned. You started to manipulate on purpose which is a vile eristic exercise I do not wish to participate in.
I'm not going to read all you wrote, not because I disrespect you, and not because I don't have time for it, but because I do not want to reinforce this. I also do not want to read it all because then I would have to dissect it all into what is half-truths, what is a result of confusion, and what is a deliberate manipulation. But you are the disrespectful one for sure, and I hope will show you that in the following message.
Right now I'm giving you your win. I'm saying you are correct in every argument and that I'm wrong. Please be happy and move on. I'm doing this not only because all this situation is pointless, but mostly because you are missing the point. You say you are here not to fight, yet you write walls of arguments over and over. So what is it then? (please don't answer, it is a rhetorical question).
The bottom line is that what you are doing could be interpreted as very arrogant and self-absorbed, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you simply have no awareness of how your position presents outside. And because of that if any other mod in the future will be in my position, please come to me, and I will defend you. Now I will try to help you see your behavior so you can reflect on it. But I will break it down to you without any analogies, because I predict that you will rush to argue with its formal validity, instead of focusing on the meritum.
You are a person who brings a piece of art to a gallery that states: "We only accept X", and you say, "Your definition of X is wrong because it doesn't include my piece; you have to change the definition you are using so my piece can be accepted."
You understand now? We could be wrong and you could be right and that would change nothing, because we have the right to be wrong, and so do you. In this conversation I'm declaring you are right, and that still changes nothing about how demanding your position is. The most disturbing thing about it is that editing your work to meet the criteria would take little to no effort from you, and - most importantly - your piece would look exactly the same after the changes, because the effect you are arguing for is barely visible. Probably only you and I would know it is any different from the version on Twitter, which doesn't have any selection or Lospec, which is open for much wider sort of categories. 99% of people just say "ok, sure, I'll edit it" and move on to another piece. You could draw another piece in that time. I hope you will be able to see how your "polite aggressiveness" looks outside, and gain some humility. And I hope you can see how pointless this argument is. You see, I gave you your win, and you still lost. We all did.