Using Pixabay to advance self-motivated learning in common art creation (analog and digital)
By Shalin Hai-Jew, Kansas State University
A year into the pandemic, I took up experimenting with alcohol inks on synthetic papers. At the same time, there were experiments with various types of other art media. There was learning about how to scan and edit analog artworks into digital form for post-processing and further work. [Making physical works is harder than creating digitally. The effort is more visceral. The limits of the various mediums and surfaces are directly felt.] Then, a digital camera was dusted off and applied to various road trips. The home office includes a scanner, shredder, laptop, monitor, peripherals, a drawing tablet, high end digital image editing software, and other resources. There is also a digital SLR camera. Over time, of course, the equipment and materials started to add up. [For all the joys of digital creation, creating in the analog forces a return to the natural physics of things and present real-world difficulties that are not present in much of the frictionless digital spaces. On the other hand, digital work has a different sort of resistance, technical resistance and some artifacts.]
Pixabay is a popular destination site to search for particular artwork and illustrations for articles, digital learning objects, illustrative contents for videos, and other common use cases. As a matter of fact, Pixabay was used for illustrating articles in the C2C Digital Magazine for a number of years before I even considered possibly contributing. Pixabay's editors also curate various image collections for easier particular image-hunting.
A Wikipedia article about Pixabay showcases it as a “royalty-free stock media website” that is owned by Canva, a favorite company for many educational content creators. The article continues about this platform:
This reconfigured usage of Pixabay not only as a source of cost-free and original visuals for various publications and digital learning contents changed perspective. It was possible to explore various contributors and collections more freely without a targeted search for particular visuals only. One could look at others’ photos and illustrations and engage in a kind of friendly competition: “How did they do that?”
What becomes popular seems to be what best meets the needs of the visitors to the site. When setting up an account as a creative on Pixabay, there is shared dynamic information about the most popular tags, for both images and video.
At the start of my account on July 13, 2022 (started on that date for no particular reason), the most popular tags for image searches included the following:
The ideas seem somewhat ripped-from-the-headlines in one sense (perhaps to illustrate a blog post or a tweet? a sharing of a political opinion?) but also universal and eternal in another sense. All do have some sort of relationship with time, as either something transitory and transient or something more lasting.
Then, the search tags for videos included the following (in mid-July 2022):
Some may approach being a creative on Pixabay as a person pursuing downloads, links, and popularity. An instrumental approach would suggest a more targeted and strategic and tactical approach, as informed by the makers of the platform. What acts as a headwind against this is the fact that the contents are linked to the person (albeit through a “handle” or a “pseudonym”). Perhaps after one has made a sufficient number of accepted images and can make collections, particular “popular” pieces could be made, such as for a folder of symbols.
The visual of the desirable tags may be seen in Figure 3.
It makes sense to read the fine print before engaging, of course. The Terms of Services are spelled out clearly, for those using the shared visuals and those sharing visuals. There are conditions for when takedowns of content would occur. There are other informational nuances.
The first guide I noticed was that the digital visuals had to be at least 3,000 pixels along a side and had to be less than 40 MB in size. In other words, there had to be sufficient pixels. These were base minimums, and they have automated checks to ensure that these standards are met.
Then, as I made an account, I waited some days before thinking about what images to upload. I started collecting some of the visuals I’d made both recently and from the past year and a half of experimentation, learning, and play. It has been such a length of time (and so much experimentation) that I may have a hard time recreating some of the visuals from scratch. I can infer how I might have achieved something, but I don't usually document how I arrive at a look-and-feel (except for an art project related to NodeXL from years ago).
What "Makes" (or Gets Accepted)...of My Submitted Works
Were my works too peculiar, too original to me? Should I reframe as something more generic and easier to adopt? Should I go more abstract than figurative? Or more finished vs. inchoate? Should I decontextualize works as much as possible and make them "isolates" (so they could work in any other context)? Should I go with 2d instead of 3d (since 2d is more common)? Should I delete shadows in 3d objects, so others can reinterpret the direction of artificial light? Should I anticipate the range of possible uses when creating a work or sharing it? Should I go with more subtlety and less vibrance? Should I avoid visual dissonance and go with visual alignments? Could I remake my works to be more attractive and popular? Are there features that help visual artworks play well with other visuals in other contexts (but are still unique and work well as stand-alones as well)? Could I consider more about others and less about the self (in terms of taste)? Could I make myself more commercial and less niche, less “long tail”? [One can see the power law frequency curve at play here, with a few who are super producers with a lot of downloads. One artist had only 50 words over the lifetime of her account and some 20,000 downloads up to the present. She had a very appealing signature style.] Could I try to be faddish and fashionable? Should I try to fit in as a learning tool? Would I feel ultimately fulfilled? Did it make sense for me to think of artworks like essays or short stories--unique to the artist? Could it be said that an artist has "one story" that the artist expresses again and again as a meta-narrative? After all, some of my open source works have received some 16,000 downloads while others may have barely been seen more than a dozen times.
Since the works are offered for free, and all costs and all risks are borne by the creatives, what gave the site this process model for vetting works using human judgment? [For me, works may seem simple on the surface, but they may have taken much investment of effort and time and funds and computational processing. The technologies themselves likely cost in the thousands of dollars for the scanners, the laptop, the software, and so on. The hours are hard to quantify in terms of cost. Then there are costs to the art supplies. The time invested into the learning and skills maintenance is also expensive. There is time invested in data processing sometimes. For example, some of the network graphs created from social media data required overnight processing to acquire through the social network platform application programming interfaces (APIs).]
While I was waiting for the initial set of visuals to be considered, there was the question of what sort of “handle” to use. I quickly settled on “Sjjalinn” spelled in a fairly unique way, so it would be disambiguated if I wanted to do a simple Google search. When the account was set up, a Google Search for “sjjalinn” resulted in no hits, and now in early August, there are six (because in part I set up some publicity from my Twitter account).
The account is https://pixabay.com/users/sjjalinn-28605710/
I assume that there will be no crediting of "Sjjalinn" in many cases. The visuals may be screenshot as a way to copy to visual (which is how I accessed various visuals although I did credit the person and attached the URL to the caption for the visual). Perhaps the reverse image search tools would be the main archival memory of such works. And my main benefit would be to workshop the respective works and abscond with the learning.
