|
| |
|
Rambo. A Chronicle Of.. [2011] |
AKA :
Craft
Released At :
LCP 2011
Achievements :
C64 Graphics Competition at LCP 2011 : #10
Credits :
Download :
Look for downloads on external sites:
Pokefinder.org
User Comment
Submitted by King Fisher on 13 November 2011
User Comment
Submitted by DeeKay on 19 August 2011
| Fuckin Hell... Took me a while to figure out what $d021 is without checking the code - First I naturally assumed it was black, as with so many old titlescreens, then i saw that could not be and guessed lt.grey. that also did not work for a few blocks and then i checked orange, which too did not work - In the end it was fucking YELLOW! ;-D The most obvious choice if you look at the pic, stupid me... |
User Comment
Submitted by CreaMD on 13 August 2011
Deekay. Counting you in. ;-)
Btw. as far as copying vs. art is concerned. I like the "bad designers copy, great designers steal," ...and don't get caught ;-). (one can replace designers by artists too) For example the Gollumm pic. It is a copy... further rework in detail makes it a steal, but author "got caught", everyone can recognize the original source. Of course he wanted to be it this way, and alhought it is a perfect pic, it doesn't make him great artist. |
User Comment
Submitted by Hein on 13 August 2011
Quote:What if an artist do care about discussions about his work?
Rambo = good!
Then the artist should release at csdb. :) But I wouldn't dare discuss things with Rambo.. |
User Comment
Submitted by DeeKay on 13 August 2011
Oh hell, count me in for the compo... I've always thought "man, this could be improved a lot" when I worked on this for Happy Birthday Rambones :
 |
User Comment
Submitted by Frantic on 13 August 2011
What if an artist do care about discussions about his work?
Rambo = good! |
User Comment
Submitted by Hein on 13 August 2011
As a concept, it does make sense. Still, should an artist care about discussions about his work?
Another pro, the face and the right hand are better than Steve's version. But not the muscles, no sir.
|
User Comment
Submitted by Rough on 13 August 2011
| @Deekay: The muslims in Rambo III are Mujahedin, not Taliban. |
User Comment
Submitted by St0rmfr0nt on 13 August 2011
Now we know the background for this release, details published on c64.sk:
13. AUGUST 2011
Rambo Revisited GFX Compo 05:36
Idea and concept: This compo is inspired by Rambo. A Chronicle Of.. image released at LCP party (5-7 August 2011). It is almost pixel exact copy of the original Rambo First Blood - Part II - title pic. It was fairly and tediously repixelled by Twoflower to stir debate around value of pixel-craft, manual pixelling, originality etc. Read more in the comments and trivia under the pic.
Rules: Original image (in this initial post) is your inspiration and reference. You go anywhere from that. You can try improve it(like STE86 did here). You can redraw it using different technique or use other graphics mode. Even doublescreen! (pun inteded ;-) You can just take something (e.g. some detail) out of it an make it into whole new masterpiece. You can extend it, simplify...Im sure you can come up with your own ideas. Anything goes.
Pictures should be executable C64 .PRG files. They will be released on fly (as they are submitted). Voting will be perfomed online while the compo lasts (and about week-two after the deadline). In short, it will be working exactly like previous C64.sk compos.
Deadline: August 27, 2011 23:55 (2 weeks from start)
Compo page at CSDB: Rambo Revisited - GFX Compo |
User Comment
Submitted by Mermaid on 13 August 2011
I'd just like to point out that the quote from me in the trivia was directed at one particular person as a possible way of gradually moving on from colouring scans, thanks.
As for this piece of...craftsmanship...I think "meh" covers it. |
User Comment
Submitted by DeeKay on 13 August 2011
I'm guessing it's some sort of political commentary on current events in Afghanistan...
"You guys are true patriots" - John Rambo to Taliban Warriors, Rambo III
Edit: I read 2F's context bit further down below now. I think you're missing the point: People vote 1 on this because they automatically assume you took Steve Wahid's picture and handed that in - not because it's a copy.
But I see where you were trying to go with this. I always say art is compromised of three factors: innovation, work and technique. The three factors may be weighted differently with each piece, but they *all* need to be present at least a little bit! ;-)
Edit 2: Oh and one more point: (For me) the interesting thing about a conversion (well, hand-made ones, not simply putting it through a converter) is how the artist recreates the picture within the c64's limits. But since this picture already existed on the c64, this aspect is now moot! ;-) |
User Comment
Submitted by chatGPZ on 11 August 2011
Quote:... and there is always someone clueless who will buy the crap and hang it on the wall.
the funniest thing was when (many years ago, mid 90s i think) a group of students managed to sell a bunch of pictures that way which *were* painted by a chimpanzee =) it turned into a hilarious scandal at the end, with people calling the pictures scam (although they were even signed, by the chimp, with his actual name - they trained him to do it) and wanted their money back. court said no, big rage emerged from artsyfarts :o) somehow reminds me of something.... =P |
User Comment
Submitted by FATFrost on 11 August 2011
| @2flower ,Actually.. it's nice to see someone pixelling from their inner feelings and not just google/p1/repixel/entercompo/fakeworkstagesafter. that's SO 'TARD. (>_<) |
User Comment
Submitted by CreaMD on 11 August 2011
... and there is always someone clueless who will buy the crap and hang it on the wall.
