| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4618 |
Release id #237341 : Future Ninja
User Comment
Submitted by hedning [PM] on 5 December 2023
Frostbyte: I think it was that it ended up as #3 in a compo and also was the #1 pic on csdb for a while. People also cheered for it on fb etc. ”Amazing”, ”outstanding”, etc. Then artists react I’d say.
User Comment
Submitted by Moloch [PM] on 5 December 2023
10!
User Comment
Submitted by Frostbyte [PM] on 5 December 2023
Whereas I think it is great that this picture finally sparked a serious conversation about possibly clarifying the scene's unwritten rulebook what comes to declaring use of sources and converters and providing workstages, I do get Oswald's point, D-Mage may just not know about the unwritten rules.
What I find a bit strange is that THIS particular image sparked the conversation, as there are many well established, praised talents in the scene who so blatantly obviously use online sources for their images as well as very heavily rely on advanced converters, and never provide workstages, but with them most of the scene remains silent. Maybe it's about which group you're in? ;)
User Comment
Submitted by Bob [PM] on 5 December 2023
I am not an artist.. but I can't help it.. I like this image.. and it would do great in a demo too...
User Comment
Submitted by rexbeng [PM] on 5 December 2023
Most artists wouldn't care about AI; it's just another tool added to the plethora of tools that over the years made the random pics we are used to look at, be less and less 'art'. If it's just 'joes' you're after with your creations, say on youtube, why spent hundreds of hours to make a video about something specific that interests you, when a random video with cats will generate a hell of a lot more appreciation and views and need just a fraction of the time to make? Would an artist opt to make videos with more of the same cats for Youtube?
Work stages is a joke when the talk is about digital images, I trust anybody can understand that. :)
User Comment
Submitted by Carrion [PM] on 5 December 2023
6 months ago at X'23 I was giving the presentation about my process of creating C64 images. I showed how I use Photoshop to cut and paste pieces of images (found on Internet) to produce some quick results that I later take to Timanthes for long process of detailing. Also a big part of my presentation was my thoughts on using AI and how it is a huge temptation on using it as a shortcut to create C64 gfx, and how I feel tempted to use it (and I probably will).
What I stated back then was that every time I use AI I will inform about it in release notes or CSDB comments. I also declared that I will include workstages and/or the source .psd files and references if used.
The feedback after my presentation was very good and together with few pixel-artists we had really interesting conversation after it.
And... 6 months later... nothing happened.
Partially my fault because a) I wasn't that active this year, b) the images I created for CD demos haven't used AI and but...
c) seams to me that majority of people don't really care about AI and workstages and source files.
Or do they? Do you care?
So... IMO this conversation we have here is a great opportunity to maybe start a new "tradition" to share the references, AI prompts/models used, .psd files, workstages etc to make it fully transparent. I also strongly believe that this will be also a great way to share knowledge, learn, and have even more fun.
What you say? Who's with me?
One more thing regarding this and similar converted pics. It worries me same way as Hein, The Sarge, and others already said, but hey, let people do what gives them fun of using C64. Is it converting, pixeling, wireing. Scene will judge anyway.
User Comment
Submitted by 4gentE [PM] on 5 December 2023
Perhaps y'all remember what I was saying here when I was told I was being a drama queen.
https://csdb.dk/forums/?roomid=12&topicid=158776&showallposts=1
Just sayin...
User Comment
Submitted by Wile Coyote [PM] on 5 December 2023
@The Sarge 'Maybe he did all by himself?'
Lol! ..absolutely not.
User Comment
Submitted by hedning [PM] on 5 December 2023
For me it’s about honesty. Do what you like, AI or not, but when you are competing in a compo: hell no. It’s also obvious to me that most joes (Sorry Joe) can’t tell a convert from original work, which must be frustrating for most artists.
Using converted AI instead of converting a googled pic also makes the source impossible to find, which adds to the frustration. Even work stages could be forged ofc, working backwards. I am sure that already happened somewhere. It’s sad all of it.
User Comment
Submitted by The Sarge [PM] on 5 December 2023
I think it would be great if D-Mage could step in and add to the conversation. That would maybe stop the speculation of how this was made. Maybe he did all by himself? But until he doesn’t we will not know.
Looking at the image it’s obvious for me it’s converted. You see it in the mathematical dithering that is all over the image. For some reason the author decided to enhance the eyebrows so those are most surely hand pixeled but the rest of the image is probably not.
IF D-mage made this image from scratch by himself, ie painted the original on another medium and then used a converter to make it appear on the C64 then it’s fine. It’s still not hand pixeled but he is the author of the art. It’s just that the conversion itself takes away a bit of the “magic” of the pixel art. And it sure is a shortcut.
And this is what it all boils down to, shortcuts.
If you use AI or someone else art then it is a major shortcut. It’s such a big shortcut that you can’t really compare this to art that is done by someone by hand, from a life long period of training the mind and hand to realise your vision and ideas. It takes a lot of effort making those hand made pixel art that people will hopefully remember and appreciate. For me it’s up to 40-50 hours per image and maybe a week or two trying to come up with an idea that I think would work. Before that its has been a life full of failed attempts. The life of an artist, being it code, music or visuals. It’s all the same. We try, we fail, we fail better. Then comes AI and converting and cuts all this down to 10 minutes of work.
Of course we get upset, sad and worried.
For me C64 art is where my cradle was and hopefully it will be with me until I die. So I hate to see it devolve into soulless AI art.
So please be careful in your judgment of images.
