• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Redefining Art

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
My rant may be incorrect and misinformed, but we'll find out I guess.

In the old days, we tended to have something called Pixel Art in 2D video games, and much of it looked beautiful.

images.png


In order to do Pixel Art, one had to often know how to texture and shade, and it took real skill.

But any more, I'm just not seeing that much skill. People do Vector Art which can be learned through a 4.5 hour video that costs $15 (for the video tutorial). And it looks "okay". Now people DO still do pixel art, but they're not texturing and shading much any more since art became more high resolution. They'll just create a good outline of an object, add eyes, etc, then add one line of detail toward the black, or white, edge of the object. Pretty much no texturing or shading almost.

1b65da22f3c3056.png


Now these new ways ARE a blessing in a way. This newer way of doing art that's trending, doesn't always look worse on-screen, because the resolution of both the overall screen and the art have many, many more pixels, sometimes 2-4 times as many, so the artists can kind of get away now with having in my opinion, "lesser skill". In a way all this is a positive because it opens the door for new artists and opens that door more easily.

Now for the potential negative. Because of better tools, we are moving away from needing actual skills to create a good product. Pretty soon, there will be a bunch of presets and you choose from maybe 100 presets without lifting a finger otherwise, and the computer will create a video game or great piece of abstract art or whatever, for you. While creating good content right now takes work and is worthy of praise, we may reach a point where it can be created with all laziness, making it unworthy of praise, even if it's good.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
My rant may be incorrect and misinformed, but we'll find out I guess.

In the old days, we tended to have something called Pixel Art in 2D video games, and much of it looked beautiful.

View attachment 32137

In order to do Pixel Art, one had to often know how to texture and shade, and it took real skill.

But any more, I'm just not seeing that much skill. People do Vector Art which can be learned through a 4.5 hour video that costs $15 (for the video tutorial). And it looks "okay". Now people DO still do pixel art, but they're not texturing and shading much any more since art became more high resolution. They'll just create a good outline of an object, add eyes, etc, then add one line of detail toward the black, or white, edge of the object. Pretty much no texturing or shading almost.

View attachment 32138

Now these new ways ARE a blessing in a way. This newer way of doing art that's trending, doesn't always look worse on-screen, because the resolution of both the overall screen and the art have many, many more pixels, sometimes 2-4 times as many, so the artists can kind of get away now with having in my opinion, "lesser skill". In a way all this is a positive because it opens the door for new artists and opens that door more easily.

Now for the potential negative. Because of better tools, we are moving away from needing actual skills to create a good product. Pretty soon, there will be a bunch of presets and you choose from maybe 100 presets without lifting a finger otherwise, and the computer will create a video game or great piece of abstract art or whatever, for you. While creating good content right now takes work and is worthy of praise, we may reach a point where it can be created with all laziness, making it unworthy of praise, even if it's good.

I agree with your observations, here. Even worse, IMO, is the erosion of content.

Back, back when the video was sub-par by modern standards? A really good video came relied more on content, gameplay and a darn good story line. The graphics were, at best, secondary to a good plot.

I'm thinking of the original Deus Ex, the original Quake and even Dark Forces of the Star Wars franchise. Each of these had pretty darn good stories, even if the graphics was cartoonish at best. We ignored that, and played them over and over because they were fun to play, would run on even a modest machine (of their day) and the graphics were more than good enough to get the information across. Yet, for all the graphical limitations? They were pretty amazing anyway. Some serious artistic talent went into those games.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
The first one looks abit beyond the capabilities of the Sega Genesis, the second looks more NES (game sprite, anyways)
 

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
The first one looks abit beyond the capabilities of the Sega Genesis, the second looks more NES (game sprite, anyways)

Both have similar pixel counts, which exceed NES. However the second one will probably end up being a small character in a high-resolution game. The second one has too many pixels and would be too big a character for having so little detail, in a low-resolution game.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
My rant may be incorrect and misinformed, but we'll find out I guess.

In the old days, we tended to have something called Pixel Art in 2D video games, and much of it looked beautiful.

View attachment 32137

In order to do Pixel Art, one had to often know how to texture and shade, and it took real skill.

But any more, I'm just not seeing that much skill. People do Vector Art which can be learned through a 4.5 hour video that costs $15 (for the video tutorial). And it looks "okay". Now people DO still do pixel art, but they're not texturing and shading much any more since art became more high resolution. They'll just create a good outline of an object, add eyes, etc, then add one line of detail toward the black, or white, edge of the object. Pretty much no texturing or shading almost.

View attachment 32138

Now these new ways ARE a blessing in a way. This newer way of doing art that's trending, doesn't always look worse on-screen, because the resolution of both the overall screen and the art have many, many more pixels, sometimes 2-4 times as many, so the artists can kind of get away now with having in my opinion, "lesser skill". In a way all this is a positive because it opens the door for new artists and opens that door more easily.

