The definition of pixel art
Printed From: Pixel Joint
Category: The Lounge
Forum Name: Resources and Support
Forum Discription: Help your fellow pixel artists out with links to good tutorials, other forums, software, fonts, etc. Bugs and support issues should go here as well.
URL: https://pixeljoint.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=806
Printed Date: 11 September 2025 at 6:14pm
Topic: The definition of pixel art
Posted By: neota
Subject: The definition of pixel art
Date Posted: 06 September 2005 at 9:19am
|
I consider the current definition of pixel art given by the 'submit pixel art' page to be somewhat inaccurate. The current definition given is: "Any art you post should be PIXEL ART! Pixel art implies that each pixel is placed by hand (no filters, paintbrushes, gradient fills, etc)." If you are using negatives in your definition of something, it usually means your thinking on the matter is vague. I have started this topic in order to arrive at a concise and wholly positive definition of pixel art. Some ideas taken from posts elsewhere that maybe will help: "What I want to say is that actually doesn't matter if you use some
automated opacity or not, but you should know the basis of drawing and
basis of opacy first. You just don't learn if automation does
everything for you. " -- inkspot "as long as there is some level of individual pixel manipulation, it
doesn't matter whatever other tricks you throw in. If it makes your
work look better, and is more efficent, then bravo for you." -- nvision "For me pixel art is about exploring iconic representation, dithering,
hatching, shading, limited color palettes and making every pixel count. " -- sedgemonkey
'Pixel art implies a high level of care taken with each individual
pixel, so that the color and placement of every pixel in the picture is
decided by you.' It needs to be more concise or precise though. Any suggestions? |
Replies:
Posted By: Shark
Date Posted: 06 September 2005 at 10:36am
|
who cares about a stupid defintion. its all about the art not the f8cking politics. people come on this site to view art and to help others improve. i dont feel pixel art needs a defintion as long as its created by the artist not the computer. ART IS A FREE-FLOWING THING, IT DOESNT NEED TO BE "DEFINED" |
Posted By: Pixel_Outlaw
Date Posted: 06 September 2005 at 10:49am
|
"ART IS A FREE-FLOWING THING, IT DOESNT NEED TO BE "DEFINED"" defining the undefinable |
Posted By: Shark
Date Posted: 06 September 2005 at 11:12am
 true, that was slightly hypercritical of me
|
Posted By: Ensellitis
Date Posted: 06 September 2005 at 11:14am
If the person posting it needsa definition of what it is, then it
probably isn't pixel art and further more they can't be to bright if
they can't understand the current definition. I mean com'on, "[...] each
pixel is placed by hand [...]" is pretty damn self explanatory, IMO 
------------- There's a pubic hair on my keyboard. What the f**k?? I "mow the lawn" so it's not mine. Gross. |
Posted By: Shark
Date Posted: 06 September 2005 at 11:41am
amen to that 
|
Posted By: neota
Date Posted: 06 September 2005 at 12:27pm
|
The 'by hand' bit is fine. It's the 'no filters, paintbrushes, gradient fills' that I think inappropriate. For instance, I used to use a gradient-map filter to finalize the coloring for my pics ( I drew them in greyscale deliberately so i could do that.) I've also used paintbrush to good effect in one pic. I haven't really used gradients to any good effect :) |
Posted By: sedgemonkey
Date Posted: 06 September 2005 at 12:48pm
Well, I think the 'no filters, paintbrushes, gradient fills' statement is more to scare off newbs who got photoshp for x-mas. 
|
Posted By: Shark
Date Posted: 06 September 2005 at 12:55pm
| haha that actually made me laugh out loud. |