[dead]
The curious case of retro demo scene graphics
61–70 of 102 posts
Re: The curious case of retro demo scene graphics
#62Focusing on "copying" seems like missing the forest for the trees. There's the copyright angle, but copyright laws are unnatural obstacles designed to give the original author some control over what happens after publishing. They're not fundamental, we made the laws. 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 deri…
This sounds so insane to me. If I own land and grow a tree on it, the tree and its fruits are private property forever (mine until I die, then inherited by my children, then their children, or sold, transferred, etc ad nauseam). At no point does the tree become "public", that would be utter nonsense. It is property. Why should my ideas then be anything different? They come from my head. I own myself, including my hea…
Copyright law exists exactly because it is universally accepted that ideas are not property: Copying an idea or expression of it does not deprive you of your ideas.
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.
Re: The curious case of retro demo scene graphics
#63Focusing on "copying" seems like missing the forest for the trees. There's the copyright angle, but copyright laws are unnatural obstacles designed to give the original author some control over what happens after publishing. They're not fundamental, we made the laws. 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 deri…
[dead]
Re: The curious case of retro demo scene graphics
#64Let's not forget that most of these pictures were made by teenagers, doing the best they could (and hoping others didn't know about Boris Vallejo). The demoscene was very young back then. Copying is generally considered pretty lame in the demoscene these days.
It was considered "pretty lame" in the 90s, yet the best did it. It was just harder to figure it out.
A lazy copy has of course always been lame, but it also depends on when in the 90s, and the platform.
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.
Re: The curious case of retro demo scene graphics
#65I would contest that choosing not to reveal the use of AI is due to an agreement of the nature of the behaviour. In an ideal world that could maybe be the case, but I think the driving force behind secrecy is harassment. 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 simultaneous…
> 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.
Re: The curious case of retro demo scene graphics
#66I would contest that choosing not to reveal the use of AI is due to an agreement of the nature of the behaviour. In an ideal world that could maybe be the case, but I think the driving force behind secrecy is harassment. 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 simultaneous…
> 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.
Why do you get to proclaim what is and isn't art? It is a topic that has been debated for millennia.
Almost every respected art form today was birthed to cries of "That is not art"
Re: The curious case of retro demo scene graphics
#67Let's not forget that most of these pictures were made by teenagers, doing the best they could (and hoping others didn't know about Boris Vallejo). The demoscene was very young back then. Copying is generally considered pretty lame in the demoscene these days.
Making something appear digitally that only exists in the far-away analog world still gets 'em.
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.
Re: The curious case of retro demo scene graphics
#68> Theft from the outside world, however, is often taken lightly - especially when it comes to graphics. 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 abid…
I think very initially it was indeed so, crackers were the ones doing the intros. But very quickly the efforts got split, most of the time, the person doing the intro was a different person, the person doing the music was another person and finally another person was the one doing the actual crack. I don't think it took very long for this split to be the norm, even though very early I'm sure there was individuals doing all three pieces alone.
Re: The curious case of retro demo scene graphics
#69I would contest that choosing not to reveal the use of AI is due to an agreement of the nature of the behaviour. In an ideal world that could maybe be the case, but I think the driving force behind secrecy is harassment. 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 simultaneous…
GenAI tools absolutely suck at pixel art from my experience. They can mimic aspects of the look at the display layer, but they are fundamentally bogus.
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.
Re: The curious case of retro demo scene graphics
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Why do you get to proclaim what is and isn't art? It is a topic that has been debated for millennia. Almost every respected art form today was birthed to cries of "That is not art"
[deleted]