Let me start off by saying I don't like theories. Theory of relativity, not a fan. But in all serious, this theory of animation article was sort of interesting, but I felt that when it comes to speaking about something, I'd rather see a person's practiced work instead of their critique of other's. This article spoke heavily on Disney and their cel animation and I couldn't help but feel like the author was somehow "drawing" the conclusion that mass made cel animation lacks art. That experimental animation with its planned non-continuitity is in someway better. I had particular qualms with the section that said it is so much easier to create life-like characters in animation than colors and rhythms. To recreate the nuance of a human character is a very hard task, I think this writer completely ignores the complexity of Disney's cel animation. Rhythms and shapes have no life. In my opinion, they are much easier to draw. Therefore, this article completely critiques cel animation and has a strong bias. I can't explain just how much I disliked this pretentious article.
But at the same time, it had some interesting notes about music. And I do believe that experimental animation has its own place along side the visual representation to music. Imagine what MTV music videos would be like!
I am a fan of cel animation, and with digital technologies, the nuances are becoming even better. Animation can be taken seriously. If the author wants us to believe that cel animation isn't art because it recreates life and instead should represent what we don't normally see, I disagree, but that's just me.
No comments:
Post a Comment