Pixel Art Challenge: Green With Envy


Depict somebody/something being jealous of someone/something.

Canvas Size - Unrestricted
Colours - Max 32. Must include pure green (#00ff00).
Transparency - No.
Animation - Optional.

The challenge thread will have all the challenge updates. The thread is also a great place to post your WIPs.

Posted by jeremy @ 3/12/2012 00:01  |    39


If you would like to comment you will need to be logged in. Register now. It only takes a moment and it's free.

Graindolium (Level 3 Private Eye) @ 3/25/2012 07:50

jeremy (Level 11 Sphinx) @ 3/20/2012 01:22


MIERDINSKY (Level 8 Partner) @ 3/20/2012 00:24


failureboy (Level 7 Assassin) @ 3/15/2012 18:06

@MrBeast, go to the challenge thread and check out the pieces begun by Mrmo Tarius and iMoose for the answer to your question.  Adding eyes and a mouth and giving them expressions can do wonders.  Jim Henson knew that.

@Jeremy, I give up.

Franuka (Level 3 Hatchet Man) @ 3/15/2012 16:08

 Oh boy...xD
Alright, alright, sorry, didn't know.

Then I guess it's your decision.

Please try to make this kind of restrictions more clear on the description next time, since confusion seems to be an usual thing among these challenges u.u

jeremy (Level 11 Sphinx) @ 3/15/2012 15:02

I did.                   

philippejugnet (Level 6 Hitman) @ 3/15/2012 13:57

its a challenge, you decide to enter or not. Challenges are supposed to be challenging

Franuka (Level 3 Hatchet Man) @ 3/15/2012 08:58

Please tell me that's sarcasm, Beast...

Jeremy, who created this challenge? What was HIS/HER idea?

Also...the distinction between someone/something was made because someone would mean an individual, while something might depict a situation/state/possession-etc. (Wouldn't that make more sense?)

I don't think ANYONE is looking for "exploiting loopholes" when thinking "somebody" isn't restricted to human beings. What would be the point? Why are you being restrictive on this matter? :s


MrBeast (Level 3 Dryad) @ 3/15/2012 08:16

How can something that is not a person show that it is jelous eh?

jeremy (Level 11 Sphinx) @ 3/15/2012 01:39

"The trick is to remember that exploiting loopholes doesn't make you as clever as you think it does".

You might want to look closer at that sample sentence for • a character in a play or story
I clarified within 24 hours of the challenge start what I, and every single dictionary definition I can find, meant by somebody.

Again, why would there be any distinction between "someone/something" if any any animal, mineral or tree fits inside the *somebody* umbrella? Use common sense.

failureboy (Level 7 Assassin) @ 3/14/2012 22:14

Jeremy, your strict interpretation of "person" is what I was referring to when I mentioned the "magnifying glass."  I would hardly expect people to find definitions within definitions for every challenge introduced ever.  Using your attitude, I could just as rightly take that same magnifying glass, quote the following from the definition of "person":

• a character in a play or story

...and then point my finger at you and say, "HA!  SEE?  It doesn't HAVE to be a human, it can be any character in a story." <sticks tongue out, blows raspberries>

If you had come out and said, "Sorry everyone, I MEANT for the challenge to only depict human beings..." then we wouldn't be having this argument.  But instead you've turned it into a semantic argument.

I see your point.  I don't think you see our point.


iMoose (Level 6 SWAT) @ 3/14/2012 21:36

 So this is what I see here:

In favor of non-humans: 1.) It's quite common in art for non-human characters to be depicted in the same way as human characters; 2.) The main premises of the challenge are jealousy and the the color green, and the human aspect doesn't seem as essential to the challenge; 3.) A few members have already put work into entries that don't include humans, before this distinction was made clear to them; 4.) Synonyms and philosophical definitions of "somebody" include non-human beings.

In favor of humans only: 1.) The dictionary definition of "somebody" is "a person", and the dictionary definition of "person" is "human".

I really don't see the benefit or the added challenge to limiting entries to humans only. Seems to me that allowing other ideas would make a much nicer variety in the challenge entries at the end of the week. I don't mean to be all contradictory here Jeremy, but I just don't think it's so ridiculous to interpret the challenge to include non-human subjects.

