The curious case of retro demo scene graphics
datagubbe.se
datagubbe.se
What is fundamental is this: every artist starts out by copying the works of others. It's how you learn.
And in that framing, once you publish your derived work, there is only one question that arises - if you don't credit the original author but sign your own name, you're fundamentally misleading your audience. Your audience implicitly assumes you made the thing. Maybe you made 95% of it, but if you don't give due credit, it looks bad once your audience discovers that.
On more than one occasion my perception of an artist has shifted once I discovered the "brilliant work" they created was actually a remake of somebody else's brilliant work. It's a feeling of being misled. It's never a feeling of "wow, this guy is a total hack and has no ability of their own".
The spirit of the famous - cited in the TFA as well - quote "great artists steal" is exactly that. If you don't know that the inspiration came from somewhere and believe that what an artist did was created in a vacuum, you will certainly think much higher of said artist.
They wouldn't copy each other for copyright infringement as much as it was a mark of respect. They carried each other's arts as an evolution and respect towards each other rather than copying; all bringing a small twist on what was before.
Eventually you get to the point where someone asks why the tree is theirs and they say it's because someone in history planted it, they were a relative, so it is mine now. It is hard to assert a moral justification for long term hereditary ownership without inviting investigations on how it was those ancestors came to have the resources that caused the ownership to begin.
The entire notion of "intellectual property" is the creation of an artificial monopoly rooted in very distinct and separate goals from physical property that requires separate laws if you want to restrict copying or exploitation, because property law explicitly does not cover them.
Most copyright laws are also justified implicitly or directly in the legal texts allowing them as creating an incentive for the advancement of the arts and sciences - a temporary monopoly right granted by the state as a deviation from perceived "natural right" - on the belief that granting that right creates more benefits for the public than not having them, by encouraging the creation of more works.
And no copyright law protects your ideas. They protect the specific expression of them. Patents - which do protect ideas - are by design far more restricted and limited exactly because they are far more invasive in depriving the public of use of the very idea for the duration.
Personally I'm not convinced by the arguments for private property, which makes your comparison even weirder than you likely intended.
It's not a "should" -- ideas simply are fundamentally different from physical materials, and the norms we use to deal with the inherent qualities of one don't automatically translate over to the other without a suitable rationale.
Physical materials qualify as property because they are economically rival: one party possessing and using them inherently excludes others, meaning that competing claims to the same thing must be resolved by one party surrendering their claims to the other. There's no agree-to-disagree mechanism available, so we need a way to resolve disputes in favor of one party or another.
There is no clear application of this to non-rival intangibles: there is no conflict between two people using similar ideas independently of each other in the first place. Someone copying your idea isn't analogous to them picking fruit off of your tree, it's analogous to them learning from what you're doing, and then going off and planting their own tree on their own land.
Modern "intellectual property" is a contrivance by people desiring to artificially incentivize certain categories of activity by attempting to replicate one of the downstream effects of the inherent exclusivity of goods, namely commercial markets. So you wind up with a positive-law intervention to create artificial scarcity in order to produce similar second-order consequences to what comes about when scarcity exists naturally.
That's why property rights have been recognized in all civilizations in human history -- and are likely a prerequisite for organized civilization to exist in the first place -- whereas copyright laws in their modern form date to the 18th century.
In fact, artificial "intellectual property" conflicts with natural property rights, in that in claiming a universal monopoly on arranging any bits of matter into particular patterns, you are actually claiming the right to stop people from using their own actual property as they please.
You're blindly assuming that in owning a thing now, you must naturally own it forever; that you can live forever in an eternal "now," like a child or an animal. But that's not how the natural world works, nor is it how the human world works. Supposing you own a particular tree; if you let the fruit from that tree fall to the ground and rot, you mustn't complain if someone else, picking up that fruit, saves it from rot.