Twoflower: This pic served it's purpose for me. I have read discussion that I have missed, article you have written, and I have been thinking about what you were trying to point out. I'm curious now, whether you wanted to show, that "having your pic completely handpixelled on C64 from reference, with stages provided" doesn't make it original and acceptable for compo. Because that's imho very strong point. |
User Comment
Submitted by Chrom_ on 11 August 2011
Personally I can see the point of this release. I can understand Twoflower liked the picture because it reminded him of something, so he just probably started copying it to "get inside" the picture itself and the original artist's mind.
Would you guys like the picture better if you just label it as a tribute? |
User Comment
Submitted by chatGPZ on 10 August 2011
Quote:The image is not the issue - the discussion is. The primary thing is not that this image needs an explanation to point out its qualities, but rather that a discussion needed an image to highlight the weak points of its argumentation.
yes, totally sounds like what these artsyfarts in the gallery are saying. "its not the image"<blablabla>"its"<blablabla>. waste of time really =P |
User Comment
Submitted by Medicus on 10 August 2011
Reading the explanation was a waste of time to me.
Writing it and doing such a picture.. mhh.. well.. |
User Comment
Submitted by Twoflower on 10 August 2011
| @Groepaz & Skate: You kind of point out my intention here. The image is not the issue - the discussion is. The primary thing is not that this image needs an explanation to point out its qualities, but rather that a discussion needed an image to highlight the weak points of its argumentation. |
User Comment
Submitted by chatGPZ on 10 August 2011
mmmh. i am with skate there. it seems a pointless waste of time and energy.
same for the discussion actually. reminds me of the excuses you can hear from "artists" whose pictures look like painted by a chimpanzee. as soon as an explaination is needed to "understand" a picture, the picture failed. |
User Comment
Submitted by Skate on 10 August 2011
| @Twoflower: We all know you are a talented graphician. But this is completely pointless to me. Even if I am not a good graphician, I can copy anything (maybe we can exclude some interlaced graphics) using that method. Also, I can easily cheat and change a few pixels over the original one. So, this feels like a complete masturbation to me, not that valuable as a scene product, sorry. At least, shouldn't be a part of a graphics compo. |
User Comment
Submitted by spider-j on 9 August 2011
| this one says more than all those comments on csdb and in vn i read about wires and craftmanship. great work! |
User Comment
Submitted by Twoflower on 9 August 2011
@Stainless: It's certainly not a waste of time, energy or anything in that direction. This discussion alone made it worth the fuzz and was the sole purpose of the labor - save my own satisfaction.
@Kristian: I understand why people voted it low at the party; there was no way of telling what this was just by looking at it. As I described this in the Attitude article, even C64 art sometimes needs a context to make it readable. The same image can be two different things depending on how you choose to position it. I simply didn't have the time to add the context to it at the party, and I just wanted to get it released. I have no critique on the originality of Magnars picture, but i'd should perhaps clarify that I view it as: A) A wirejob with very little fix-up - an hour at the most. B) A collage of selfmade and found elements put together in Photoshop or Timanthes - in short an image with very little pixelcraft involved. |
User Comment
Submitted by Kristian on 9 August 2011
I can appreciate the experiment, but for a competition, without the explanation, it seems to me like something someone entered just to have a little fun. I can understand why someone would vote this low on CSDB, and personally I voted it low at LCP. It's got nothing to do with the image in itself.
I'm not into wired pictures, but if I understand Magnars comment on his own image correctly, it is atleast based on a photo he took, his own original work. Not just something he found on the internet.
I haven't read the articles mentioned below. Maybe I should. |
User Comment
Submitted by CreaMD on 8 August 2011
Perhaps the technique is outdated: --- tick (definitely for a layperson)
Isn't this a better image than a converted one?: --- it's a copy of already existing pixelwork.
Is the judgement based on the fact that a similar (ok, very similar) image exists on the C64? --- tick
Might the reason be that muscles and guns is a bad topic for compoimages in 2011? --- don't think so.
Is this release not deserving any respect concidering the many hours of craft which lies behind this? --- The Emperor's new clothes is a tale that in a way addresses this question. And even with context, it is still just (almost) pixel exact copy of the original. That's not much for a layperson nor for artist and if they say that it is, they are like those people in Emperor's new clothes.