XGundam05 (Level 1 Jukyu) @ 3/14/2012 20:40

Just bein devil's advocate here, but the 4th definition for "person" at Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/person) states:

4. Philosophy. a self-conscious or rational being.

Granted, the other 4 mention human being, although the 5th allows for types of androids and other entities via some views of Theseus's Paradox.


jeremy (Level 11 Sphinx) @ 3/14/2012 19:18

Look up "person"

If you don't know why a cyborg would be ok when a robot wouldn't, I don't know what to tell you.

failureboy (Level 7 Assassin) @ 3/14/2012 19:03

Let me get this right, because I missed it the first time:

Ghosts, Zombies, & Cyborgs = OK

Vampires & Androids = NOT OK

And I'm being ridiculous?


Here's the definition in the dictionary I use:

somebody |ˈsəmˌbädē|pronounsome person; someone.

...I don't see the word "human" in there, sorry.

Really not sure why you decided to put the magnifying glass on the word in the first place.  I would think "jealousy" is the more important concept in the challenge, the main thing people should consider when creating their piece (and when voting) and the one that YOU as a moderator should care more about.  There are thousands of entries on this website depicting non-human characters doing all manner of things.  You're saying that the meaning of "somebody" should be obvious, but clearly it isn't.  At least two pretty talented members of our community instantly began pieces on the WIP challenge board that defy your interpretation of the word, and from what I can tell a bunch more - including myself - agree with them.

eclep (Level 5 Detective) @ 3/14/2012 18:12

Well I found this on the wikipedia page for "person" : "Today, most living adult humans are usually considered persons, but depending on the context, theory or definition, the category of "person" may be taken to include such non-human entities as animalscorporationssovereign statesestates in probateartificial intelligences, or extraterrestrial life"

I don't mean to embitter the arguing, but I think that the human restriction doesn't add anything to the challenge. 

jeremy (Level 11 Sphinx) @ 3/14/2012 17:46

What? Don't be ridiculous. I can't find a dictionary definition for somebody/one that deviates from "an [unspecified] human"

failureboy (Level 7 Assassin) @ 3/14/2012 13:27

I'm confused.

If the mods are not qualified to determine, philisophically, what a somebody is, then why make the restriction?

In my opinion, "Occam's Razor" would sooner support iMoose's interpretation than Jeremy's.  To me, "somebody" means a CHARACTER - like a duck or a person or a slime or an alien.  Point is we see that they are jealous (whoever/whatever they may *be*).

 Can we really not describe, say, WALL-E as a somebody?

Mrmo Tarius (Level 10 Master Sniper) @ 3/14/2012 06:18


jeremy (Level 11 Sphinx) @ 3/14/2012 02:17


Graindolium (Level 3 Private Eye) @ 3/14/2012 02:12

jeremy (Level 11 Sphinx) @ 3/13/2012 20:36

At its most base definition, somebody is an (unspecified) person. A person is "A human being regarded as an individual".


Occam's Razor really should be applied to PJ challenge descriptions. I don't think any of the mods are qualified for the deep philosophical argument of what is a somebody? (cure maybe). That's not to say that you can't be creative, I'm fairly sure there's still a near-infinite number of scenarios to choose from. It should have been clear just for the fact that the second half of the challenge writeup makes the distinction between humans and everything else!

On human-ish things, I'd say (human) ghosts, (human) zombies and cyborgs which are at least 50% human would qualify; whereas vampires, furries or humanoid androids would not.

Finally, the purpose of weekly challenges is to be a springboard of ideas. I'd encourage people to finish things which don't necessarily fit the challenge rules but are still bitching pieces of art. Y'all shouldn't be entering just for the promise of a shiny green ribbon at the end anyway >:I

p.s. @Mrmo: ME3 sux

iMoose (Level 6 SWAT) @ 3/13/2012 16:43

If I told someone to draw someone doing something, I would find it totally within those directions if they decided to draw, say, Daffy Duck going for a walk. Especially since pixel art is a media commonly used to illustrate non-human characters, and since a restriction to human characters only wasn't specified in the challenge rules, I think it's totally fair for us to use non-human characters. Although I'm arguing this somewhat selfishly, since I've already spent a few hours on my jelly blobs (and what a perfect pun! The jelly blob is jelly!), I think the restriction to humans only is unnecessary 

AirStyle (Level 6 SWAT) @ 3/13/2012 07:24

 In all actuality, Jeremy, you probably should have mentioned this within the challenge. You know how we PAs tend to get a little debative on these topics (i.e. Grain on this challenge, and Philipejugnet on the unexpected events challenge). Some people won't look here for this particular specification (I didn't even notice this page existed until Mrmo said something in the forum), and then they'll have wasted their time on a piece they can't use in the challenge (i.e. Mrmo and Imoose). Not much you can do now, but for future reference, it would be nice that no ambiguous words are used as specfications of the challenges.

