[CSDb] - User Forums - Graphics on C64 demoscene: Guide of Ethics

You are not logged in - nap

CSDb User Forums

Forums > C64 Pixeling > Graphics on C64 demoscene: Guide of Ethics – a Proposal

2023-12-22 18:03

Sander

Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 496

Graphics on C64 demoscene: Guide of Ethics – a Proposal

Dear fellow sceners,

This is an attempt to get more understanding among, and for, C64 demoscene pixel artists. It’s not written to limit anyone, but a prayer for more transparency.

Read the document here: ->Graphics on C64 demoscene: Guide of Ethics – a Proposal<-

We tried to give define and value different processes. Which is a result of discussion, where we saw mutual grounds and felt the need to write these down.
We will update the document periodically, when enough input has been gathered and sorted out.

We’d really love to hear your thoughts on the subjects in the document.
Please post them in this thread.

(Personally I will not always fully comply to these guidelines myself, but I will continue to be transparant about it. However, I do agree with the values communicated in this document.)

... 137 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....

2023-12-24 14:17

LMan

Registered: Jun 2010
Posts: 83

Even more wisdom from our PAL.

2023-12-24 14:44

Electric

Registered: May 2002
Posts: 39

Sorry for the silence. Managed to get hold of half an hour before Santa arrives.

So, my gathered comments below, fastly written but to the points I see relevant. Thanks for everyone commenting.

First of all: please read the document throughoutly. How I see the commenting many seem to react it with lots of emotion. It’s a difficult task to define something like ‘ethics’. Any feedback is appreciated.

@Hein: The issue with transparent references popped up few times with different views on it. We decided to suggest those to be presented as visuals OR as written description. Someone pointed out that for some art it’s a statement too not to show the references and in case of ‘art’ that’s of course OK too. This is anyhow, a proposal.

LDX#40: Yes, lots of talk it’s too long and might get better approval if shortened. However, it’s sorta repetiteve too with the intro and first table telling it all already and the latter part telling it again with a bit more details. I think this length is relatively short already – this could easily mushroom into a gigant no one reads, if going into very details of pixeling, what is art and all that. Anyway, I think we should try to shorten the text still.

@Nim: Very much agree with your list of ethics – I think the proposal done is about the same thing, just written bit differently.

@Fungus: Not sure if you read it throughoutly with thought but gatekeeping was something we did NOT want to propose. It’d help us out if you can point out the spots that you read as gatekeeping.

@Pal: I think the current draft is not about ‘rules’, only when it comes to actual competitions which already have even stricter rules. As the title says, it’s a proposal from graphic bunker and shall remain as that. If the scene decides to respect whatever over originality and creativity, that’s it. We’ve told how we feel and if it’s not worth of anything then all settled. The purpose is not to limit anyone nor kill the scene but the opposite. I think the gfx scene is already pretty dead in 2023 with several people talking about quitting due the AI and AI’s ‘organic proposal’ to convert.

@LMan: We’d definitely like to work with ‘the tone’ of the document. Already did, but since we’re mostly old farts it may often sound like Moses talking. If you can point these spots out, we’d appreciate. What we’re aware as well is that the doc most likely does NOT cover all the modern workflows and may confront with something we did not notice. Would like to hear more about this, here or in PM. What comes to workstages – there’s job to do at least with parties who have mostly done lazy job checking if the works are within rules. However, workstages DO mean a lot. They’re not only for paranoids to see if something was done by hand or not but a key to learn for many. They tell about the workflow and all in-between. I can personally say I enjoy seeing the workstages and timelapses – mostly due the ways of doing are often so different from my own. It is of course always possible to cheat even the stages and in future that’s prolly much easier. However, I can’t really believe many would do that as it’d set a new standard for the word ‘lamer’.

@Krill: Proposal for working ethic way. It’s not meant to be set of rules but a proposal for how to work with graphics, written by bunch of pixel pushers who’ve mostly done it relatively long time.

@Groepaz: You’re right: this doc wouldn’t be here without the past events, latest being the AI Ninja and Vangelis discussions. There’s certainly fear of that demoscene graphics will turn into ‘just decoration’ while it has not been that from the perspective of many graphic artists. I personally haven’t ever heard so many old sceners speaking about quitting as the fun (that many hear cry for) is sorta vanishing, at least for traditional pixelers. So, this doc can be also seen as a statement that you can take or leave. Quite many have left already but seems like more will go if things do not change at all. And yup: in the end lamer is a lamer. He / she can’t help it.

@Burglar: The document does not limit anyone in the ways they do work. It’s just proposing for transparency. We’ll update it for sure basing on the feedback received – especially with feedback from people making graphics for C64 demoscene. I guess the part that’s talking to party orgs is merely due the recent debates and flood with AI and conversions – there has been a lot of faked workstages etc in some big demo party comps. The document proposes just to pay more attention to the rules (which of course can be anything from no rules to something more strict) and see how they are executed in the gfx submitted. We’ll see what happens in the future. There are examples in our sandbox history where wiring for example took over leading to some original artists to disappear from the scene.

