VBbVLbGgy7
Added 2017-10-04 22:41:24 +0000 UTC
Comments
It took me three weeks to answer this question, so it will be a long text. If you ever played old computer games, not very old, but those ones that don't have realistic graphics - you know that they are the most good-looking and interesting. The environment is so abstract that you have to imagine most of the objects and details by yourself - the way you want it to look like. So, everyone see that environment in their own way, like it's a very plastic game that is adjusted for every user. Pixel art might be very abstract too. You see the windows with lamps, but it's only a hint of windows with lamps. You can imagine any windows and any lamps you want. In other words, maybe pixel art is enough neutral technique to give the spectators space for imagination - that's the difference? On the other hand, I can't say that I know a lot of artists that are making non-pixel art looped animated backgrounds, so maybe we just need to search better!
waneella
2017-10-29 15:49:12 +0000 UTCBeautiful! Would love to see some of these portrait ones released as a phone wallpaper pack.
Jay
2017-10-05 13:43:32 +0000 UTCWaneella, is there a drastic difference between the process of doing pixels and non-pixels other than mediums? There's just something so magical about moody/atmospheric pixels that i dont see anywhere else, or it could be that no one else is grasping the same magic as well as you do.
Xeno
2017-10-05 05:05:02 +0000 UTC