By the third week or so, a surprise arrived. I was not sure if this was sort of a welcoming "early win" for a new participant, or if there was enthusiasm for a more unusual work, or maybe a mix of both (or something else altogether). I am aware of socio-psychological research about what encourages people to continue to engage (and positive surprises is one of those factors). Then, two additional works were selected for notice in Week 5: a photo of a Canadian goose crossing a pathway, and then a photo of hay bales (hay rounds).
Shalin Hai-Jew works as an instructional designer at Kansas State University. Her email is shalin@ksu.edu.
Instructional design in higher education is a field which requires near-constant learning, in order to be able to design, develop, and deploy digital learning objects to learning standards and legal requirements (think accessibility, media law, intellectual property, and others). Skillsets need to be constantly refreshed, often in an environment of straitened budgets. The skills have to be whether they are in direct need at any particular time. This means that instructional designers have to make it a point to constantly learn and practice on their own, and they almost have to be obsessive to constantly improve on the skills that they already have.
Figure 1. Microverse
For me, sometimes self-motivation can be challenging. I say I want to learn more about common art and the attendant analog and digital skills (each of which enhance the other), but I experience a gap with the doing (the "say-do" gap). Perhaps engaging with a social site and sharing my work more broadly may make me more accountable. The "art hole" or "art vacuum" (the "demand") left by the social sharing site may serve as an impetus for me to share (in the same way journalists try to fill the "news hole" with relevant content, in the same way new conversationalists try to fill silences). I can "workshop" different experiments online, and I can thus learn incrementally.
After all, there is so much competition for attention. And sometimes, the learning is indirect. One such case involves going to the Pixabay site as a creative, in order to learn about making common art in order to improve sketching, digital image editing, animation, and other related skills for the workplace. (I have also recently learned how to make custom shapes from images and to include them in my Shape Tool for even more original work than using inherited shapes in Adobe Photoshop. I have been wanting to learn this for over a year but only recently found the time--over a holiday break--to get to this. Recently, I've started trying out art masking fluid with mixed success on various types of paper. I am more daring with mixed media, including unconventional mixes like water and rubbing alcohol, alcohol ink, and water color, on various types of papers. I need to learn materials and digitals continually, and I need to not be charmed by the new learned trick after a short time.)
A Years-Long “Approach” to Pixabay
A year into the pandemic, I took up experimenting with alcohol inks on synthetic papers. At the same time, there were experiments with various types of other art media. There was learning about how to scan and edit analog artworks into digital form for post-processing and further work. [Making physical works is harder than creating digitally. The effort is more visceral. The limits of the various mediums and surfaces are directly felt.] Then, a digital camera was dusted off and applied to various road trips. The home office includes a scanner, shredder, laptop, monitor, peripherals, a drawing tablet, high end digital image editing software, and other resources. There is also a digital SLR camera. Over time, of course, the equipment and materials started to add up. [For all the joys of digital creation, creating in the analog forces a return to the natural physics of things and present real-world difficulties that are not present in much of the frictionless digital spaces. On the other hand, digital work has a different sort of resistance, technical resistance and some artifacts.]
The various visuals were displayed in a sequence of slideshows on a social slideshow sharing site (SlideShare), but the contents tend to be more informational, and the slideshows are hosted with lower spatial resolution. It seemed that having a single source would be more positive, so that it would be possible to see the works as a collection.
Figure 2. B/W Seed
A Light Initial Note about Pixabay
Pixabay is a popular destination site to search for particular artwork and illustrations for articles, digital learning objects, illustrative contents for videos, and other common use cases. As a matter of fact, Pixabay was used for illustrating articles in the C2C Digital Magazine for a number of years before I even considered possibly contributing. Pixabay's editors also curate various image collections for easier particular image-hunting.
A Wikipedia article about Pixabay showcases it as a “royalty-free stock media website” that is owned by Canva, a favorite company for many educational content creators. The article continues about this platform:
It is used for sharing photos, illustrations, vector graphics, film footage, and music, exclusively under the custom Pixabay license, which generally allows the free use of the material with some restrictions. (“Pixabay,” July 20, 2022)
The role of Pixabay in this particular context would be as a destination site for light “common art” so there is demand for the self-made art that might not garner any interest or usage otherwise (except in highly local applications). Said another way, the supply (push) would be encouraged by the demand (pull).
Ideally, a market, even a niche one, may encourage more work experimentation and complex created works. Perhaps there may be an informal education about visual standards beyond whatever the local conditions accept. And the work pipeline would extend beyond the local context, with an added extension of ensuring digital images meet the standards of both the spatial resolution and of the human judges of visual quality.
I would be more motivated to create works here if I knew that there were users especially from the developing world (vs. the developed one). In terms of contributors, many seem to hail from the U.S. and Europe. However, this impression may change if I spend more time on the platform. People do need to make some time-of-day for each other, IMHO, even if the support is at the margins (such as sharing free creative imagery).
Using Pixabay as a Learning Motivation Tool
This reconfigured usage of Pixabay not only as a source of cost-free and original visuals for various publications and digital learning contents changed perspective. It was possible to explore various contributors and collections more freely without a targeted search for particular visuals only. One could look at others’ photos and illustrations and engage in a kind of friendly competition: “How did they do that?”
There are individuals on the site who are professional photographers. Their collections are rich. The photos are from various locations. The digital photo editing is professionally done. There are professional illustrators. One included a drawing of herself with a sign reading, “need job.” (The vibe was stylish but also highlighted a sense of the hand-to-mouth living of many contemporary artists.) Nature photos are plentiful. There are rich kinds of fan art.
There are those just starting out. There are dabblers and hobbyists. Their works are intermingled with those of professionals. To grow a community of practice, everyone is important, and everyone can help each other.
What becomes popular seems to be what best meets the needs of the visitors to the site. When setting up an account as a creative on Pixabay, there is shared dynamic information about the most popular tags, for both images and video.
