Anyone can say what they want about any piece of art. But it effected me. It spoke to me. It made me feel and think. And it means a lot to me. I may be the only person in the world who feels this way (but I doubt that), but to me, it means something.
And FrostPumpkin really hits the nail on the head, I think. It's funny to even have this debate, when so many people would scoff at Pixel Art itself compared to more recognized art forms.
Didn't read all the messages, I surely will.
I wanted to talk about abstract art for a bit : The thing with abstract art is that it's not figurative - It doesn't figure a thing we know the meaning of. It shows a impression, a feeling, and this feeling can be relative to the viewer. In fact, that's what makes abstract art so powerful : the viewer decides the meaning of the piece based on what he lived and experienced without even noticing, it's subconscious.
In opposition to figurative art where a thing is presented with a set message and it only goes one way, abstract art implies the viewer into the piece and he becomes part of it.
This point makes even more sense since the piece is related to music wich is also abstract and even stronger in terms of feelings.
The only critic I may give is that the chaos feel created by the PA piece doesn't really match the music it goes with, at least for me.
Anyways, very different and refreshing piece, nice job :)
As much as I hate abstract art. The maker does have an excellent point. Although the genre of pixel art is more based around objects rather then thoughts it is pretty blatant to say that it is "not very good art". Because it is good art because it is what the maker intended it to be
I am going to tell you that I think Picasso sucks at art, why am I saying this you might ask. Because picasso values very different things and his art is based on his thoughts and my thoughts are nothing alike therefore I am unable to "connect" to his pieces. I do like his older work because it is easier to connect to because it is not abstract and the meaning of the piece is more focused and out there.
Pixel art was created when video games started to come out and video games are object oriented which is the short sender to why pixel art is based on objects and not thoughts. Pixel art is.directly associated with sprites and a artwork that is usually based off something IRL, for example a tree, that exists IRL and can be an object. But when there is nothing that you can make out to be an object in the pixel piece it becomes a bunch of random squares random colours and randomly placed.
> I didn't say this wasn't art, I just don't think this is very good art.
That's a valid criticism and I would take it as such if you were able to back it up with something other than "this isn't art this is just noise", rather than how the piece is constructed (colors used), how the noise is distributed, or your take on it. Or if you think that your take on it is weak. All you do is say it's not art and I'm not going to consider that as more than a shitpost. Especially the whole "look at picasso, that's REAL art," even though picasso is decades dead and abstract art has split a million directions since then.
> Because you made rectangles of noise.
I like this a lot. Damian is being pretty damn rude.
I didn't say this wasn't art, I just don't think this is very good art. I do however think that this isn't the place for this, nor the medium.
"If you urge everyone to improve, why single me out? "
Because you made rectangles of noise. But I guess each to their own. I won't argue any further, becasue I don't feel I need to, or have the will to want to. Take what you will from what I've said, and the rest with a pinch of salt.
If you urge everyone to improve, why single me out? You could say that to nearly everyone on the site, as you yourself said.
> I don't see the point of randomzied pixels blobs and blots, where the placement meets no end
Somewhat randomized but highly controlled. Lot of time spent ensuring that the color distribution was intact, that areas of focus were especially well mixed, and that the overall original color blocks from earlier in the process remained. Put strong emphasis on colors like greens and pure magenta, since they clash wonderfully and are easily picked out by the eye. More of a planned aleatorism.
> It's randomized to a point where I have to ask myself, "why?", Surely anyone can write a program that does this 1000x , does that make each one art?
Ignoring the fact that this isn't 100% randomized and rather controlled, sure, anyone can. But anyone can draw a 16x16 sprite of a man running or a profile picture of a pirate, albeit at different skill levels. As for the "anyone and a program could do this," it's a tired question that's decades old and has been tested in art and music extensively (In C by Terry Riley, 4'33" by Cage, The Well Tuned Piano by La Monte Young -- not that I'm comparing myself to them in any way other than giving an example, of course.)
