Hacker News Reader

Comment by GuB-42 | Hacker News Reader

I think the objectivity here is that it is what the artist intended.

Not true anymore for modern pixel art, which is often an art style intended for modern displays, and it is sometimes combined with high resolution images and transforms.

View on HN

That's an often repeated claim people make about pixel art and CRT monitors esp on social media, but I think it's just a trite bite that sounds good rather than something that's meaningful.

Example: https://x.com/kitten_beloved/status/1849159022479577277

Plenty of people debunking it including the person she took the screenshots from.

>including the person she took the screenshots from.

who is that in the thread please? I can't find them

See https://x.com/Ian_Fisch/status/1820897215432233186

That doesn't debunk it at all - but some good points were made. Note that the artists of the day were also using CRT displays just higher resolutions. They certainly did test their work on the target. Some people obviously did more tweaking based on what they saw on the target machine and some less. This continues to this day.

That's a screenshot of a video made by tiktok user "mylifeisanrpg". I don't know where the image of the sprites came from but Fisch doesn't say he made it.

"Objectively the artists intended the art to be viewed on a CRT" is a very different statement than "Objectively the art looks better on a CRT"

Yeah, it's just not your grandmother's pixel art anymore

If we had an artist's statement of intent for a particular piece, that might be a reasonable argument.

We don’t need a statement of intent because we have historical records of their work process simultaneously using both TV and computer displays.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com