User Comment
Submitted by Hate Bush [PM] on 5 December 2023
if it's done by the supposed creator AND converted by AI - then finished by hand - i see no problem with this.
i don't ask if a musician tapped the tune into tracker (which would be correct, true, scene-wise and so on) or did the whole tune in DAW as MIDI and then imported into tracker of choice (which would be... spitting on those who swear by first option?)
User Comment
Submitted by Hein [PM] on 5 December 2023
I really hope AI conversions don't become the norm in graphics competitions. I can't keep up with that. :) Anyhow, as a motive this isn't that exciting either.
User Comment
Submitted by Flex [PM] on 5 December 2023
I think people are worried. It's been in the air for some time now and in general, converts / AI at this level brings up big questions about the future.
Still, myself not even being the "spokesman" on this (emotional) topic I'm after some more transparency and if there's any spit on this work, that's only there for the method and the end result being this good. This might be hard to accept and I pretty much understand from the point of true craftsmanship.
User Comment
Submitted by chatGPZ [PM] on 5 December 2023
I'd rather see a decent convert than another half-assed "hand pixelled" image.
What *really* stinks are those half-assed converts that don't even look good.
User Comment
Submitted by Oswald [PM] on 5 December 2023
if your work is spit on, then you wouldnt feel anything personally ?
User Comment
Submitted by Flex [PM] on 4 December 2023
@oswald, I see nothing personal here. I'm hoping this launched compo will work as an eye-opener for the scene as it seems to me now that conversion / AI business is starting to gain too much ground.
I think converting is ok but trying to make people believe something else is not.
As a multicolour picture this one is ace.
User Comment
Submitted by Oswald [PM] on 4 December 2023
this is d-mage's first pic after 30 years, probably he is not familiar with the current unwritten rules in the scene, maybe more patience would have been better instead of making laughing stock of him in the form of a compo. |
|
| |
Frostbyte
Registered: Aug 2003
Posts: 174 |
@hedning Fair, I suppose, however the compo rules in this case did NOT state that the work needs to be originally by the artist, and hand pixeled. And as stated, D-Mage may not have known about the modern scene etiquette.
Whereas there have been many gfx compo entries (even winning ones!) in the past where it has been made clear that the work has to be original, and conversions are not allowed, and non-originals (sometimes even touched-up conversions) have been right at the top anyway, and the artists have been well aware of the rules but broken them anyway to their own benefit. This is the scene double standards I'm trying to bring into the conversation. It's easy to slash someone who is not so well established and networked, but the great artists are a little bit untouchable.
As an observer (as I cannot draw a stick man) even great conversions, or hand pixeled images that reference work by others are great, but as with music, if you're doing a cover of someone else's work, this should be honestly declared. Deliberately leaving this crucial information out is nothing but a dick move, IMHO. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4618 |
<Post edited by hedning on 5/12-2023 11:35>
Related discussion from 2011 about wirejobs, conversions, and honesty in compos: https://csdb.dk/forums/?roomid=13&topicid=84365&showallposts=1 |
| |
Electric
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 39 |
What comes to the ‘unwritten rules' of the scene – these rules were there 30 years ago already. More developed scenes on Amiga / PC required workstages in gfx compos, the entries were shown untitled and ones without workstages were disqualified, judged commonly as ’rip-offs’ and artists behind as ‘lamers’.
So, my question is: is the scene turning all ‘lame’ suddenly? You should respect creativity, not cheating.
However, workstage requirement on C64 is relatively new thing. Back in the days it was seen as such a weak platform lacking the fancy tools and shortcusts that just getting something realistic done was a miracle. However, if something seemed ‘wired’ it was not really appreciated even during early 90s. In general 80s and 90s were merely technical periods in C64 gfx - using references was still popular and accepted (due the mentioned difficulties). Wiring was still NOT accepted, as I already wrote.
It’s true that the workstages can also be generated afterwards, with skilled gfxer and AI backing even without much effort. Haven’t seen such a lamer yet but there probably are few out there waiting for the right momemnt.
In all this is a delicate issue. To me this recent burst of conversions equals to someone ripping code from someone else – behind every googled photo or image there is an author. If you compare this with a ‘cover’ of a tune it’s not really a match as (said in the discussion already) with current tools conversion can be made in few minutes without ANY artistic effort. That means a copy, not a cover. Suppose you can do that for SID too, but for gfx that has become just sooo easy.
I personally don’t have anything against conversions or use of AI in general. These both can bring new things and techniques in C64 art when it comes to use of colours, dithering techniques, colour mixing etc. However, when used this should be clearly stated by the one doing the job… and when this is informed it should be also stated by the moderators wherever this piece is shown (such as FB groups). And (repeating myself) if references are used even for PhotoShop collage those should be mentioned of course. This is just a matter of behaving and good manners (which scene usually so proudly lacks).
However, what’s the most important and sad thing here to me is that presenting converted graphics as ‘own’ really hurts the scene itself. For me it’s taking the ‘fun’ out of it. For a newcomer who’d like to do his/her own pixel art this is everything else but inviting – ending up behind wired stuff in compos will most likely just give bad vibes, make him/her move to other more creative platforms OR go into wiring too (’What the heck - it’s approved!’).
I’ve got one wish for the CSDB moderators (if you ever hear me): could you add a category of “C64 Converted Graphics” to the types of the release? Now the people doing conversions have to upload them among hand-made gfx which is part of the problem. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4618 |
Sander wrote this, for me, important post 2011 ( https://csdb.dk/forums/?roomid=13&topicid=84365&showallposts=1 ). It's nice to read it again:
"It doesn't feel good to see some people play down on the importance of the subject. Real pixel artists DO care.