At the start of my account on July 13, 2022 (started on that date for no particular reason), the most popular tags for image searches included the following:
tiktok, india map, indian flag, elon musk, guru, naruto, air conditioner, gym logo, stranger things, heart attack, fridge, tesla, netflix, hajj, heatwave, spiderman, shiv, intro, apple logo, back pain, mahadev, resume, instagram logo, lord shiva, heat wave, thor, pubg, Makkah, motivational quotes, lofi, supply chain, visa, whiteboard, Ronaldo, iot, dead body, affiliate marketing, empathy, nelson mandela, bts, hanuman, eid adha, shiva god, insomnia, thumbnail, software development, login, avengers, acne, ceo, ethics, air conditioning, Kaaba, public speaking, psychologist, cough, Indian army, scam, family dinner, torn paper, breakup, argue, audit, atm, biryani, courtroom, madina, sunscreen, abortion, kinder, health insurance, compliance, storytelling, sugarcane, rakhi, high five, video editing, relaxing smooth, big data, gif, meme, albert einstein, veterinarian, inclusion, hvac, finish line, youtube intro, zoom meeting, physical therapy, starbucks, heavy rain, like subscribers, hydrogen, pool party, namaste, gavel, youtube banner, tie dye
The ideas seem somewhat ripped-from-the-headlines in one sense (perhaps to illustrate a blog post or a tweet? a sharing of a political opinion?) but also universal and eternal in another sense. All do have some sort of relationship with time, as either something transitory and transient or something more lasting.
Then, the search tags for videos included the following (in mid-July 2022):
tiger, snake, elephant, funny cat, sad man, dubai, hello, scientist, welcome, police, question, cricket, stock market, angry, crying, Pakistan, Indian flag, teacher, laughing, comedy, hard work, facts, thinking man, muslim, sleeping man, shiva, relaxing smooth, quran, poor, peacock, business man, people talking, mosque, king, funny video, one piece, Egypt, gun, ice cream, google, interview, population, earthquake, comment, camel, handshake, shiva god, successful man, college, pizza, confused, digital marketing, hacker, rabbit, funny cats, Islamic background, sad girl, cry, real estate, owl, walking alone, pain, teaching, shark, youtube logo, crocodile, graph, shiv, help, old man, funny dog, rich man, calendar, fact, india map, jail, iphone, dolphin, burj khalifa, krishna, lord shiva, motivational background, scientists, demon slayer, accident, mosquito, wow, poor people, amazon, dna, question mark, taj mahal, goku, mahadev, soul, law, motivational quotes, Indian food, zebra, hindu
Some may approach being a creative on Pixabay as a person pursuing downloads, links, and popularity. An instrumental approach would suggest a more targeted and strategic and tactical approach, as informed by the makers of the platform. What acts as a headwind against this is the fact that the contents are linked to the person (albeit through a “handle” or a “pseudonym”). Perhaps after one has made a sufficient number of accepted images and can make collections, particular “popular” pieces could be made, such as for a folder of symbols.
The visual of the desirable tags may be seen in Figure 3.
Figure 3. “Media in high demand” (by tag, by modality) on Pixabay based on Image Tag Searches
Superficially, it seems that shared visual contents have to attract visual attention; it should offer something of visual spectacle. Perhaps it should be somewhat visually memorable. Most works have a level of refinement or finish (the seams are hidden). Many do have a sense of the artist’s personality, vision, skill, and style. In some cases, there is nothing less than a will to change how others see and perhaps their original sense of aesthetics. Visuals that are "ugly" can be deeply moving and meaningful and charming, and in such cases, I will use such images in work.
Stock collections of free or low-cost visuals are also direct competition with sites like Pixabay. Some of the visuals sharable on commercial sites are eminently editable, with the various visual pieces in a composite able to be expanded out into separate editable parts. That is a competitive advantage that is not directly emulate-able with the shared visuals on free sites (unless the works are uploaded as layered .psd or .ai files (with layers intact). Given how much investment of effort is required, it is hard to imagine that creatives would invest so much effort into unpaid works. Many creatives do not even use identifiable or branded names, and many do not have their "Coffee" payment channel set up on the platform. And those that do remind me of "busking," performing in public on the street for pocket change (micropayments actually, or percentages of cents in many cases). Yet, another reality is that the professionals that share their work on stock image sites that license their works seem to receive only micropayments for each release. A cursory investigation suggests perhaps cents for each usage, requiring a set of numerous popular visuals to perhaps be able to buy a meal a month.
Engaging the Social Sharing Platform’s Rules
It makes sense to read the fine print before engaging, of course. The Terms of Services are spelled out clearly, for those using the shared visuals and those sharing visuals. There are conditions for when takedowns of content would occur. There are other informational nuances.
The first guide I noticed was that the digital visuals had to be at least 3,000 pixels along a side and had to be less than 40 MB in size. In other words, there had to be sufficient pixels. These were base minimums, and they have automated checks to ensure that these standards are met.
Then, as I made an account, I waited some days before thinking about what images to upload. I started collecting some of the visuals I’d made both recently and from the past year and a half of experimentation, learning, and play. It has been such a length of time (and so much experimentation) that I may have a hard time recreating some of the visuals from scratch. I can infer how I might have achieved something, but I don't usually document how I arrive at a look-and-feel (except for an art project related to NodeXL from years ago).
I went to the site and saw that I could upload 7 images, which I did. With each upload, one is asked to add tags to enhance their discoverability (by text-based search). One can add a length-limited description of the accepted images, which may add to the history of the work and maybe some interest to viewers.
Community Voting
I noticed that in the account dropdown, the images first went through a Community Voting vetting. The directions read: "These are the latest uploads on Pixabay. Please vote if images should get published. Accept images that show something really useful and have no technical flaws. Don't worry - there is no wrong. Learn more in our quality guidelines." There is a digital zoom based on a mouse-over that simulates a physical loupe or magnifying glass for closer review. [There is a button to see "Recently Declined" images, too.]
I tried first to understand Pixabay as a contributor (I have long used Pixabay images for various projects). I differentiated between what Pixabay provides vs. other sites, such as sites providing "famous quotes." I decided not to use Pixabay for "famous quotes." As I learn more, I should gain more perspective. For example, as a newbie, I impressed myself with a boring image...and when I did a search for the topic, I found that there were many other works that better represented the visual than what I submitted. Live and learn, I tell myself.
Spectacle is charming...and maybe even necessary. However, it turns out that much of humanity is charmed by flowers and food and sunrises ad infinitum, of which there are an abundance of visuals. Perhaps people never tire of the foundational things. Ditto cats. Ditto mushrooms. There are also tranches of apocalyptic scenes, fantasy worlds, and sci-fi universes. Only a few of the submitted works are achingly beautiful and absolutely necessary.
