Comment by nonethewiser
1 day ago
Basically, it's not pixel art at all.
It's very cool and I don't mind the use of AI at all but I think calling it pixel art is just very misleading. It's closer to a filter but not quite that either.
1 day ago
Basically, it's not pixel art at all.
It's very cool and I don't mind the use of AI at all but I think calling it pixel art is just very misleading. It's closer to a filter but not quite that either.
Yup, not pixel art. I wonder if people are not zooming in on it properly? If you zoom in max you see how much strangeness there is.
It kind of looks like a Google Sketchup render that someone then went and used the Photoshop Clone and Patch tools on in arbitrary ways.
Doesn’t really look anything like pixel art at all. Because it isn’t.
Pixel art is just a style now, just like "photorealistic" and "water color".
Everything is just a style now. And these names will become attached to the style rather than the technique.
It's pixel art, just not the types of pixels most people want in pixel art.
Pixel art has a certain connotation (probably more accurately referred to as 8-bit or 16-bit).
Otherwise every digital image could be classified as pixel art.
It's pixel art in the same way that everything rendered on a computer screen is pixel art. It's all pixels.
That is reductive, why not call all everything CGI then? Or call CGI pixel art as well? As we’re talking about “art”, it’s necessarily going to be subjective, but pixel art has certain style aspects such as use of 2x1 lines (https://www.the-pixel-artist.com/articles/top-ten-things-new...). This is just an example, while I’m not saying that every convention must be met in order to qualify as pixel art, not having any doesn’t make a useful definition of a genre.