> Picasso is a great example of when abstract art actaully means something, and to a broad audiance. Maybe gain some insperation from people like him.
> "Abstract art actually means something"
sure w/e if you say so
Only rude if you take it negativly. I urge every member of this community to improve as artists, including you.
I just don't think this is very good abstract art. I don't see the point of randomzied pixels blobs and blots, where the placement meets no end . Which is the oppisite of what I thought this website promoted. It's randomized to a point where I have to ask myself, "why?", Surely anyone can write a program that does this 1000x , does that make each one art? Surely not. To me, thats where is it loses all meaning and value on an artistic level. Picasso is a great example of when abstract art actaully means something, and to a broad audiance. Maybe gain some insperation from people like him. Then get back to making abstract art.
I agree with Damian here.
Art is indeed a 'dumb word' and carries very little meaning unless you view it from the perspective of a more strictly defined culture. Of course there is a pixeljoint culture with certain values, which is why we can create top10's or have challenge winners, but I don't know if this was intended to be pleasing for this particular culture.
What I do know is that this is not interesting at all to me. It can get my attention equally long as randomized noise can. The only purpose it serves to me is that it is a discussion starter.
My opinion might change if you give us insight in the intended meaning of each thing you did. Until then I will not be able to enjoy this as art...
I just wrote maybe 300 lines about the meaning of art and why what damian said is wrong but I accidentally pressed backspace... So ill just put it in a paragraph now because I don't feel like writing for 45 minutes again :l.
Telling him to improve as an artist is pretty rude.
why? Because you are telling him that he should improve in the aspect of art that you think art is, and not what he thinks art is.
Art is a dumb word. Because everyone sees art differently and has different personal meaning, The only link between almost every artists meaning is a direct link to creativity.
I made a much better point before and it took me 45 minutes. Now my comment seems almost as rude.
I do not like the pice either for I am not a fan of abstract, but If the maker of the piece thinks his piece is what he meant it to be and nothing more. Then it is a perfect piece, The concept of art is to vague for me to talk about for another 45 minutes so just try to understand my point.
To be honest, I think this is some of the most elegantly-produced "chaos" I've ever seen. It's done without causing garish amounts of eyestrain, which makes it actually rather satisfying to look at, and despite everything it all seems to be generally placed in small blocks of color, which helps create a sort of randomized "computer-glitch" feel that still is appealing to look at. Definitely a favorite of mine.
Not going to argue you intensively but I don't see how "artistic ability" will alter how I will put "meaning and value" behind it. Everything I did was intentional.
Can't say I like it. Improve as an artist, then show that your abstraction is of any meaning and value. Otherwise, I'm not sold.
wonderful to see some abstraction on this place. It's rare, unfortunately.
I'm one of those peeps that can only think of pieces like this : "Hm? Isn't this just noise?"
I am very poor at french-esque museums.
I feel like if you cut the bottoms off at the same level it would give the piece a lot more direction. But that probably isn't what you'ree going for.
Looks like databending:
I like it.
Cool comparison. I started out somewhat similarly, except more based on a striped pattern against a black background, and messed around with color distribution and ensuring that colors were never clumped in such a way that colors could not be used as a form of bringing the piece together, to cause it to look chaotic. With the most chaos around the center of the middle shape (less shapes, more single-pixel noise, etc.) as the only way other than the shapes themselves to draw the eye's attention.
Oh and thanks to those who like it : ^ )
It's the glitched background from Rom Check Fail.
what a creative and striking piece. It really emphasizes the fact that its digital art!
Very interesting. It really does look like a Polluck in pixels. I love the music as well.
Edit: I've been here for about 5 minutes now and the more I look at this piece, the more it intregues me, I love how each square of colors is different from all the others, and yet you managed to come away without any obvious focal points to draw the attention away from the rest of the piece, making it seem infinitely large and complex, I love it.