Wearing the mean hat. Indeed, I reviewed some works that I ended up rejecting:
I also have a pet peeve against those who do not seem to have achieved "escape velocity" beyond the personal, beyond the hyper-local, to create something of relevance to others. I wonder what the ratio of acceptance to declination are. And yet, I also want works to have "something to say" for that individual. The visual has to go beyond technical skill. As I've immersed in "common art" in the past year and a half, I am thinking that having something to say may be more difficult than the technical aspects. So I'm looking for something original that speaks something about the contributor...but also transcends the personal and offers something of value to the general public. The works that pass muster have to "thread the needle" in particular ways for me. I do try to be fair though.
- food that does not look like the actual dish (but may well have been delicious in the real)
- anything that smacks of the "foodie craze" from social media a few years back (unless the folks ready to eat just look super enthusiastic in a charming way, or if there is cross-cultural enjoyment of food)
- food that looks inedible to the eyes
- taxidermy mounts (live animals are preferred, optimally in the wild and not a farm or a zoo)
- people modeling informally (and self-promoting with their show names)
- any works derived from the likenesses of celebrities (Beyonce, Scarlett Johansson, Billie Eilish, most recently) because the artist may not have the rights to the individuals' likenesses
- brand logos, merch, product placement, anything that smacks of "sell" (or positioning for online presence
- icons (without any images)
- digital visuals of slides (such as from PowerPoint)
- anything poorly lit
- anything poorly composed (improperly or incompletely framed)
- anything inappropriately unfocused
- anything poorly conceptualized (if a conceptual-type of visual)
- anything garish or overwrought (there is a lot to be said for simplicity, elegance, and under-statedness)
- anything poorly executed (although I am sensitive to how difficult some images may be to acquire or create...and I am sensitive to the fact that people may feel a spark of joy when a work was created based on new learning...and they want to share that happiness)
- anything solely by generative AI programs without some visual interest or other value-added
- anything without clear aesthetics (or anything with muddy aesthetics)
- anything cutesy (but cute itself is okay because natural cute does exist)
- anything too derivative (or unoriginal)
- anything in a series where there are excessive variations of a scene or subject or person or concept (in such cases, I usually choose the first and always decline the latter, which may not be fair but is par for the course)
- anything already obviously copyrighted
- anything that has a known person's likeness unless the likeness was only used as a reference and an original work was created from that
- anything too political, anything too advocacy-based (it's about the visual, not the placard-waving)
- anything too too local, such as characters with unknown referents (unless the works are very well rendered)
- anything with a date-time stamp left on (on photos)
- scanned posters
- scanned flyers
- anything that promotes instruments that do not hold value (all sorts of cryptocurrencies without the backing of trustworthy entities)
- anything tasteless (Who shares images of photos from a memorial service? Who shares realistic nudes?)
- anything too risque
- anything banal (I know what it's like to see with "new eyes." One starts seeing patterns everywhere. However, bubbles in a cup of coffee really aren't that fascinating on a second look.)
- anything "phoned in" (such as a scan of fiat currencies or moneys, such as a screenshot of a blurry digital avatar from an immersive virtual world and the background removed, such as simple numbers or letters--which read as a play for the users who need something fast and lack basic digital image editing skills, such as a scan of crumpled foil)
- anything mis-rotated (wow, is it that hard to at least get an image easily viewable without putting a crimp in the viewer's neck?)
- a photo in which the photographer's shadow (or reflection) appears (and other signs of rookie mistakes or lack of mindfulness / awareness)
- anything too complex unless it is also beautiful (aesthetically pleasing) [I think simple works tend to be more heritable by users. Sometimes, even the inclusion of a hard vignette can be excessive and off-putting.]
Few works involve fonts, and the fonts that are included are out-of-the-box ones, not original ones per se. I am open to super creative or interesting or unique fonts.
Of course, with text, there often come messages, which can be a challenge in and of themselves. Misspellings are not uncommon. Platitudes are very common. Religious verses of various types are fairly common. I only approved one recently, and it read, "Don't waste food," and the visual was creative with various visual depictions of food integrated in the visual.
I want works to be fully artificial or fully photo-realistic. A clip-arty work should be clip-arty all the way. A photo-realistic work should not only pass basic visual muster, but it should pass basic forensics tests for reality...and how light falls...and how the horizon lines should work. Something in an in-between state looks unfinished and amateurish. A work should be of a piece (it should look put together). A photo that looks "Photoshopped" is a no. There are places to show off complex skills by leaving in seams that indicate what was done, but this does not seem to be the place for that. That's not to say that I want to be all jaded in my sensibilities.
A work depicting a place should capture something of its uniqueness and spirit. So, too, with people and animals. A depiction of a context should evoke. Various works are local to the creative. I like works that are multi-cultural or predominantly cultural because they help broaden viewers' senses of the world. I like works with historical relevance.
Does the work ask an interesting question, whether directly or indirectly? Some visuals may suggest ideas. For example, one work showed various species of waterfowl, with a possible predator looking on in the background. This visual asks questions about how animals coexist in shared physical spaces, sometimes in very harsh ways.
While most submitted works seem sensory and not directly conceptual, conceptual works should be clear about messaging, and it should not be anything socially or ethically toxic. I am not a great fan of works with text in it, but an occasional one will get past me as a filter.
Some works are very media-culture bound, such as one depicting a spaceship drawing humans up into it and another of a cyborg with a transparent back-of-the-skull. These work if the references are recognizable and perhaps more universal and global.
Some works that evoke a reaction--a gasp or a chuckle--is often a "yes." It may take me a short while to see why the reaction was evoked, but I assume that others may experience what I do when viewing the work. In some rare cases, I cannot fully explain the reaction...but if the reaction is palpable (even if subtle), I am open to new understandings from my ancient part of the brain and will go with it even as the executive is not fully able to sense-make. Works can tickle the senses (including synaesthetically) and the cognition in potent ways.
I do differentiate between finished works (less heritable by others) and unfinished ones (more heritable by those who want to edit). Works need to be adoptable by others in terms of practical usefulness.
I could say that I almost never select particular works, but I am open to having my mind changed...and I will accept that there are exceptions to each of my rules. I am comforted in knowing that I only have my little vote, and that likely democratic processes with a few overrides probably dictate how the system is run. That's only my guess.
