| |
Sander
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 493 |
An update on ‘Pixel art in the C64 demoscene’
Dear fellow sceners,
In response to the comments we received, we’ve made some changes to the document.
Our goal was always to find common ground to maintain the fun and integrity of our hobby.
What this is not:
- It’s not written to limit anyone (only to encourage openness)
- It’s not aimed at specific individuals (it’s a scene wide practice)
Read the document here
We’d really love to hear your thoughts on this update.
Please post them in this thread, be kind and keep it constructive and on-topic please. |
|
| |
acrouzet
Registered: May 2020
Posts: 80 |
Sounds pretty good to me. The primary use case for the document I can see is as a sort of primer for those getting into C64 graphics and the scene at large. The only thing I really question is the wording of the definition of creativity used in the doc. It's very hard to gauge what crosses the line between inspiration and copying, and this distinction may vary wildly from person to person. I personally believe that artists shouldn't be too afraid of being accused of copying, and the wording here may give people the wrong idea, if that makes sense. |
| |
Burglar
Registered: Dec 2004
Posts: 1051 |
this sounds much much better, well done! |
| |
El Jefe
Registered: Jul 2005
Posts: 69 |
In my understanding the crucial message was there from the very beginning in v1 of the doc. It is great to see though, that the document has been updated and embraces all the constructive input that has been posted in the previous thread.
El Jefe/sidDivers |
| |
Electric
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 39 |
Quote: Sounds pretty good to me. The primary use case for the document I can see is as a sort of primer for those getting into C64 graphics and the scene at large. The only thing I really question is the wording of the definition of creativity used in the doc. It's very hard to gauge what crosses the line between inspiration and copying, and this distinction may vary wildly from person to person. I personally believe that artists shouldn't be too afraid of being accused of copying, and the wording here may give people the wrong idea, if that makes sense.
The doc aims to recommend being creative, which in general is a good thing for the scene - to make something new and unique instead of making representations as C64 pixels. This is generally what art teaching is mostly about. It's a good healthy thing for the person making art too, to find his/her own way of doing and along it own identity as an artist.
In other words 'doing it all by yourself' is a way to learn while 'outsourcing it all' leads to learning less.
If we take a look at the current state of art, illustration and the visual world around us, we can of course see that wider and wider portion of it is getting involved by AI and heavy use of references. Refs are nothing new of course and those can be used either in creative ways or by simply copying. ‘Being incluenced’ is another thing – none of us is free from influences and even though we would not use ‘something’ intentionally our subconscious will do the work. However, I want to point out that the norms of today don’t really change the meaning of ‘creativity’. Shortly on the etymology of the word:
creatus - “to bring into being"
creare - “to make, bring forth, produce, procreate, beget, cause"
The doc is now written towards something that we (who wrote it) see benefitting the scene. Being creative is important part in this. I think it’s also very visible thing with whole C64 demoscene tradition - while some parts of it have more technical approach the main driving force behind the scene has always been in creating something new (or at least make it bit better than the rest).
In general about the new version: we read and discussed all the talk around the 1st version. The text is mostly all rewritten and tries to consider the critical points made on the earlier version that was titled as ‘a proposal’ on purpose.
As Sander wrote, we will adjust the new version too basing on the discussion here. So, let us know if something sounds weird, bad or anything else. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11154 |
The sad figure in me is missing some more elaborate statement regarding gfx in demos (contrary to gfx compos), so it can be correlated better to the recent outcries. This way it leaves the sad figure baffled, wondering what all the fuzz was about - because it's basically what we already implemented in gfx compos decades ago. |
| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2856 |
Quoting chatGPZThe sad figure in me is missing some more elaborate statement regarding gfx in demos (contrary to gfx compos), so it can be correlated better to the recent outcries. Demos and UNESCO (hah) und museums and such are mentioned, this seems to imply... something.
"HUMANMADEPIXELS"! :)
"Being creative? We believe it is Using your own mind, We feel it is not Outsourcing to AI."
Meanwhile, waiting for more great stuff like https://demozoo.org/productions/336619/ https://youtu.be/1PYzXyoasmc?t=426 - pretty creative guy, that. I believe he is human. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11154 |
Museum is so 2003 |
| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2856 |
"Use of AI and conversion tools is commonly frowned upon."
Not so sure about the latter. Seeing the high frequency of some top-ranked artists churning out high-quality pieces, i'd be surprised (and doubtful) if there wasn't conversion involved at some point in the process. Not the final stages (manual brush-up), though. |
| |
ws
Registered: Apr 2012
Posts: 236 |
Just a word on the whole conversion thing. Conversions must be possible. Or else all the code and many of the music will be next to be frowned upon in compos, because crossdevelopment. I don't see why, if i made something in Photoshop, converted it and corrected any details, why that it not human/handmade.
(So basically, what krill said) |
| |
Deev
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 206 |
Quote: "Use of AI and conversion tools is commonly frowned upon."
Not so sure about the latter. Seeing the high frequency of some top-ranked artists churning out high-quality pieces, i'd be surprised (and doubtful) if there wasn't conversion involved at some point in the process. Not the final stages (manual brush-up), though.
This is why there's a request for transparency. Because clearly some top-ranked artists are regularly taking shortcuts and yet everything is being judged the same. It doesn't feel like a level playing field. |
... 127 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 - Next |
