> It's one thing to represent things in a symbolic, simplistic or minimalistic style. It's another thing to feign technological disadvantage.
Different in what ways? It's a perfectly valid and common artistic resource to "feign disadvantage", limiting the colors, the subject, the perspective or, yes, the resolution.
If I understood the article, the author acknowledges the historical limitations of the "pixelated look", states he and an "insular" community of artists like it by choice, and at the same time he also acknowledges to the general public, the pixelated look is bizarre (what he calls the "pixel tax"), and therefore he understands he must change with the times. And in the end, he more or less concludes that good art is good art, regardless of the specific style.
Different in what ways? It's a perfectly valid and common artistic resource to "feign disadvantage", limiting the colors, the subject, the perspective or, yes, the resolution.
If I understood the article, the author acknowledges the historical limitations of the "pixelated look", states he and an "insular" community of artists like it by choice, and at the same time he also acknowledges to the general public, the pixelated look is bizarre (what he calls the "pixel tax"), and therefore he understands he must change with the times. And in the end, he more or less concludes that good art is good art, regardless of the specific style.