Sometimes, I get on an evaluative roll, and I hit a button too quickly...and I experience regret. There is no back button to re-vote, which may be par for the course. There are some recognizable works that I want to find the original artist, but the images are offered without annotation or identifier (which is fair...). One artist draws various children and adults as they stare straight at the viewer (artist)...and the works are interestingly rendered. Some have uncanny eyes and perfect teeth. There is a clear sheen to each, and they are strangely mesmerizing. I'll need to put some effort into finding some of the artists whose works come through the Community Voting and leave a powerful and positive impression.
I also have to be careful not to be voting on the direct referent (what the visual is depicting or representing) but on the representation itself. For example, if I dislike a particular flower, I should not downvote the visual if its depiction is artful or emotionally compelling or thought provoking.
The real gold standard is helping viewers "re-see" something ordinary. In a high-minded sense, it is to help people be more human and empathetic and kind, perhaps. The practical gold standard is to offer something usable; it is to contribute to others' and help fulfill their digital visual needs. Another way to think of this is to engage "lateral thinking with withered technology" per Yokoi's observation. The technology is not "withered" even though it has been around forever...but it is evolving and cutting edge, involving AI and other innovations. The concept is right though. Linear thinking alone is insufficient, and going with non-linear expands the possibilities and the visions. There is nothing new under the sun...but one can see what has been around forever with new eyes and a fresh heart and a sense of artfulness. Tapping cross-discipline learning can result in remixes that can be value-added and insightful and charming. I am not there yet, but I am aspiring towards that.
Figure 4. Droplet in a Funnel
It turns out that I do have a weird sense of visual humor and can be charmed to a yes if the work is surprising in its own way.
Prior, I would have thought that mundane works would never make...or that works of a type would get old soon...but the world is so rich in imagery that these assumptions are not so. I have also come across very visually busy works, and these are still in many cases very popular. One artist has over a million downloads but only maybe a few dozen visuals of a singular style. She has made one account under that one name. I wonder if she has moved on to create other accounts to showcase other collections of a type or aesthetic. Another set that has just come through involves artful cats and dogs with big eyes and something that is just charmingly "off" that makes them illustrative. Later I wonder if these works are "AI" renditions, after reading about Lensa. [Also: Pets as a category or class are not that interesting to me, even if they are backlit and look empathetic or adorable.] It does feel like each download is hard-won, even as some seem to have a very attractive set of visuals that attract many (that whole power law frequency dynamic common in social media, with a few who gain the most attention and the rest in the "long tail").
There is charm in macro images, of small-world realities. (Think bees and robber flies and insects.) I have not seen any microscopy ones so far.
Fantasy world ones are usually a no for me, but if they are well rendered, then, okay. I have just recently voted in a few of those. One does not know until one knows. It is hard to fully anticipate what is to come.
There are some works that I just like in ways that I would be hard-pressed to explain. I put those in the categories of "inexplicables." Perhaps as I learn more about digital image editing and digital visuals, I would be able to better understand some choices. It is strange to be able to make a choice with conviction even without full ability to verbally explicate. Perhaps this is another version of the "inchoate" dimensions of visuals for me.
Some works (starter images) are clearly by "newbies," and I want to encourage them to continue on their path, so they can learn more and improve. I think all people struggle with acquiring new knowledge, but it is so worth it in the end. Each step along the way is pretty fun, too. [Weirdly, in one foray into Community Voting, while in Firefox web browser, I got stuck in an endless loop of two photos that kept recurring...even as I said no each time. We never got to yes, and I clicked on a different link.] Animations (videos) do not seem to go through Community Voting. It seems like only stills are evaluated by the community members who choose to opt in. Staff do evaluate animations.
There are non-negotiables. I will never personally approve any messages of hate or violence. I will not accept stereotyping of people or places. We should all be beyond this stuff.
Several months in, Pixabay gave me a report on my fast judgments. 43% of the images I accepted were approved. Then, the system also warned me: "Be careful, you are rejecting too many useful images." What? Then, it reported that 68% of the images I rejected were declined. In green: "Well done!" This is similar to how machine learning models are tested, with true positives, false positives, true negatives, false negatives, and so on. My takeaway is that I am liking too many images subjectively but not seeing the value of other images that are useful (good for backgrounds, good for wallpapers, good for logos and icons, good for human models, etc.) It was actually very fun to see their own Community Voting interface with reasons for rejecting: "Technical issues (Light, noise, colour, blur or focus), Bad composition (Distractions, perspective or horizon), and Lack of subject interest (Purpose or originality)." I hope to get better at voting. For me, it's not about consensus with others but more about developing a better sense of professional visual judgment regarding socially shared photos, art, videos, and animations. An improved sensibility should benefit my work.
Later, I learned that the system maintains a memory of rejected works when I tried to submit a work that had already been turned down once. Well, never mind!
Voting out my own Works, Too
I spend a lot of time rejecting various of my works, too. My favorite folder is an odds-and-ends folder that I can work with to create something new. This is like a workbench with lots of materials for experimentation. If a work looks like it might work, I'll spill it into a "To Launch" folder, but I reject many out of the final folder, too. "What was I thinking?" I'll ask myself when I re-look at the works on another day.
I am not too impressed with my photography either. So much of it is just the world painting itself and my capturing the scene with a very smart camera that does the main thinking. This is not to say that I'm not delighted when a photo is "Featured." Only recently, I was deliriously happy (irrationally exuberant) when two nature photos were accepted and then featured on the same day. But I came back to Earth and realized that it's that we live in a remarkable world that is radiant and bears appreciating.
I had learned a while ago that digitizing my analog works could enable me to salvage inartful works. I have been experimenting with materials that include some "forgiveness," such as pastels. [I never thought I would buy hairspray again, but it turns out hairspray is still an effective fixative for pastels. The hairspray will make the work yellow over time, and the work itself will not be treated as archival quality, but this is just play. And the digital visual / scan is what I would consider more of the permanent work.] Whenever I submit works, I am hopeful that they'll be accepted, but it does not necessarily have to be so. So what do I ask about my works before I submit it or not?
- Is this work something I've seen before elsewhere? It should be somewhat novel, if not wholly novel.
- Is your judgment about the visual overly personal and subjective (based on your experience making it), or are you able to be fairly objective? Judging as an evaluator outside of narrow self-interests is important.
- Does the work offer value--something of artfulness, or if not, at least something with informational value?