Or are you voting a 1 because of the conceptual artsy-fartsyness? --- I think this would be my case if I voted 1.
Phew.. did I win something?
I would like to see Ptoing taking this picture and fixing it. There could be a compo organised solely around this pic too. That would roxxor...
P.S: The picture itself works great with quotes in trivia. If those quotes were part of the executable as an intro page, it would probably deliver the message effectively. |
User Comment
Submitted by Stainless Steel on 8 August 2011
| While i can appreciate the idea behind this, i still think it was a waste of craftsmanship and time. But hey, whatever gets your noodle stiff. |
User Comment
Submitted by Archmage on 8 August 2011
| Interesting concept this, and Twoflower (who happens to be one of my favourite artists on the C64) raises and partially answers some tricky questions about influence, motivation, wires and copying by doing this stunt. I am not sure if I understand all the questions nor if I agree with his answers, but there you have it. I appreciate this about seven times more than a wired picture. |
User Comment
Submitted by Paul Bearer on 8 August 2011
| Yes, your explanation has in fact made my change my "1" vote to... something much higher. Even though the picture is the same as it was a few days ago. You raise some interesting questions. |
User Comment
Submitted by Twoflower on 8 August 2011
As requested - some contextualization and background is added (see "Trivia" and "Production Notes"). Workstages and origano will be added shortly. But to start with - I didn't compete with this image to rank high, but to raise the question on what the role of pixelcraft is for us today. Let's look at it objectively - the image in itself is a great one. It was great in 1986 and it still is one of my favourite C64 images. Still it ranked last in the graphics competition at LCP 2010 and have recieved a number of 1's in the CSDb votes. Perhaps the technique is outdated, but isn't this a better image than a converted one? Is the judgement based on the fact that a similar (ok, very similar) image exists on the C64? Might the reason be that muscles and guns is a bad topic for compoimages in 2011? Just a question for you 1 voters out there - is this release not deserving any respect concidering the many hours of craft which lies behind this? Or are you voting a 1 because of the conceptual artsy-fartsyness? The answer of the above question is probably - I don't get this; this looks like a 1985 Steven Wahid image - why the hell does he compete with this?
So, now when you know the context - does your judgement of the image and my actions change? And what about the hours of hard, manual pixeling put down on this project? This image was beaten in the compo (and here - to judge from the votes) by an obvious wirejob with a minimal level of touch-up (Dragonlady by Magnar). What does that say concerning craft?
For further contextualization concerning this issue, please read Vandalism News #56 (The Wire I+II), Attitude #12 (Arttitude) and the discussion which triggered it all (Double Screen Compo Voting). |
User Comment
Submitted by goto80 on 8 August 2011
| Great concept & realisation. What more can you ask for? |
User Comment
Submitted by Twoflower on 7 August 2011
@Paul Bearer and CreaMD:
This is certainly no joke and neither any kind of laughing-matter. Nor is it a fake-production or an image from 1985 - this is a new image. This is 10-15 hours of hard eye-to-screen craftmanship. Expect a full explanation / contextualization aswell as the workstages and the origano (in crafthugger-style) when I have gotten some sleep. |
User Comment
Submitted by CreaMD on 7 August 2011
| The article is great. I mean GREAT! This picture doesn't make any extension of that article for me. But yes, I admit that I might be just stupid and don't get it.I mean, it doesn't serve as punchline, it isn't funny, it's not even nice, or improvement. Throw spoilers on me.. thanx. |
User Comment
Submitted by Puterman on 7 August 2011
User Comment
Submitted by Paul Bearer on 7 August 2011
| Actually, yes, now I see it. A few pixels have changed, like on the bottom on the left side of his pants a grey fold, background around his right shoulder and the right hand under the RPG (from my point of view). Still... why? |
User Comment
Submitted by Mr. SID on 7 August 2011
| I guess it'll make more sense once the work stages are uploaded... |
User Comment
Submitted by Sander on 7 August 2011
| @Ian, I said that article might give a bit of a context - that's all. |
User Comment
Submitted by iAN CooG on 7 August 2011
I see many different pixels. Still pointless until the reason for doing this isn't explained
Probably as Sander told me on IRC we need to read 2flower chapter on Attitude #12 to understand this. |
User Comment
Submitted by St0rmfr0nt on 7 August 2011
User Comment
Submitted by Paul Bearer on 7 August 2011
| Guys, can someone explain the joke to me? It's the loading screen of Rambo from 1986, as far as I see not a single pixel has changed. Yet people give >1 points because it's from Triad? |
User Comment
Submitted by Wile Coyote on 7 August 2011
|
|
|
 | Search CSDb |
|
| Navigate | |
|
| Detailed Info | |
|
| Fun Stuff | |
· Goofs
· Hidden Parts
· Trivia (2)
|
|
| Forum | |
|
| Support CSDb | |
|
 |  |
|