The following text is from the Pixelation forums, an active pixel art community with a lot of talented people, like Helm and Ptoing. Which shows how this subject is being dealt with by people who're serious about pixel art.
Quoting pixelation forums rulesRule 2: Do not rip artwork. Ever!
Always clearly state what your references were in making a piece. If you sketched in pencil, color-reduced to 1bit and then went to work on it, okay. Ways like this are completely accepted and nobody's going to shout at your for it, but it's good to know anyway. If you stole somebody else's artwork, 1bitted it and then submitted it for critique, not okay. If caught red-handed, by moderators or users, and the case is clear you ripped, you will be banned and forgotten forever. Other similar instances of fraudulent behaviour like posting other people's artwork without permission (regardless of them being edited or not) or jobs without delivering the promised payment will reap similar rewards.
Rule 3: Post only pixel art.
Now this is a bit of a controversial subject, but it hopefully can be cleared out at least so we can go on with our business here: Pixel Art, is art where there's specific attention paid to the fine manipulation of picture elements. It deals with the informative quality of specific, single pixels. If the art you're about to post has not been pixel-pushed on that level, don't bother. Automatic AA, soft brushes, filters, smudge tools, all are indicative of index-painting, or at least dirty-tooling, but do not always mean your art will not benefit from pixel-level critique. If you've made something using some of these tools and then you're able to reign the piece in by optimizing the palette into using the best possible amount of colors, went in and pushed single pixels until everything is right, then it's probable we'll be able to talk about your art and how it can be made better. Always be clear of how you made things, only post concept art when it's relative to a pixel-art piece you've made and never never try to decieve us. As above, workstages and process animations are optional, but always welcome.
One could argue these 'pixelation forum' guys are way to anal about things, but i feel they're completely on spot. (as for comparison: The CSDb crack standards).
Quoting DiggerNow, the trick is how do you squeeze thousands (if not million) colours palette into 11 colours (hires/multi char mode) and still preserve the high quality of the original image.(...)
This reasoning is beyond me... This makes it sound the compo was about doing the most optimized conversions.
Quoting Celticand lastly: besides 4 or 5 extremely gifted pixellers like mermaid and i think STE , I think loads of people use this method. I am wondering who would like to claim or state that they never do this r have done it.
Quoting DiggerI (sadly) think the golden era of hand pixelled gfx is gone forever due to at least two reasons:
1. Life is faster Ā people are spending too much time playing with useless apps on their mobiles hoping to make their life actions more efficient (= waste of time and illusion IMHO but that's another topic) ;-)
2. Effort/reward ratio Ā no way you can hand pixel 2 screen pic in 12-14 hrs, even with limited palette and sophisticated pixelling tools (brushes, dither box, etc) Ā and it took me similar time to code the editor (http://c64.blog2t.net/slixed). I mean it's A LOT of time in REAL LIFE (yes, we're no longer in our teens).
3. There are great conversion tools (i.e. Timathes), which we haven't had in late '80s/early '90s Ā you HAD to pixel by hand (or use "analogue" conversion methods)
I'll give you the only reason - it's this attitude. And that attitude has become too common in the scene.
I feel such an attitude is disrespectful to pixel artists like Mermaid, Archmage, Saehn and quite a few others. Realizing these people could be participating in the same competition, and doing original artwork.
I'm very pleased to see this discussion rise again, and for the first time - things seems to change a little.
(Please note, this is not about the double screen competition in particular. Props to Veto And Enthusi for taking action regarding this discussion.)" |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 119 |
Quote:behind every googled photo or image there is an author
Also, if I may add, behind every AI generated picture, there are also authors whose work the LLM AI had been "trained" on without consent. |
| |
rexbeng
Registered: Aug 2012
Posts: 30 |
Is this a discussion about the graphics branch of the C64 scene in general, or is it just about curating compo entries?
If it's the latter, the solution is obvious. Curate the compos. Have a jury of well established pixellers who are able to weight all aspects in a submitted picture; originality, composition, technique etc. Have some semantic theme/topic that the participator needs to think of how to handle instead of just pick, say, the whatever trending movie theme. I'm sure there's many ideas to try.
If it's a general thing, then I believe you should let it go wherever it is that it goes on it's own. If you start pulling the string of banning methods and practices, it's hard to decide where to stop. I mean, one could very well say that you should even ban the practice Carrion very honestly described for his own work. Honesty from the creator's side is the only valid way here.
But, hey, I'm just a visitor here. :) |
| |
CopAss
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 3 |
solution: record the entire process on video.
thesarge:
https://youtu.be/MVBo8oykpEQ?si=IHIZV6lk8HeQZjaO
me :)
https://youtu.be/fLU7HeTB7c0?si=7wYxw8yUXN1sWgXJ |
| |
F7sus4
Registered: Apr 2013
Posts: 112 |
Quote:Most artists wouldn't care about AI; it's just another tool added to the plethora of tools that over the years made the random pics we are used to look at, be less and less 'art'.
Does the evolution of tools tend to minimize user input while leaning towards task automation? In many cases, yes.
Is the composer using a modern synthesizer in 100% the author of the final effect, or is it a compromise between his input and a prefabricated technological component that is able to produce sounds on its own, which he only modifies or adjusts according to his needs?