- Is there something of visual interest to this work? Is there something around which a viewer can engage or interact or consider?
- Does the work look somewhat composed? Somewhat refined?
- Is this work possibly usable by others in their own contexts? (My judgment has to go beyond my own personal preferences.)
- Does this work add a sense of variety to the visual collection (under the particular handle in the Pixabay account)? Does this work broaden the sense of the collection?
Sometimes, I mull what I learned in the creation of that work. That is my main takeaway. In some cases, I try to recall the steps I took to arrive at the artwork. (Some of these were made starting in early January 2021, as a stress relief during the start of the second year of the pandemic. I try to go for wild experimentation in order to arrive at different visual effects. I'll go with a wide range of materials and software programs.) Also, I am noticing that many uploads go up over the weekend. Perhaps that's when doodlers like me have time to play a little.
What "Makes" (or Gets Accepted)...of My Submitted Works
The declination by community members is not the last word, though. (I know this because I saw a work I made both in the reject pile and in the account as a published work.) Then, there is a Quality Review. [Even a new account can review others' images in terms of the "Community Voting" dropdown under the user profile icon]. There is a Tag Review to ensure that the "folk tags" are accurate to the visual.
Then, I started chomping at the bit. When would the counting of the “7 days” start after which I could submit another seven? Who was reviewing the images for the “Quality Review,” and what were they looking for? Did they have particular subjectivities (of course)? Did they have a checklist of what they were looking for? Perhaps they, too, had a "hokey test" that visual works had to pass. (I have an internal one that I apply to my works.) Then, during a recent trip, I realized that people use smart phones and photograph everything...so there is plenty of photo fodder (to saturation, to post-saturation). And perhaps we all need to be more choosy before doing a share.
Perhaps they saw works as transitive in conveying the initial inspiration? Or they may want transcendence? Perhaps with so many resources on their servers already, each additional resource has much less marginal value?
Perhaps the companies was interested in an artificial scarcity to raise value (in a context of free works)? Perhaps they just simply wanted to slow down submitters of visuals, so that the creatives themselves could focus on quality.
I went back to the Pixabay blog and read and re-read the infamous “quality over quantity” one. How tightly would they stick with those standards? Were they trying to balance the amount of available content against the limited amounts of human attention? Were they trying to set a schedule of sorts for those subscribing to particular accounts, so works would roll out in periodical fashion? Were they evaluating works for all potential uses, based in part on tagging and findability? Did they want visuals that evoked positive moods, with a sense of everything with its place in the world, or would they accept some works that might be more serious and maybe more variant?
Since the works are offered for free, and all costs and all risks are borne by the creatives, what gave the site this process model for vetting works using human judgment? [For me, works may seem simple on the surface, but they may have taken much investment of effort and time and funds and computational processing. The technologies themselves likely cost in the thousands of dollars for the scanners, the laptop, the software, and so on. The hours are hard to quantify in terms of cost. Then there are costs to the art supplies. The time invested into the learning and skills maintenance is also expensive. There is time invested in data processing sometimes. For example, some of the network graphs created from social media data required overnight processing to acquire through the social network platform application programming interfaces (APIs).]
Finally, it only took about two days before the initial seven submitted images went live. The acceptances of the works felt ridiculously affirming. And, the start of the week seemed to start for me on Sundays. However, the weeks seem to be rolling ones, with only a portion of the 7 approved slots approved initially...and then a rolling "okay" for additional images over time. I think a real benefit to the tool would be some indicator on the uploads page about how many will be approved for the week all at once...instead of in a rolling way. This way, one does not have to go back and check...or try to keep more accurate records about when that window will open for an additional upload or two.
[After this article was initially drafted, I was clicking around and read a webpage "About Us" at Pixabay. It may be that one professional photographer is evaluating all the image submissions. In another message, though, it sounds like an editorial team might be responsible. This suggests that the load is hopefully human-manageable. This also means that the individual is fairly broad-minded and open in terms of the works approved. I have been looking around to understand why this platform is called "Pixabay" and think it may be related to "pixels" or picture elements and "bay" as in a sort of harbor. It echoed another name, too, but I have not found any grounds to make that linkage, so I'll leave that be.]
My rejected short animation. Two months in in my foray into Pixabay, my second account (@wavegenerics) received a rejection of a work, my first, based on "offensive" contents. This related to a submitted animation of links of a chain of black dots that connected link-by-link and then a hashtag #stoptransmissionchains. This was an animation related to human-spreadable contagious diseases in a generic sense. The message was neutral. During the pandemic, this had been used as a Tweet without any apparent offense taken. However, perhaps the rejection was based on resistance to government mandates during the pandemic, when their efforts were seen as intrusive by some individuals and some political groups in the population. Perhaps the visual was seen as an opinion. Perhaps this was seen as related to the controversies related to masking (even though no pathogen in particular was directly cited). Perhaps the visual was too didactic.
This messaging was very mainline for public health messaging through several years of the SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19 pandemic stateside. Perhaps this was read as referring to monkeypox? I am sensitive to the need to never ever stigmatize those with vulnerabilities to diseases, and no one was depicted in the animation. Seeing what is in the collection under a search for "COVID-19" does leave me puzzled since there are images of people holding up their middle fingers while wearing a blue medical facemask and other visuals made it past censors. Perhaps the sense of agency in stopping chains of transmission of pathogens also suggested that those who got ill might be blamed. If so, that was not my intention.
Certainly no offense was meant. I do respect the decision of the company. It is sobering to realize that what I thought of as a constructive communication was not taken as such. Offering non-offensive images to the world is one thing, and offering non-offensive images to the publics I understand may be another entirely. Having been in publishing for years, I knew not to take any rejection personally but realize that the decision was based on whatever standards the editorial staff were acting under.
That said, since every submittal uses up one of the number of limited available uploads, the rejection does read as somewhat punitive. The lessened numbers of uploads available only applies to that one week and not to further cycles apparently.
A Request in Early December
Then, in early December, a direct message came through on one of the accounts: "hola, somos una marca de ropa que está empezando y nos ha gustado mucho una de sus imágenes, queríamos preguntar si la podemos usar en las prendas de nuestra tienda, por ejemplo en una camiseta, gracias." It translated to "hello, we are a clothing brand that is just starting out and we really liked one of your images, we wanted to ask if we could use it on the clothes in our store, for example on a t-shirt, thanks." Of course, the answer was yes, given the terms of the Pixabay license. The query was a gracious gesture but not legally necessary.
