Monday 6-11-12

Question 1) can NES-style pixel art capture the artistic essence of the original album cover, with a fraction of the resolution and color depth of an analog photograph? Answer) I believe that the artistic essence infact can capture the original photo without crossing the line. This is because many times, new ideas are formulated from existing pieces. There are barely any new ideas in this generation. I believe that there are only new creations of old ideas. Now, I do however believe that the "fair use policy" must be straddled evenly. Meaning, I believe that one who wishes to (in this case pixel art) another piece, should take serious precautions. However, I do not believe that they should have to worry about getting into trouble over it. If they do not market their "new" image and soley create the images for fun, then there is nothing wrong with it. Not many people in the world are fans of this type of art anyways. I believe that the way the artist set their work up should be formulated with policy. If someone who is interested in enhancing the original work then they should be allowed to. The way that someone creates a piece of work should differ in the eyes of the law if the new piece does not harm the old work. I highly doubt that any of the pixelated pictures are harming any of the originals. They don't look as clear, therefore they already have a leg under the first. Second of all, the pixelated pictures aren't as iconic. The whole reason that new pictures are being created from the old is that they were well known pictures. There isn't anything wrong with wanting to imitate a iconic image. Society knows who create an original piece, the people who worry about losing money due to new people wanting to remake their work, should worry about better things. They should be thankful that their work was amazing enough that someone else takes pride in their work.