In the late 90s, using Photoshop was considered "lame" because of brushes, blur, and other effects that demoscene artists had previously created by hand, pixel by pixel. Ultimately, Photoshop became an established standard as everyone accepted the inevitable change mentally. It was a process, but the same argument was made - that it was no longer a "skill" but a tool doing the job for instead of the artist.
The question is, is AI an enemy of creativity or a tool that could ultimately be included in the general artistic consensus as a form of automation? If so, aren't we currently facing a 2023 iteration of "No Copy/No Photoshop" dilemma? If not, where to set the line between the author's own creative force and his (ab)use of available technology? How much input does it take for a piece to be considered "your own"? And who's to decide? |
| |
Hate Bush
Registered: Jul 2002
Posts: 456 |
we're deliberately obsolete anyway, we may as well go full stone age: perhaps it's time for serious live compos at parties. have a blank project and create from there, in front of the audience. let's say two hours for musicians, four for graphicians, external tools not allowed, outputs on bigscreen next to each other, Saturday until 18:00.
(far-fetching your ass XD)
that would be as clear as it gets - with lack of masterpieces (to say it mildly) as the only downside. but if it's all about pixel-pushing and register-altering skills, such lack shouldn't mean much. |
| |
Bitbreaker
Registered: Oct 2002
Posts: 501 |
Quoting F7sus4
Quote:
In the late 90s, using Photoshop was considered "lame" because of brushes, blur, and other effects that demoscene artists had previously created by hand, pixel by pixel. Ultimately, Photoshop became an established standard as everyone accepted the inevitable change mentally. It was a process, but the same argument was made - that it was no longer a "skill" but a tool doing the job for instead of the artist.
I think this compares very different things. As for coding, Macroassemblers made life easier by introducing macros, labels, code could be compiled to targets that could be freely moved around. Nowadays also crossassemblers compile on different machines. That is what one has nowadays for coding and still it consumes vast amounts of time and needs pretty much skills to get the best out of it. Lately out of fun i asked an AI about a code snippet and what could be optimized. It returned utter crap as a solution that would nopt even work and it tried to convince me that it is a bad idea to use illegal opcodes.
As for GFX tools on a PC enable me to make use of fine mouse movements compared to joystick back in the days and maybe a few brushes with dither patterns to get rid of tedious repetetive work. Still i need a vast amount of time to ponder about a motif, to sketch, to fill, to arrange, to rearrange, burst out in hate multiple times due to the harsh restrictions and trying to stick to some kind of blocky scheme. For my case i'd say it is more than 100 hours per pic and yes, i am slow. Therefore there's graphicians where you can tell from the pic without a tag, who's the author.
So what would be the correct comparision is, that an AI would give me a readymade demo effect as an .asm file, so it does with GFX and that is nothing i consider creative or technically skilled.
There's no reason to find excuses for producing mass-shit.
What i also hate is, how some of the worksteps look like, basically i sometimes see pictures that start with a gray empty screen and over the four worksteps a perfectly done picture is painted in 4 portions, no single pixel changed in the previous sections, no rearrangement happening over the whole process. Bah, i could rant on for hours..... |
| |
Electric
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 39 |
@Bitbreaker You're absolutely right about the gfx worksteps – this should be paid much more attention to and for party orgs (like us in ZOO) this is something to focus on.
There should definitely be more time used for examining the stages. Also the rules should be written very clearly on WHAT the stages should present. With ZOO we're stating that: "Make the workstages so that they truly present the creation of the image from blank screen to the final stage." – we've required 5 steps but with '24 edition we'll most probably ask for more (10) due the current AI / conversion -gate.
I've only watched Revision compos like twice and was laughing with the shown workstages – it was merely just a joke as one could see complete characters, backgrounds or objects pop up fully pixeled out of nowhere. This same thing seems to happen with most parties.
The problem is as well that most of the compo artists do not share the workstages and they are only stocked in the party org archives. Those should be made public for people to judge and debate as well.
There's definitely a lot we can do better here. |
| |
rexbeng
Registered: Aug 2012
Posts: 30 |
Quoting F7sus4
Quote: The question is, is AI an enemy of creativity or a tool that could ultimately be included in the general artistic consensus as a form of automation?
I strongly believe it is not an enemy. A form of automation, sure. But since there may be dozens of technical steps in one's creative process, the methods to skip laborious tasks are welcome. The artist should have the ability to spend his time focusing on his vision instead of grinding sea cells and mixing with yolk to create his own paint goo.
In fact this dilemma could take us as far back as mid 19th century. |
| |
Electric
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 39 |
Agree with rexbeng. I think what AI will do for art is indeed that it'll merely tell us what art is about. It will make the artists more focused on what they are doing. I wrote in these various discussions that the processes of illustrators and artists have already been very much alike methods of AI. Therefore I'm not really worrying all this 'googled stolen from here, stolen from there' -work will be replaced by AI. Workwise this will mean many loosing their jobs (which it already has partly done) but that concerns mainly the bulky stuff that did have nothing but 'decorative' value anyways. Artistic values are somewhere else. AI will definitely debate with those as well but in the end it will up to ppl's values what to respect. |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 119 |
Quote:The question is, is AI an enemy of creativity or a tool that could ultimately be included in the general artistic consensus as a form of automation?