Compare Schopenhauer, "The World as Will and Representation," IV.62:
> Take the case of an object that has been worked on, improved, or guarded and protected from mishap through someone’s efforts, however small, even if they amounted to no more than plucking or picking up some wild fruit from the ground: someone who seizes this object clearly deprives the other of the results of the energy he has expended on it; he is making the other’s body serve his will instead of its own [...] i.e. he is doing wrong. — On the other hand, simply enjoying something without doing any work on it or safeguarding it against destruction gives us as little right to the thing as the declaration of our will to be its sole owner. Thus, when a family has hunted by itself in a district for even a hundred years without having done anything towards its improvement, then this family cannot keep out a newcomer who wants to hunt there too without morally doing wrong. There is absolutely no moral ground for the so-called right of preoccupation, which holds that simply by virtue of having enjoyed a thing you can demand the exclusive right to its further enjoyment as an additional reward. The newcomer would have much more of a right to tell anyone whose claim rests merely on this right (the right of preoccupation): ‘the very fact that you have been enjoying it for so long makes it right that others should enjoy it now.’
Compare also Aesop:
> A Dog asleep in a manger filled with hay, was awakened by the Cattle, which came in tired and hungry from working in the field. But the Dog would not let them get near the manger, and snarled and snapped as if it were filled with the best of meat and bones, all for himself. The Cattle looked at the Dog in disgust. "How selfish he is!" said one. "He cannot eat the hay and yet he will not let us eat it who are so hungry for it!"
Even that has its limitations, because otherwise nobody would be able to draw references. The challenge is always where to draw the line.
The Revision demo party is soon. From the competition rules for "Oldskool Graphics" [0]:
> Include exactly 10 (ten) working stages of your entry. All entries without plausible working stages will be disqualified.
Yikes...
The rules for "Modern Graphics" [1] and "Paintover" similarly also require work stages, but fewer.
[0]: https://2026.revision-party.net/competitions/oldskool/#oldsk...
[1]: https://2026.revision-party.net/competitions/graphics/#moder...
One should not forget where the demoscene is coming from: crackers. The whole point of "intros" was to show off the skills of whoever cracked a piece of software. So obviously, the views demoscene held on intellectual property are not mainstream, if we can say it like that.
The shift to a more creative and law abiding art scene, led by adults and not rebellious teenagers is more recent development.
My top pick for pixel art would be anything by Made of demogroup Bomb, don't have a good link to hand sorry and need to change trains etc. Also check this amazing pixel art book: https://www.themastersofpixelart.com/
I made the images in Deluxe Paint when I was 16-18 years old. It was a lovely surprise to be contacted two decades later by the author who wanted to print them in this beautiful book among many far more talented artists.
Snatched the collection. Thanks for mentioning it!
That whole site (and more) is worth checking out of course. My favorite pixel art image at the moment is this: https://amiga.lychesis.net/sceners/Facet.html#Facet_SamTakin...
The hidden deciding factor nevertheless was time. And that affected the whole production cycle: coding, graphics, music, crunching, copying, spreading (postal services!).
We had way more snow back then and we enjoyed working on something for hours till the wee hours.
18 was a deciding factor because after that military service killed quite a few scener careers.
Have a look at all the pr0n stuff pixel graphics that were cherished by the young studs as well as all the scroll texts as well as early disk magazines or pictures of programmers in computer magazines, with lots of profanity and simply stating age competition: 14 years old scolding 13 years old…
You will still see plenty of e.g. SID covers of existing pop music, without anyone really batting an eyelid.
There were plenty of images that amazed me back then even though I was perfectly aware of the source material. It depends on the platform, and the amount of effort going into recreating it. Reinterpreting an image for a C64 or Amiga with a restricted palette is a skill in itself. Copying it for a platform, or in a style / resolution / bitmap depth, where you might as well use a scanner, not so much (and so, of course, the accusations became more and more frequent, often warranted).
Copying it and trying to pass something off as original is of course also very different from acknowledging the original and letting the conversion stand on its own as what it is.