Going Remote-Social on Pixabay
While I was waiting for the initial set of visuals to be considered, there was the question of what sort of “handle” to use. I quickly settled on “Sjjalinn” spelled in a fairly unique way, so it would be disambiguated if I wanted to do a simple Google search. When the account was set up, a Google Search for “sjjalinn” resulted in no hits, and now in early August, there are six (because in part I set up some publicity from my Twitter account).
The account is https://pixabay.com/users/sjjalinn-28605710/
I assume that there will be no crediting of "Sjjalinn" in many cases. The visuals may be screenshot as a way to copy to visual (which is how I accessed various visuals although I did credit the person and attached the URL to the caption for the visual). Perhaps the reverse image search tools would be the main archival memory of such works. And my main benefit would be to workshop the respective works and abscond with the learning.
There are opportunities to socialize with other creatives by upvoting their images, downloading their images, commenting, and so on. It is possible to go to each other’s portfolios of visuals and attain a more thorough sense of the creative / artist work. I have noticed some "liking-back" and "following-back" patterns in terms of liking and following (i.e. tit-for-tat, returning in-kind at least for the friendly gestures).
Then, a Surprise
Figure 5. Four Weeks In on Pixabay
By the third week or so, a surprise arrived. I was not sure if this was sort of a welcoming "early win" for a new participant, or if there was enthusiasm for a more unusual work, or maybe a mix of both (or something else altogether). I am aware of socio-psychological research about what encourages people to continue to engage (and positive surprises is one of those factors). Then, two additional works were selected for notice in Week 5: a photo of a Canadian goose crossing a pathway, and then a photo of hay bales (hay rounds).
Figure 6. “Congratulations Sjjalinn!”
I am in it for exploring my own visual imagination. I'm in it for honing my painting and digital image editing skills. I am in it to use my digital SLR more and to explore my physical location in more depth.
Figure 7. Remaining Walls of a Stone House
I am pleasing myself by fulfilling my own visual interests in my work. I have a goal of some level of mastery.
The audience is a byproduct, and the secondary usages by others helps justify my investments.
A Second Account for More Directly Usable Pieces
In reviewing the desirable tags on the Pixabay platform, I realized that I could create various symbols and shapes from Adobe Photoshop...and other works from Adobe Illustrator and Microsoft Visio. I could overlay shapes on the alcohol ink paintings I'd made during the second year of the pandemic (sunk costs already). These could look a little original but also pedestrian simultaneously. And they would be practically usable. I understood that I could also use various geometric shapes to create "prims" (primitives) that could be used in different circumstances. And I could add just the right bit of peculiar to charm. I could make these in a de-personalized way in order to make open-source images that others could use.
So, I started a second account to share symbols and light animations, so I could use my main account for the self-indulgent "common art" sorts of visuals. This other account is called @WaveGenerics. This second account will be used to try to acquire downloads (and provide a service simultaneously). [The "My media" page shows which visuals have been downloaded by count, and the "Statistics" page captures some summary counts over time that offer proxy measures of performance for the account.]
The account is https://pixabay.com/users/wavegenerics-29440244/.
These will be for the works that might be useful to a public even if these are not personally aesthetically dazzling. The strategy is to offer works that are "isolates" that are decontextualized. Optimally, the contents would have an alpha channel background, so users may place the visuals on their own contexts and designed backgrounds.
The trick seems to be to think of the "use cases" that various people around the world may have and then to meet those needs. One data-supported guess for the initial popularity of the account is that one visual (an icon representing sound) seems likely related to informal podcasting. [Indeed, this second account already racked up four notable or featured works on Days 1 and 2 when the first few objects were published. This latter account also has equaled the downloads I got after 5+ weeks on the other account. And a week in, it has racked up more than 420+ downloads from 5 images placed (and 2 videos of animations). But those who have downloaded the resources don't tend to message or like or any of those things (which is totally fine by me). This latter account is more about technical execution for practical ends, and the other is more about "passion" and fun.] Featured works are more findable and therefore open to discovery and download and upvotes. They may perhaps float up to the main landing Pixabay page. Other works may only be seen by visitors who visit one's main landing page (profile page). At least at the main landing page, people can acquire more of a sense of cumulative sensibility of the person. The strategy on the main landing page should be visual breadth and depth, a variety of methodologies, and visual pop or sparkle. In general, one can acquire a sense of a person's particular singular vision...or a general sense of lifestyle. It is rare for a wide diversity of visual types, though. [A recent conference I attended featured a speaker who emphasized the importance of carving out a niche for his freelance photography work. I worry about artist boredom with too much specialization, too much depth over breadth.]
This page also shows the person's absolute numerical ranking, perhaps as an incentive to post more and to be more competitive. The rankings are updated often, so numbers can change based on the sharing of popular visuals. The more featured works one has, the more opportunities to reach a wider audience. After this account received some featuring of various works, by several months in, the author had entered a dry spell with both accounts...and images being accepted but not featured. I was essentially filling out the profile pages (and not offering anything featured) for both accounts only. The "honeymoon period" was over. I realized that I could curate the contents, delete unpopular images, and manage my impression, but I would rather just offer what I have and have a lower status, a lower popularity for my respective handles. In every case, pretty much, we can choose whether we want to engage the social popularity game on social media or play a different game.
If drawing or illustration are performances, and they are of an asynchronous sort, I am hoping that the two sets of works are judged a little differently...the first for original voice and aesthetics, and the second for usability (and adoptability). I hope that the learning I get from both work channels inform the other. A recent lesson involved creating 3d works and then going to the wireframe for a different look, which can be exploited in fresh ways.
There are plans to offer some works with simple lightweight animation built in, such as animated gifs. Then I found out that only videos are uploadable, and these have to be at least 5 seconds long...and at least 1920 x 1080. I had to dump out my animations from Adobe Animate into Adobe After Effects to resize (File - Scripts - Scale Composition) after I lengthened the animations time-wise...and they uploaded fine. We'll see if these pass muster. [The first animation was accepted as a featured work. As for the second one, I removed it and have reworked it and re-uploaded it. The first time around, I resized it in Adobe Animate, which shifted the stage and ruined the layout. Work-wise, it is a positive to be choosy. Had I been smarter the first time, I would not have uploaded the poorer version.] These animations feature in a second account.