I believe it's an enemy of the worst, most devious kind. I think this "democratization" is going to result in us all getting a lot more "Big Brother" and a lot less "Monty Python". And it's not Photoshop on steroids because Photoshop does not include all art ever made packed into it. Plus it's ecologically unsound. Why would we substitute a guy sporting a pencil with a guy sporting MS render farm to do (from what I've seen) the same work? Or even worse, inferior work? Plus it's been pushed onto the world from above by tech bros that don't care about or understand art. I fail to see it as just another linear step in a long succession since "grinding of sea shells". |
| |
rexbeng
Registered: Aug 2012
Posts: 30 |
"What art is about". I could not have put it in better and simpler words.
Drawing a beautiful face is the easier thing in the world. The rules have been set 2.5k years ago and remain the same. Anyone with the ability to understand geometry, hold a ruler and a pencil and have the patience to learn how to draw strokes can make the portrait of a beautiful face. If you go further to replace 'ruler/pencil' with Photoshop, the process is even easier (and you can place ready-made effects over it to make it more 'wow'). Today, 'pure Photoshop' is replaced by AI. Which even further proves that anyone can make a beautiful face (but not hands :P).
Taking that face and making art out of it, though, is a whole different story, and league. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11148 |
Quote:but not hands :P
AHAHAHAHA. I still have a bunch of papers with hands i drew at school. Hilarious :D
And +1 for jury at compos. Get rid of public voting alltogether. I seriously loved this at X back in the days. |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5031 |
Quote: Quote:but not hands :P
AHAHAHAHA. I still have a bunch of papers with hands i drew at school. Hilarious :D
And +1 for jury at compos. Get rid of public voting alltogether. I seriously loved this at X back in the days.
yeah it was fun when clarence's 2 sided trackmo came behind a 1 filer, because jury :) |
| |
Hein
Registered: Apr 2004
Posts: 933 |
Quote: yeah it was fun when clarence's 2 sided trackmo came behind a 1 filer, because jury :)
1 filer? At least 2 files were loaded.. :) |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11148 |
That's one of things i loved. It leaves room for unpopular decisions like that. Cool niche things have a much better chance to score high. Crowdpleaser stuff not so much.
(I don't remember that particular case, what demo was it?) |
| |
Hein
Registered: Apr 2004
Posts: 933 |
I think Oswald is referring to X'2004. |
| |
CreaMD
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 3036 |
Easy solution. Two rankings. Jury for whatever artistic merit. Audience for popular vote. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11148 |
Was there still Jury at that time? I thought 98 was last? *shrug*
Edit: ok there was. Interesting :) Don't see the Problem here though - i can see how one scores higher than the other.
(Too bad there is no original results file - or even a list of the people in the Jury) |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5031 |
Quote: That's one of things i loved. It leaves room for unpopular decisions like that. Cool niche things have a much better chance to score high. Crowdpleaser stuff not so much.
(I don't remember that particular case, what demo was it?)
thats the point of voting, the popular demo should win, its like democracy, majority agrees which was best, not a select minority with preferences. |
| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2855 |
Oh yeah, i hated the time when X had a jury. :D |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11148 |
Quote:thats the point of voting, the popular demo should win, its like democracy, majority agrees which was best, not a select minority with preferences.
It's one way to look at it. But it has its problems - just like Jury. I prefer the problems "Jury" has :)
That said, pretty much every other "Art Festival" involves Jury - for one reason or another. |
| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2855 |
Quoting chatGPZQuote:thats the point of voting, the popular demo should win, its like democracy, majority agrees which was best, not a select minority with preferences. It's one way to look at it. But it has its problems - just like Jury. I prefer the problems "Jury" has :)
That said, pretty much every other "Art Festival" involves Jury - for one reason or another. Yeah, but as CreaMD said: just have two rankings.
Then everyone can decide whether they care for popular vote or some venerable elite artsy folks' opinions. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11148 |
On Festivals its usually one award based on public voting, yes. That'd be fine for me. |
| |
TheRyk
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 2095 |
Quoting rexbengIs this a discussion about the graphics branch of the C64 scene in general, or is it just about curating compo entries? ...
Actually, I don't get what this sudden wave of outcries against wired-or-not is all about - again...!
Quoting Hate Bushwe're deliberately obsolete anyway, we may as well go full stone age...
Maybe it's just about time some people pull out the stick in their a..es or remove the sand from their v.....s.
Facts are:
- Even using PC software and existing images for mere outlines/rough shapes _can_ be seen as wiring, strictly speaking - and I didn't check but wouldn't be surprised if some of the ones throwing the first stones here and at other releases ain't so free of sin as they pretend (which would be kinda ridiculous).
- Even at top 1337 parties you find gfx releases in top 5 in which it is plain to see (no expert jury with super monocles needed) that _some_ converting is involved.
- Voting by all guests will lead to crowd pleasing (competitors doing stuff which experts might frown about but average voting Joe might tend to upvote)
- Cheaply wired stuff normally even fails to impress non-experts.
- No matter if a jury / every guest or an AI (<- this would be fun :D) decides the ranking, there'll be room to whine about the results (stupid party crowd, stupid so-called experts, stupid AI, stupid world...)
All of this is old news, "A.I." doesn't make so much of an impact imho that the end of the world is near. |
| |
Deev
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 206 |
Quote: Easy solution. Two rankings. Jury for whatever artistic merit. Audience for popular vote.
Or easier still, two categories: Pixel art and "open". Converting has always been seen as a dirty tactic, but bring it out into the open and that problem goes away, whilst everyone who'd prefer to create graphics using more traditional skills can do so separately. |
| |
D-Mage
Registered: Dec 2023
Posts: 1 |
Hello Ninjas!
