Michael Azzi · @Michafrar
1st Nov 2015 from TwitLonger
Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis
I have caused confusion and by consequence painted a negative image of some pixel art concepts. I admit my ignorance.
Pixelation has been the workshop/university for pixel art for way over a decade. If anything it's thanks to this community and Pixeljoint, that concepts like anti-aliasing, banding, dithering and readability have greatly been expanded upon. I would be a fool to deny this, as we owe the early 2000's for all this knowledge. Discussions about clusters aren't recent either, but they're the lesser known ones. I let my personal bias speak, and I should be aware that my bias can influence others. :(
A good couple of years ago, I stumbled upon something called cluster theory. It felt more like a prototype thing, an hypothesis if you will of something that was being developed over time. To me, a theory feels like some a system that can predict how things work? I might be wrong. The concept being discussed was a big chunk of meat, but to be honest, the replies and the community trying to figure things out was WAY more fascinating than the original post! This has led me to say that I didn't accept this "theory" and disliked it. I was way more interested in pixel artists trying to test things over and over, and "build" something that hadn't been set in stone...yet! Is that a Theory? Maybe the problem is just the wording. But there's definitely some potential for something great. IMO, It greatly improves readability, but is that all? no? yes? I don't know.
I've learned from pedagogy that opposing thoughts (thesis and anti-thesis) lead to knowledge. If there wasn't any disagreement we wouldn't further our understanding of the world. It's the simple reason why school liked to organise group-work so you're faced with different mindsets and learn from them.
That's why I see Pixelation like a University. I shouldn't discourage beginners to check out this notion of clusters, but a lot of beginners write it off, because they see the long first post of text. If learners are TRULY dedicated to their craft, they will read on and do the research. I claimed "there is no need to learn it", because this can be done intuitively. Keyword is "no need" not "should not". Observation to me is a receptive skill. Receptive skills require being exposed to a craft, sports or language, to be able to perform the productive skills.
Suggesting clusters to beginners is pushing people too far into the learning curve. Even I am unprepared for it as it's still being developed and I have a lot to learn myself. :( I'm currently obsessed with line-width and sub-pixeling, but I refrain from suggesting people to look it up. Should they look it up? Sure! It will slightly enhance their work-flow and technique
....but will they be turned off by it and shrug it off? :( When explaining A-A, math is SUPER useful, but there are other ways to explain it! I say "rocket science" because difficulty can overload beginners with too much information. And that's pretty much the same for clusters. Heck, the name itself could be easily given a synonym to relate it to other mediums of art, but that's besides the point.
Like before, artists will disagree with me, but I can understand if I've offended anyone. I apologize.
I feel art is like language, you need grammar to structure thoughts. You can still convey your message and be understood in a 2nd language. But learning the grammar can always help you improve your semantic skills. Some prefer visual/auditive intuition, other prefer textbooks. Both are valid approaches. Art has multiple approaches too! :)
Mike