If it's indistinguishable from the real thing but made without any of the traditional tools, it's remarkable, even if you think it's lame in any way at all.
People wanting to explore the use of generative AI for vintage computers is happening not just for graphics but for code too.
I think in the case of code though, it's still interesting because I don't believe there's been any success yet. I hear of people having success with Claude in contemporary settings but it seems to fare less well when working for older computing platforms. There's a reason for that of course and it's worth exploring.
However, it will cease to be interesting as soon as the first person manages to create something substantial. At the point, the scene should probably shun it for the reasons stated in the quote.
Questions: 1) Which AI platform did you use? 2) Did it create a binary image of the floppy disk (an ADF perhaps)? If not, what form did it take?
It referenced the Amiga ROM Kernel Reference Manual, appendix C to create a boot block in assembly. It's a raw sector-mapped image, the build process creates a blank adf, which then writes everything at it's fixed offsets and we go back with another tool to patch the bootblock with the right checksum so the kernel accepts it.
I copied that adf to the A1200 so I can then write it to a real floppy.
INSTALL DF0:
Just type that and your disk is bootable.
What I find mind-boggling is the handwave over the rest. "Loads the network driver" - ok, which one? There's no standard network driver, only a specification for writing drivers (SANA-II). Was it a driver for SLIP/PPP over the serial port, or a PCMCIA Ethernet adaptor, or something else? Was it a copy of a driver someone's already written?
Also, it would be madness to try doing this in a bootblock, or insinuating that the bootblock did it. Demo bootblocks take over the hardware and start using their loading routines, eschewing the main AmigaOS, and that's the implication of saying something was done in the bootblock (you have under 1KB of space so the first thing you need is your own loader).
What's much more mundane and normal is a standard bootblock which returns control to AmigaDOS and lets it run the startup-sequence, whereupon you can use normal files, libraries, devices, including a full suite of other people's networking software, including BOOTP (AmiTCP comes with a client) and TFTP (see Olaf Barthel's tftpclient: https://github.com/obarthel/amiga-sana-ii-tftpclient). But it stopped being the "bootblock" that did it as soon as it started AmigaDOS.
"Danny leaves the scene" (because it's just a bunch of kids with scanners and he's got a job at Eidos now) never forget!
Successfully integrating many disparate parts has always been the big ticket item. Dealing with the rough edges and making different ideas play together nicely is where all the value lives in most businesses.
The creative part in a demo wasn't the the art itself, the subject, the composition, etc., no, it was representing something thought impossible. Eventually, kinda like how photography changed painters' relationship with realistic representation, more powerful tech did the same with these types of demos, so the medium moved on.
Well - the edited image looks clearer in the rendition, but also more fake. So unless that was the goal, I prefer the more blurred image, simply because it is more authentic than that digital edit. Many AI images have a similar problem; they look very out of place. I noticed this in some games where AI generated images are used. The images look great but they simply don't fit into the game at hand or they have a style that looks alien. Case in point was mods for the game Baldur's Gate 2 EE, where these images are great but they look very outside-ish. And that's a problem that seems to be hard to get rid of from such generated images, at the least for most of those I saw so far.
Thus, some demos, like the one where Lazur's image came from [0] were just slideshows of very colorful images that were more than likely traced from something.
[0] https://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=3715 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmhffwhGiK0
I think things can look much better for pixel art that is either very low resolution (e.g. the small characters and objects in a SNES game, which would usually be just a few pixels wide, so every pixel has to be placed deliberately) or has a very low color depth (a pallette between two to ~16 colors, like the backgrounds in a PC-88 game), or both (like the sprites in a Game Boy game).
An example where higher color depth can ruin the visuals is "Snatcher" by Kojima. The backgrounds for the original PC-88 and MSX versions were relatively detailed (200x100 pixels perhaps), while the color depth was very low (8 colors?), which greatly accentuated the pixel-art look. However, the later re-releases added more and more colors and smooth gradients, which only made it look worse, like a mediocre comic book.
e.g. I zoomed in to view the matchbox texture described in the article, and found it a blur. (Clicking loads the uncompressed PNG.)