I just registered here to clarify a few things.
I left the scene exactly 30 years ago, other things became important (girls, school) but deep in my heart I've always been a Commodore fanboy. Since then I've been drawing on modern platforms when I feel like it and time permits.
Future Ninja is an unpublished drawing from years ago by me, more precisely a cropped out detail of a complete upper torso. Just an experiment to see if I can get it to appear in this retro format. I didn't know about the "unwritten rules" and I've seen clearly converted artwork in several of today's big demos.
I don't want to return to the scene, I probably won't take anyone's crown as a graphician. To be honest, looking at it from today's perspective, I have never made an appreciable drawing for C64 in my life. I hated the palette, the color restrictions, the joystick. That's why I switched to the Amiga, which gave me more freedom and mouse support. I had some better creations there I believe.
Today, I wouldn't have the patience to spend 10-20-30 hours making a drawing, pixel by pixel, like I used to do. I mostly use Procreate + iPad + Apple Pencil, which is the closest to paper or canvas and gives quick results.
I think this whole thing is not for my drawing. There have been huge tensions about the conversion and the viability of future technology in general. Future Ninja was just fuel for the fire. However, if a constructive discussion can be generated from it then it's totally worth it. |
| |
Hein
Registered: Apr 2004
Posts: 933 |
Thanks for your clarification. The fact we (I) thought it's AI generated can be considered to be a compliment, I guess.
The conversion to c64 format maybe didn't work out as expected. If you don't want to spend 30 hours on pixeling, you can still try PETSCII, which takes less time. :) |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 119 |
Quote: Or easier still, two categories: Pixel art and "open". Converting has always been seen as a dirty tactic, but bring it out into the open and that problem goes away, whilst everyone who'd prefer to create graphics using more traditional skills can do so separately.
I also think this might work. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11148 |
... until you notice ppl will still cheat and nothing changed :)
I love the idea of using AI to rank the entries though. Actually at last Beyond Tellerrand i met a guy who was working on an art project that uses an AI to do this - it "looks" at images in an exhibition with a camera, and then writes an analysis of the image, really fun. |
| |
Deev
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 206 |
Quote: ... until you notice ppl will still cheat and nothing changed :)
I love the idea of using AI to rank the entries though. Actually at last Beyond Tellerrand i met a guy who was working on an art project that uses an AI to do this - it "looks" at images in an exhibition with a camera, and then writes an analysis of the image, really fun.
Quote:... until you notice ppl will still cheat and nothing changed :)
If most of what is currently considered cheating is no longer considered cheating, has something not changed? |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 119 |
Quote: ... until you notice ppl will still cheat and nothing changed :)
By ‘cheating’ I suppose you mean people would enter their converted gfx in the ‘handpixeled’ category? But if there was a separate category specifically for their work, why would they do that? |
| |
Bitbreaker
Registered: Oct 2002
Posts: 501 |
Quote: Quote: ... until you notice ppl will still cheat and nothing changed :)
By ‘cheating’ I suppose you mean people would enter their converted gfx in the ‘handpixeled’ category? But if there was a separate category specifically for their work, why would they do that?
As people already yet tend to hide the fact that they use AI, there must be reasons for hiding it, may it be a feeling of being guilty or unworthy or to hide a lack of skills, who knows. It is not true and authentic without an own style and approach. On the other side, there's the praise that can be expected and might be desired. Why not try to catch it with less effort? Involve humans and things will get flawed :-) |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11148 |
Quote:By ‘cheating’ I suppose you mean people would enter their converted gfx in the ‘handpixeled’ category? But if there was a separate category specifically for their work, why would they do that?
Why? Because they can. And because apparently votes are super important for some people. |
| |
TheRyk
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 2095 |
and still, it will - at the end of the day/compo - be in the Eye of the Beholder SCNR what is considered
a) smart use of existing possibilities or
b) Quoting Bitbreaker... unworthy or ... lack of skills...
Really, when I browsed old forum threads and read (linked by ChatGPZ iinm) that our hero Graham (all the best to you!) once spoke against using Cross Assemblers, for the result ain't 'real' I shortly frowned and then laughed a lot.
This would really mean Stone Age (freely referring to Hate Bush) or it ain't happened. And yeah, [IRONY ALERT] them musicians should stop using Emulators or even Goat Tracker of course /o\ bang your head on a true C=64 keyboard or your .SID is wired =P |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 119 |
Quote:…once spoke against using Cross Assemblers…
I’ve heard this comparison before, and it is utterly wrong and misleading IMHO. Never have I seen the ‘purist’ artists saying that you have to use Koalapainter and joystick, never have I seen them say anything against cross-platform pixeling tools. What I see them saying is: “Please don’t use converting and then deny using it when entering compos. If you start with a conversion, please state so.” I fail to see how this plea beams us back into the stone age. Why wouldn’t we all comply out of mere decency? What’s to lose? |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 119 |
Following this logic, allow me a quick comparison, you’re basically saying we should allow athletes to use cyborg-like mechanical enhancements because, you know, they already don’t run bare foot, running shoes are a mechanical enhancement too, so what the heck. Or I misunderstood. |
| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2855 |
Quoting 4gentEFollowing this logic, allow me a quick comparison, you’re basically saying we should allow athletes to use cyborg-like mechanical enhancements because, you know, they already don’t run bare foot, running shoes are a mechanical enhancement too, so what the heck. Or I misunderstood. Well, as long as they won't outrun the slines... :)
"After Pistorius’ history-making run in 2012, the International Association of Athletics Federations (now World Athletics) ruled that, going forward, athletes using “mechanical aids” must provide evidence that their blades do not give them a competitive edge." |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 119 |
Well, the guy has no legs (?!). But what do I know, maybe there are C64 artists with no arms. |
| |
rexbeng
Registered: Aug 2012
Posts: 30 |
My right arm is disabled as a result of motorcycle accident a good number of years back, when I was younger and horny and overconfident. I had to train myself to become left handed; luckily technology provides the means for me to at least not having to write on paper using a pen. :P |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 119 |
Quote:My right arm is disabled
There. I knew there had to be someone.