Graindolium (Level 3 Private Eye) @ 3/13/2012 04:06

le seul intérêt que je peut trouver à un challenge ici c'est la motivation qu'il suscite en moi, si mon art est disqualifier(même sans raison) ça ne me fera aucun mal , du moment que mon estime n'est pas troubler , il n'y a pas de mal à être dans l'erreur d'avoir suivi sont cœur, même si cela est la plus grand cause de douleur

Mrmo Tarius (Level 10 Master Sniper) @ 3/13/2012 03:30

 I actually wanted to make a similar argument (provided that I've translated that one properly, hehe), but I think we need more input from the people who are supervising the rules. (For example, I have just finished playing Mass Effect 3, and it went to great lenghts to explain how any intelligent, self-conscious entity can be considered 'somebody', even the alien, robotic AI-driven Geth

Graindolium (Level 3 Private Eye) @ 3/13/2012 03:13

la personne est définit par le corps l'esprit et l'âme , au delà de cette conception , ont peut aussi détailler l'individu par le pouvoir-la perception-le sex, par état formel mais aussi par état existentiel par la conscience(le choix), pour faire simple un être vivant de degré robotique supérieur à la première itération fractal de l'équilibre vérifie toujours fondamentalement ces paramètres, alors un animal ou même une plante peut être considérer comme un individu , bien sur pour la connaissance de la conscience il sera forcement une personnification créé par notre esprit , alors une méduse dessiner par Mrmo Tarius sous forme personnifier me parait être "quelqu'un" sans amener à des notions comme la plus petit entier divisible de l'être pour définir l'individu, le challenge ne précise pas qu'il s'agit de forme corporel humaine , mais seulement de quelqu'un !!! même si la jalousie est un sentiment potentiellement humain , et que néanmoins elle serais observer cher bon nombre d'animaux, probablement sous forme précurseur.

Mrmo Tarius (Level 10 Master Sniper) @ 3/13/2012 02:34

Sooo... humans only, eh?

jeremy (Level 11 Sphinx) @ 3/12/2012 21:37


If anyone's unsure still, I made this hilarious writeup:

"Depict somebody being jealous of someone/something"

slym (Level 8 Rear Admiral) @ 3/12/2012 16:08

This is going to be a tough one xD

clefairykid (Level 9 Federal Agent) @ 3/12/2012 15:13

 Yeah, I interpreted it to mean "somebody", as in a human?

pk1080 (Level 1 Rookie) @ 3/12/2012 15:01

I am asking this for Dorong.

I actually translated what was going on his last submission, and he acknowledged what was wrong.

For now, he is thinking of submitting art for this weeks challenge too, but he wonders if 

"Depict somebody being jealous of someone/something."

requires 'the jealous one' to be human since it said "depict somebody"

Chibiwing (Level 4 Deputy) @ 3/12/2012 13:59

Ah, I've thought of and discarded a ton of ideas already because I know my execution would be crap.  I may resort to animals and inanimate object with cute faces instead.  *shrugs*

Franuka (Level 3 Hatchet Man) @ 3/12/2012 08:22

@Chibiwing  which is..?


I'm gonna do something about artistic envy on this page :D

skeddles (Level 11 Sphinx) @ 3/12/2012 07:28

Did snader make this challenge...

Mrmo Tarius (Level 10 Master Sniper) @ 3/12/2012 04:36

 That's why you make use of jellyfish form, which is squishy and impossible to fail at! :D

Chibiwing (Level 4 Deputy) @ 3/12/2012 03:51

Why does every idea I ever think of include the human form which I fail at?

Mrmo Tarius (Level 10 Master Sniper) @ 3/12/2012 01:41

 Dibs on the jealous jellyfish :P

Graindolium (Level 3 Private Eye) @ 3/12/2012 01:10

This Week's Pixel Art

Sindel for Mortal Kombat Collab icon/pixelartMario's 1up mushroom. icon/pixelartMegaman Zero Cartridge icon/pixelartTreasure box monster icon/pixelart
Play party games with QuizBash app
Play party games with QuizBash app

Recent News


Want to give some dough back to all those amazing pixel artists? Donations provide prize money for contests, help cover hosting costs and support new initiatives.