Personally, I think for this page, loading full res images inline is warranted. The resulting 3MB page size would be more than justified :)
https://www.reddit.com/r/OldSchoolCool/comments/ejsb22/micha...
So, no way to tell if the illustrations were illustrative.
It will change, but craft and "look what I did" won't go away.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotoscoping
Spaceballs’ State Of The Art and 9 Fingers are a couple of Amiga demoscene productions that relied on rotoscoping.
I still see them as largely related? That not considered the case?
Using a model is posing a live person and/or some objects and setting up lights and painting from that. Artists have done this for years. I've done this. Rockwell did this.
Using photo reference is taking photographs (yours or others') and working from those. I've done this. Rockwell did this too!
Tracing is placing your reference image beneath or over your canvas, and tracing the contours you see in it. Tracing paper, chroma-key, projectors, camera lucidia, tracing the image onto acetate and taping that to your Amiga's monitor to trace it again in DPaint, dropping ref into one layer in Photoshop and working over it in another one, these are all methods of tracing. I've done them all! Rockwell probably did this now and then, with the caveat that a pro's tracing is a very different beast from a beginner's - it's easy for a beginner to just trace the contours with no thought as to how they come together into a 3d shape, and get a drawing that feels dead and lifeless and subtly wrong. Saying someone's work looks like a tracing is kind of an insult.
Rotoscoping is explicitly a process of tracing/referencing a sequence of images to produce a sequence of images rather than a single image. It is related! But this article is entirely discussing the way demoscene artists would reproduce a static image, so roto does not apply here. Rockwell painted static images; he never did this.
(It's certainly possible that Rockwell could have taken single frames of film and had them printed for reference, but that's still not roto. Roto's explicitly an animation process that results in a series of drawings based on your film/video ref.)
Increased efficiency also seems to be part of its appeal. The limitation is you can't increase efficiency by just upgrading computer specs, but instead have to find innovating ways to use the existing resources as efficient as possible to make something great. These kinds of optimization or compression problems seems like something AI would be very helpful for, so I think it is premature to try and ban its usage.
You can crib techniques from other people but unless you also show that you understand them deeply, e.g. by creative adaptions, you'll still be considered a lamer even though your results match those of someone else.
This is one of the reasons why the demo scene still has a lot of physical events, it's part of the socialisation process to be in the same room as other people, putting in your final touches while they observe and produce distractions that in practice validate your abilities and respectable refusal to take shortcuts.
Are you talking about some sort of hypothetical future Super-AGI?
There are those who use AI as part of their process proudly, but secretly, because they know they will receive abuse.
I really wonder how some people think of themselves as artists while simultaneously attacking another persons choice of self expression.
Because AI art is not art, and rips off existing artwork in a way that is more than learning from the style and imitating.
Almost every respected art form today was birthed to cries of "That is not art"
Sprite animation in particular is bad unless you build a bespoke engine to spit out sequential PNGs.
A poser will give, but not withstand (and internalize) critique. An artist is too busy producing or suffering to care.
The same could be said of a lot of retro themed games. They frequently do not adhere to the same requirement such as number of colours per attribute cell. Nevertheless, they are producing a style that they are aiming for.
But I agree that GenAI tends to suck at pixel art. It will be interesting to see how much that changes. More importantly poor quality art is still art, and frequently making poor art is the first step towards making great art. You don't have to like or applaud things you don't feel are very good. It is just not kind or useful to attack the artist.
>A poser will give, but not withstand (and internalize) critique. An artist is too busy producing or suffering to care.
This is my sense as well. The bulk of the aggressive behaviour seems to be coming from people whose identity values that they can produce things others cannot. Those who like just producing things are still just producing things.