BTW I'll allow myself to say (and this is no mere courtesy) that you surely create some great art, no matter which arm you are using! |
| |
Bitbreaker
Registered: Oct 2002
Posts: 501 |
Quoting 4gentEQuote:…once spoke against using Cross Assemblers…
I’ve heard this comparison before, and it is utterly wrong and misleading IMHO.
Exactly! If we take this to the code department, i would ask an AI to spit out optimized code for a new and great effect, and sell this as my own code (What would happen within minutes, compared to up to several years when coded by hand). How lame would that be? Tools can make life easier, but tools shall not substitute the whole process. It is like doping if you want to stick with the sports comparision. And here is also a good explanation why this happens, as humans love to cheat and sell shit for gold.
Basically using AI in that extend is selling someone else's ideas as your own. |
| |
rexbeng
Registered: Aug 2012
Posts: 30 |
Thanks. Art is the product of intellectual capacity though. Arms are just the primary human tools to materialize it. And although tools change or become unnecessary even; the intellect part remains untouched and drives advancements. That's how you distinguish an intellectual achievement from a merely technical one, no matter how the use of tools might make the latter seem impressive. |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 119 |
@rexbeng
I couldn't agree with you more.
The thing is, I feel this LLM AI text-to-image toys are trying to substitute (or rather mimic) exactly the "intellectual" part of art creation instead of being "just another tool like hand, like pencil, like industrially produced oilpaint, like Photoshop". But I suggest We don't go further here, as you and I had a similar conversation in the past at some other forum. |
| |
rexbeng
Registered: Aug 2012
Posts: 30 |
@4gentE: Art will radicalize itself when it needs to, much like it happened numerous times in the past, so don't worry about it. :)
But this discussion is about the relation of the C64 scene with pixel pushing, and my mention of art being primarily an intellectual capacity was only to tell fellow sceners that if you want to judge the 'art' part of pixel images you have to start from that. To be able to read the picture, not stay at it's title and how the pixels are thrown. I guess that to many people this might sound very 'art institute', but it really is the only way to reward creators, and, yes, it's the only valid method for art professors to teach art students.
Take the 'future ninja' pic that started it all. How is this the image of a ninja? It could very well be a race driver, or a pilot. But not a ninja, because ninjas are supposed to need to be agile; therefore don't wear armor. So, in reality, it's a random face wearing a random helmet. You probably seen this thousands of times in real life, let alone medias. In your opinion, then, was this a product of outstanding intellectual activity? Nope. And it further seems half-done, because the dithering looks half-baked (/'wired'). 0/10 creativity, 5/10 technique. There!
BUT! There's another side to this coin. I'm choosing The Sarge because he is quite involved in this discussion and the example is recent. Take a look at Gimme Food. Now, take a look at the pic named Relax, that finished in 3rd place same compo. Let's write a very short description for what we see in each. 1) face of a cat asking to be fed, 2) a 'humanized' frog so relaxed that is taking a bath inside a pelicans beak. |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 119 |
…And both of them outstanding examples you mention in the end paragraph are being fed to the AI machine as we speak, without authors’ consent, to be used in a way that in the future someone would not have to give any thought about how to visually express his/her ideas, to have the AI do it for him/her. And all that is colateral, real endgame being the big investors profit. Excuse moi dear people for personally being somewhat militantly against that. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4618 |
<Post edited by hedning on 10/12-2023 13:44>
My hope in these AI times is that things like craftmanship, artistry and skill in art will once again be something we look up to, 100 years after it got out of fashion through modernism and postmodernism. Perhaps AI stuff will be the poor man's soulless "art", and the elite will see it as the cheap mass produced kitsch it is, focusing on craftmanship by human hands instead. Hopefully we'll see the death of relativist postmodernism too, in the process. In my view postmodernism had driven the west away from truth, beauty, and into a anti-intellectual suicidal vortex potentially killing itself in the process. AI "art" is the emptiness of art that a postmodern world deserve. |
| |
rexbeng
Registered: Aug 2012
Posts: 30 |
Well, that's not the reason I wrote the last paragraph. Hopefully people realize that. Also, I really wish there actually was some AI machine that was able or could learn to paint like me, it would save me a lot of time; sadly there isn't one. >_<
Edit: Interesting take by @hedning |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 119 |
It doesn’t have to paint as good as you, it only needs to paint ‘good enough’.
Well, I feared maybe we’re starting to dig to deep, but hedning went a few floors deeper still… |
| |
Hein
Registered: Apr 2004
Posts: 933 |
@hedning, nothing wrong with good craftmanship, but honestly, the moves from perfect romanticism to impressionism to modernism (expressionism) to post-modernism have been great leaps forward for art. |
| |
rexbeng
Registered: Aug 2012
Posts: 30 |
I didn't write 'as good as me' but rather 'like me'. There's a world of difference; many levels away from each other those two things.