@Mixer: The concept of originality for sure is a difficult task – everything we do is mash-up of things we experienced and filtered until our memory calls them ‘our own’. We’d want to keep the guidelines relatively short while some say it’s too long already. Many have stated here this all in one sentence. From our point of view we’d like to define it all just a bit more so that people with different experience on pixel graphics can understand it – and in case they agree, also base their judging of graphics on something bit more solid. Note also that the doc deals with graphics, their originality. I think this discussion should be done seperately on music and code. With AI getting everywhere you’ll prolly start to talk about this just a bit later. In whole art / graphics scene AI has been already for a long time and people lose their jobs due it in rl. This same discussion concerning AI has been going on in all the work relating image from fine arts to commercial illustration, from game development to pixel graphics.

@Carrion: Your outcome with the presentation at X was exactly the transparency I’d like to see more. I might not have personally commented it but privately told to many about it and said it’s a *must* watch.

@Jammer: I suppose (as noted to Mixer) this talk will eventually reach SID composing as well, if not already. However, what the doc is about is gfx.

@Pararaum: There might be a missunderstanding here but how I read the doc it does not really say ‘you can’t do that’. That was the intention at least. Please point out what might be silly and we’ll work on that.

In general I’d just propose to really read the document through with thought. Many comments see it as a set of ‘rules’ that it is not. It’s not either telling what to do or with what tools. As I read it I see no limitations, just a proposal to transparency.

Note too that indeed the whole thrill about C64 is in it’s rules: standard machine, memory, tied colour palette +++. I think this is one of the main things why the scene has blossomed until now. I have zero interest with PC demos for example due the fact that I don’t see any challenge there. People write here lot about ‘no rules’ which ain’t true either – there has always been lots of unwritten rules in the demoscene too.

How I see it atm is that most of the comments here come from non-gfxers and most coders do not seem to care much about what we stated throug the document. All comments are welcome of course but to make the guidelines better we’d prolly need more commenting from people doing pixels – especially from people with really diverse workflows.

2023-12-24 16:27

MuZZa

Registered: Nov 2020
Posts: 16

Quote: "scene" "ethics"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5E7feJHw0

XD XD XD hahahahahahahah exactly!! uffff xD

https://youtu.be/mBw3qzf4s18?si=ieSH3FDaNRvXtoZ0

2023-12-24 16:47

chatGPZ

Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386

Quote:

3) "pre-jury" sounds easy on paper, but impossible to properly pull off in a party setting with tight deadlines. Who will be that jury? 97% of people cannot distinguish "proper" pixel art from wirejobs.

I have to oppose the "impossible to properly pull off" - eg this is common business on the easter parties, for decades, in the music compos. In that case simply because there are way too many entries to be able to show all of them. A similar preselection could surely be implemented for GFX too. And regarding the easter parties, i know for sure that GFX entries are checked for conversions IF they look suspicious (i have disqualified one myself at some breakpoint...). It IS doable. But it is work someone needs to do (on the easter parties the preselect juries are ad hoc recruited from the visitors, similar to how it worked at X years ago).

2023-12-24 18:18

CopAss

Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 21

I always experience it as a huge disappointment when a graphic designer I respect as a "god" turns out to be a fraud...
(conversion, copying someone else's work, A.I., "machine" dithering, etc.)
this does not require talent, only mastering the use of tools.
not his art, not his style, not his knowledge...

2023-12-24 21:52

LMan

Registered: Jun 2010
Posts: 83

@Electric pm sent

2023-12-24 23:18

Ervin

Registered: May 2008
Posts: 14

Purely on the theoretical and fun side, I wonder how similar guidelines could be utilized on coding? How intelligent should a tool be to deserve mentioning?

2023-12-24 23:31

Oswald

Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5094

2023-12-25 06:43

Hein

Registered: Apr 2004
Posts: 954

Quoting Ervin

Purely on the theoretical and fun side, I wonder how similar guidelines could be utilized on coding? How intelligent should a tool be to deserve mentioning?

I suppose only one bulletpoint is needed:
Sharing the repository (with all its commits) is appreciated.

2023-12-25 07:38

NoiseEHC

Registered: Feb 2005
Posts: 51

Quote: Quoting Ervin
Purely on the theoretical and fun side, I wonder how similar guidelines could be utilized on coding? How intelligent should a tool be to deserve mentioning?

I suppose only one bulletpoint is needed:
Sharing the repository (with all its commits) is appreciated.

LOL, as Graphicians and Social Justice Warriors imagine that one day AI will write world records... Fantastic!!!

See, I understand that you like creating graphics in the most unproductive way possible, and I also understand that in graphics compos you might like to level the playing field by denying any advanced tool usage.

But please do not try to tell me what tool I can or cannot use creating a demo. And I will share my source code if and only if I want it to do.

Fortunately none of you have any authority over the scene so it might be wise to stop running amok with this "proposal". If you organize events then and only then it is in your right to enforce any and all restrictions you may seem fit.