I think you missed my point. Let's say for the sake of argument that HP48 art is more restrictive than C64 art. Why weren't the C64 artists using HP48 calculators instead? And why aren't we looking at HP48 art in awe, instead of this C64 "non-art"?
Let’s take pixel art on console gaming as an example. In the early days, games used pixel graphics due to technical constraints. Artists were limited in what they could achieve and had to get creative within the limitations to push the software and hardware to its limits in pursuit of a specific vision. Everyone had the same set of restrictions but thanks to creative technical decisions some rose above as exceptional.
There is a particular kind of enjoyment in creating a lot with very little. If your digital art can be hundreds of GBs in size, your 3D rendition of the Sistine Chapel will be judged by its faithfulness; but if you’re only allowed a handful of KBs and everyone believes any kind of 3D graphics are impossible at that size, your dinky little rotating cube becomes an impressive technological feat. Context matters. A tractor pulling a plane is not impressive; a man pulling a plane is. Most people could do the former but not the latter.
Furthermore, not all limitations are equally interesting. Nostalgia and popularity also play a role. Today, pixel graphics are an aesthetic choice. Developers and artist can go beyond what was possible when they were a necessity and create something entirely new. Yet some still derive enjoyment and pride from following the limitations of yore to the letter: there are games created in the 2000s which work on the NES.