Also, what @Hein says. This is radicalizing and moving away from, let's call them, 'achievements of the past'. |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 119 |
@Hein :
I didn’t want to react to what hedning wrote, because I don’t think we should go to that discussion now and here. But since you said it, yes, I too agree with you, and I think that big modernistic art movements were the exact opposite of ‘kitsch’ contrary to what was written.
@rexbeng : You’re right I didn’t read your post exactly as it was written. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4618 |
Quote: @hedning, nothing wrong with good craftmanship, but honestly, the moves from perfect romanticism to impressionism to modernism (expressionism) to post-modernism have been great leaps forward for art.
That, sir, could be debated forever. One could also see modernism as the last big move in art, but also the end point for western art, as with postmodernism relativism and irony truth and even the definition of art itself goes down the drain. Perhaps this is not the place for that discussion. I have debated and fought postmodernism since 2006 in articles and books. It is an interesting road, indeed, especially as tradition and figurative art seem to grow stronger. |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 119 |
@hedning
I don’t know if what bothers you is abstraction and simplification in art. This ‘economic’ way of thinking where one wants to express as much as possible with as few elements as possible. What I observed is that many great artists tend to go more and more abstract as they age. I always looked at this journey as a journey of knowledge, and not deterioration that comes with age. |
| |
Hein
Registered: Apr 2004
Posts: 933 |
@hedning, agree, it's obviously a matter of taste. But as a practitioner of visual arts, it feels quite natural for me to move forward as such, albeit very slowly (still stuck in a 40 year old scene ;)). |
| |
Sander
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 493 |
Why so complicated..
I value pixel art by 3 pillars. (not in random order)
1 - Concept
How striking and original is the idea you want to communicate, and how striking and original can you communicate the idea?
(A popular example of conceptual artwork)
2 - Style
Do you have your own visual signature, or is the style tailor-made to enhance the concept.
3- Handcraft
The actual execution in pixels. Less automation and references gets more value.
---
In case of AI
Good concept, good style, good handcraft: 9
Bad concept, good style, good handcraft: 7
Bad concept, bad style, good handcraft: 5
Bad concept, bad style, bad handcraft: 0
In case of converting
Good concept, good style, bad handcraft: 7
Bad concept, good style, bad handcraft: 5
Bad concept, bad style, bad handcraft: 0
In case of hand drawn on the C64
Good concept, good style, good handcraft: 10
Bad concept, good style, good handcraft: 8
Bad concept, bad style, good handcraft: 5
* The numbers are just an indication, reality may differ. |
| |
spider-j
Registered: Oct 2004
Posts: 449 |
@Sander: why so complicated?
Cat -> 10
No Cat -> no vote
XD |
| |
bugjam
Registered: Apr 2003
Posts: 2503 |
What about good concept, meh style and bad handcraft?
Asking for a friend :) |
| |
Sander
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 493 |
Quote: What about good concept, meh style and bad handcraft?
Asking for a friend :)
I even made a look-up-table š |
| |
Electric
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 39 |
Quoting SanderI value pixel art by 3 pillars.
How would you put these values in play when it's question of demos? … with the other far end being a demo using conversions not credited to the original artists and AI art that was not stated as that?
I might have to reconsider some of my earlier voting :) (public, of course). |
| |
Sander
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 493 |
In case of pixel art in demos I see two differences.
1. The concept would be in favour of the general demo concept, so i’d turn some knob there. (The criteria of the concept would remain, but on a larger demo-scale)
2. As infrastructural graphics are usually required, and when no actual graphics people are involved, we shouldn’t judge it too hard. Unless someone takes all credit for handcrafting it.
Otherwise I think they still stand. Transparency / giving proper credits is always key. |
| |
F7sus4
Registered: Apr 2013
Posts: 112 |
The question is why should fast-art be "pardoned" in demos?
Do people really start to perceive graphics as an asset from texture pack in an AAA game? If so, is it because of lack of motivation or available manpower? Or is it simply because of willingness to release a production as fast, and as effective as possible?
Weren't demos supposed to show skills of all the members involved? I'm just not sure the corporate ultraproductive mindset (fast-fashion, fast-food, fast-everything) is a healthy model in demoscene environment. |
| |
Hein
Registered: Apr 2004
Posts: 933 |
Quote: The question is why should fast-art be "pardoned" in demos?
Do people really start to perceive graphics as an asset from texture pack in an AAA game? If so, is it because of lack of motivation or available manpower? Or is it simply because of willingness to release a production as fast, and as effective as possible?
Weren't demos supposed to show skills of all the members involved? I'm just not sure the corporate ultraproductive mindset (fast-fashion, fast-food, fast-everything) is a healthy model in demoscene environment.
Working on a demo with strict project deadlines and ultimate goals such as winning X, I can imagine someone resorts to touched up conversions and AI generated base images. Peer pressure, I guess. |
| |
Bitbreaker
Registered: Oct 2002
Posts: 501 |
Quote: Working on a demo with strict project deadlines and ultimate goals such as winning X, I can imagine someone resorts to touched up conversions and AI generated base images. Peer pressure, I guess.
I am happy if doing a demo is far different from managing a software projects, just because i do not want that pressure, ultimate goals and deadlines in my sparetime, but ultimate fun. Achieving goals as fast as possible (by cheating with AI and more) is not fun, it is like taking a shortcut by cable car to reach a summit. The journey is the reward. |