Now for the potential negative. Because of better tools, we are moving away from needing actual skills to create a good product. Pretty soon, there will be a bunch of presets and you choose from maybe 100 presets without lifting a finger otherwise, and the computer will create a video game or great piece of abstract art or whatever, for you. While creating good content right now takes work and is worthy of praise, we may reach a point where it can be created with all laziness, making it unworthy of praise, even if it's good.


With high quality graphics programs so expensive something has to give. Many artists are using low cost ( or free ) and inferior tools with limited shading and lighting and without the ability to bump or texture map.

To create an object or character that is "good enough" is all they can do. And i for one am impressed with the skills being shown to create acceptable graphics with little in the way of resources.
 

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
and inferior tools with limited shading and lighting and without the ability to bump or texture map.

I think you're thinking of 3D. In 2D art, the textures and shading are completely imagined and hand-drawn on. One doesn't generally apply a texture or bump map to a 2D outline, they have to draw it by hand in Paint program, etc.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I define art as conveying a message which transcends the medium.
Suppose I arrange some rocks in me garden so that upon seeing
them, people don't think just rocks....they experience sensations
from the forms.
 

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
I define art as conveying a message which transcends the medium.
Suppose I arrange some rocks in me garden so that upon seeing
them, people don't think just rocks....they experience sensations
from the forms.

Well to sum the thread up, suppose it was your idea how to arrange the rocks, but you had someone else, a gardener, do it. Are you still a rock arrangement artist? :)
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Well to sum the thread up, suppose it was your idea how to arrange the rocks, but you had someone else, a gardener, do it. Are you still a rock arrangement artist? :)
If the design is mine, then I'm the artist.
The worker is merely a tool.
 

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
I actually have a story to go with this thread. Many years ago, I created some game art for a certain game. It wasn't really complained about, but someone said "You can do way better. Your pixel art looks like basic shapes with a bit of shading". And he directed me to a Pixel Art tutorial, which if I made the art in that style, it would take much longer, but I still loved the advice.

This was years and years ago. Any more most 2D game art can fit in the classification of "Basic shapes with a bit of shading". Which does make me wonder if someone would ever bring it up now.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
I think you're thinking of 3D. In 2D art, the textures and shading are completely imagined and hand-drawn on. One doesn't generally apply a texture or bump map to a 2D outline, they have to draw it by hand in Paint program, etc.

Of course, to produce work as realistic as possible bump and texture would be used whether in 3d or 2d.

As i said, cost is forcing artists to use inferior tools such as Paint.

Have you tried Gimp? Also free, runs on linux or windows, far better than paint
 

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
Of course, to produce work as realistic as possible bump and texture would be used whether in 3d or 2d.

As i said, cost is forcing artists to use inferior tools such as Paint.

Have you tried Gimp? Also free, runs on linux or windows, far better than paint

Well I mean, I should probably make it clear that despite this rather deep subject I presented, I'm actually going to follow the trend using the newest of the new and using Vector Art. Vector Art uses different programs and they're often free. I'm still weighing this subject though a bit.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Well I mean, I should probably make it clear that despite this rather deep subject I presented, I'm actually going to follow the trend using the newest of the new and using Vector Art. Vector Art uses different programs and they're often free. I'm still weighing this subject though a bit.

Many art programs are free but the best aren't, this was my whole point
 

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
Many art programs are free but the best aren't, this was my whole point

I see.

If it helps any for purpose of discussion, my whole entire budget for the game I'm making, not including any advertising, will probably be a few hundred. If I don't spend it on art tools, I'll probably spend it on a vocal soundtrack.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
With high quality graphics programs so expensive something has to give. Many artists are using low cost ( or free ) and inferior tools with limited shading and lighting and without the ability to bump or texture map.

To create an object or character that is "good enough" is all they can do. And i for one am impressed with the skills being shown to create acceptable graphics with little in the way of resources.
Yup. The expensive stuff makes life of any digital stuff so much easier, especially if you're using multiple mediums for one project. The options and features are better, this and that are better, and finishing touches and quality are better. It's like comparing Crayola to Prismacolor. One is clearly far superior. The other is ok, but capable in capable hands. Regular camera compared to an SDLR camera. You have to work with what ya got.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I define art as conveying a message which transcends the medium.
Suppose I arrange some rocks in me garden so that upon seeing
them, people don't think just rocks....they experience sensations
from the forms.
Imma let my snob fly, because "they experience sensations from the form" I have heard from an art teacher who dropped some straw-grass stuff down on a table. No effort, no intention, yet he felt something and called the result of randomness a "sculpture." I don't know how to define art, but I do believe it requires some thought and effort be put into it.
 
Top