Figure 8. WaveGenerics as the Second Account on Pixabay
What I will be careful about is to not to invest time either for audience feedback or for fulfilling others' needs for visuals. After all, the sunk costs and the risks are almost all mine. Even with crediting, the credits would go to the handle, not to my name per se. There are ways to set up monetization, but micropayments that I've seen are very micro. I am not sure what the average payments may be on this particular platform. I have in mind doing this for a year and then moving on. My takeaways have to be about learning (in all ways)...and moving on once I have decent mastery.
Also, as to online socializing, that has never been that important to me. Some of those who are following my other account are those without their own artworks, and I wonder if these are artificial agent accounts or those set up to troll or socialize negatively.]
And one small quibble. My use of Firefox seems to snag with Pixabay...with cross-site scripting warnings being triggered and uploads of visuals and animation videos being denied now and again, for no apparent reason. After several run-ins, I ended up having to go to Google Chrome to get one final object uploaded for the week. I definitely do not want any information compromised in any cybersecurity hack, but these warnings are a real hurdle sometimes.
Two months and a week into the second account, WaveGenerics, Pixabay suddenly enabled not the 7 visuals per week...but an initial 6 and then suddenly 23 additional images (and then 1 more later). This was a surprise, and I was caught up short about what to share in the week...so as not to lose the opportunity. I went ahead and swiped some visuals that I had planned for the other account...and got the load set up. While all (I think) were accepted, only a few were featured. I realized then that I am a terrible guesser about what will be featured, what passes for usable novelty. What I think of as charming is perhaps not. I speculated once that forgoing color might be an advantage when two works (one b/w, one grayscale) got featured consecutively; I thought perhaps that there may be fewer b/w and grayscale works than color ones. I also do not know who the selectors are and how their decisions get made. It is clearly not a factor of invested effort per se but something about the final result. I also realized how much a human-designed socio-technical online system can motivate human behaviors. Later, I realized that perhaps the new available spots could be from declinations of some of the visuals that open up spots. Regardless, more slots opened up, and probably I had some declinations that resulted in some additional spots.
Between the two accounts, WaveGenerics has taken off, and Sjjalinn has been much less discovered. If nothing else, there is something to be said about first finding an audience by offering works usable to others and then going more towards self-indulgence.
In looking at both collections, I realize that I have particular recurring motifs. I am apparently inspired by nature, and I am drawn to round visuals. I like very different looks-and-feels. I like the bright colors of alcohol inks. I have a lot of skills I need to work on (and that's okay). I also realize that the works that I like are those full of joie de vivre and insights.
What's "IT" about This?
Sometimes, in the afternoon, as a way to relax, I'll capture some digital images and play around with various digital image editing tools. This afternoon, I went into Processing (a "software sketchbook"), and I created some works. I used some of the visuals and put them through a process for a very new look, which pleased me. So the IT part is about how to get to a new destination...with either (1) an original seeding visual or unusual or (2) different processing of scans / digital images or (3) both a unique starting image and unique processing. I know that there is a lot that is not attempted or exploited yet (by me, anyway), and I am determined to try quite a few more approaches. There is a lot to be said for the mundane practice of dipping into the work every day or every other day...just to offer some time for serendipity and experimentation and chance effects. There is such pleasure in having a folder of visual odds and ends that have potential, like scraps of material. Part of the joy is the integration of this ritual into a busy life, a slowdown, if you will.
And besides increased facility, what have I learned? I have learned that what may be glamorous and attractive to the naked eye may not translate to an effective photograph, with proper composition and proper lighting. What may be head-turning in the real may not be communicated in a digital visual in some cases. I am learning that what is seen as original by others may not be what I might have picked. I am learning that having fun is pretty important, ceteris paribus.
Conclusion
It is hard to cross the “free barrier,” to offer one’s works for free in a time of high inflation, rising costs across the board, and high demands in the workplace for productivity (and standing in for labor gaps). It is hard to trust others who use one's works in various contexts (and I have seen a few of the works through a reverse image search)...and to edit at will. And yet, others extend that favor to me by sharing their works for free on Pixabay and other platforms. I am appreciative.
Volunteering to contribute is not sustainable forever, even as one may find justifications and satisfactions along the way. Still, as an instructional designer, I build contents for the handoffs...so letting go of something created is not hard for me. I have already sunk (invested) the costs...and I want the works to have additional life beyond my "study." In the long term and long-long term, all creativity flows to benefit the public, whether it is protected under intellectual property law or patenting or embargoing. All in one direction. By freeing my artsy stuff, I am speeding that time...and extending hopefully the potential usage of each. After all, these are non-rivalrous digital goods that can be used again and again, into perpetuity, assuming that the platform is available, that its search tools function, and that there is interest anywhere this platform is accessible. It is unclear what the various use cases may be in a big world.
By contrast, in a commercial context, the commissioning of a work would not be low-cost. But in this latter context, one may have to create a particular work to specifications instead of having the full freedom of expression using the various materials. Self-expression is a costly privilege, in many cases.
Meanwhile, ticktock. The paints are drying. The papers are turning yellow and brown and curling. I just spent part of a morning rehydrating alcohol ink pens with rubbing alcohol (even as these dilute some of the pigments). I notice the last-updated dates on digital files. I check in, and it's been a month or six months.
Instructional design work does not necessarily offer all the opportunities for creativity and challenges that would enable healthy professional development. Having a side project that is self-entertaining goes a long way to motivating the enhancement of skills. Having a side project makes the more common work more engaging. That said, the proposition offered by Pixabay, for me, is only likely going to be good for a time. And learning to draw and illustrate in digital space may take a many-years long apprenticeship before starting to form up effectively.
The platform has pop-up windows asking for donations for hosting one's free work, which ruins the user experience further. The value proposition is perhaps even lesser than first impressions might suggest.
References
“Pixabay.” (2022, July 20). Wikipedia. Retrieved Aug. 9, 2022, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixabay.
About the Author
Shalin Hai-Jew works as an instructional designer at Kansas State University. Her email is shalin@ksu.edu.
| Previous page on path | Cover, page 11 of 22 | Next page on path |
Discussion of "Using Pixabay to advance self-motivated learning in common art creation (analog and digital)"
Add your voice to this discussion.
Checking your signed in status ...