Read on Twitter
Animation history narratives are interesting and also irksome in terms of how generalizations form.
Examples of what I mean:
-Western animation is focused on character animation and "better at it" while Japanese animation is layout and story-focused, and their character animation is "lacking".
-Western animation is focused on character animation and "better at it" while Japanese animation is layout and story-focused, and their character animation is "lacking".
-Animation was going in such-and-such direction until Disney either revolutionized or ruined everything. Either animation was crude and primitive before Disney, or animation was thriving and creative before Disney ruined things.
-Disney was realistic and sentimental while Warner Bros and Tex Avery were cartoony and anarchic. Fleischer was surreal and trippy. UPA was focused on graphic design and stylized animation over the naturalism of previous studios especially Disney.
-Animation after the 1940's went downhill.
-American animation went downhill after the 1940's while anime picked things up.
Overall, grand proclamations about the state of animation, criticizing current animators for their influences.
-American animation went downhill after the 1940's while anime picked things up.
Overall, grand proclamations about the state of animation, criticizing current animators for their influences.
Telling these kinds of narratives can be accessible but it also seems like broad narratives just get stacked on or replaced one after another instead of diving into nuances and spectrums (i.e. the tensions between caricature and realism, the cross pollination between studios).
Even within studios, there's internal diversity and thinking. The classic example for Warner Bros is the difference between Bob Clampett and Chuck Jones. For Disney animators, realistic human characters had to bounce off of broad cartoon characters.
But then when zooming out, broad generalizations take hold.
This isn't to say that nuance hasn't been acknowledged. But I would also sense a certain driving towards a favored conclusion and picking a side.
Tensions and expectations acknowledged at least. By Max Fleischer and Michael Barrier, though with a clear preference.
From Michael Barrier's "Hollywood Cartoons"
From Michael Barrier's "Hollywood Cartoons"
"During the span of years from 1914, I have made efforts to retain the 'cartoony" effect. That is, I did not welcome the trend of the industry to go "arty". It was, and still is, my opinion that a cartoon should represent, in simple form, the cartoonist's mental expression. 1/3
In other words the "animated oil painting" has taken the place of the flashiness and delightfulness of the simple cartoon. In my opinion, the industry must pull back. Pull away from the tendencies toward realism. It must stay in its own backyard of "The Cartoonist's Cartoon." 2/3
The cartoon must be a portrayal of the expression of the true cartoonist, in simple,unhampered cartoon style. The true cartoon is a great art in its own right. It does not need the assistance or support of "Artiness." In fact, it is actually hampered by it." -Max Fleischer 3/3
Also went back to this article. https://wavemotioncannon.com/2016/01/08/why-over-sixty-years-of-animation-history-still-remains-obscure/
Found it insightful on certain points: The way western animation fans, historians, and critics have this tradition that they know well and a language they draw on makes them confident to dismiss other styles without a full understanding or appreciation. And that's a shame.
I certainly agree that we shouldn't ignore animation traditions from different countries, especially when Japanese animation has been so influential over so many years.
But my nagging feeling is also “why compare like this?" Why have such value judgments that things were ruined or watered down? That might be true at certain points, but it also creates this dichotomy that there was a this creative vision and then needless interference.
No one has to like everything. But I think intent, context, and appreciation can still be important for better understanding. And of course, recognizing whether something is your taste.
Looking at these discussions between historians and critics, it leaves me wondering how there can truly be an appreciation for the medium when there's such strong preferences and expectations.
There are occasionally inconsistencies:
Sometimes valuing artistic intent, other times criticizing based on preferences.
Sometimes animation choices were done for cost saving measures, other times they were artistically deliberate.
Sometimes valuing artistic intent, other times criticizing based on preferences.
Sometimes animation choices were done for cost saving measures, other times they were artistically deliberate.
One comparison I noticed in the comments was being "stagey" vs "exaggerated" and "caricatured". For me, being stagey or using pantomime is using another form of exaggeration.
A real life human being perhaps wouldn't gesture to the same extent, but it helps enhance communication with a basis but not solely imitating reality.
Just like how cartooniness can exaggerate certain real life expressions to accentuate a point.
Just like how cartooniness can exaggerate certain real life expressions to accentuate a point.
The main issue is when a certain school of thought becomes overly prevalent or is seen as the ONLY viable way. There should be a way to distinguish between something being overly prevalent and disliked outright.
Even in regards to "you might as well do this in live action" type animation, my thought is, "why not do it in animation because you want to." Especially when there's certain touches you can add. https://twitter.com/Richmond_Lee/status/1345602468550348802?s=20
Other dichotomies:
Focusing on the individual drawings and poses vs focusing on the movement, more drawings vs less drawings, etc.
Focusing on the individual drawings and poses vs focusing on the movement, more drawings vs less drawings, etc.
It might sound weird to get caught up in how others talk about works. They're perfectly entitled to express themselves how they want.
At the same time, I hope that discussions can go beyond "this is good, this is bad" only differing by shifting criteria and preferences.
At the same time, I hope that discussions can go beyond "this is good, this is bad" only differing by shifting criteria and preferences.
I'm sure there's a mentality of "People are afraid to say something is bad. To criticize something." "What happens if we're unable to say something is good and bad?"
And to that, I say that it's worth finding new ways to articulate ourselves.
And to that, I say that it's worth finding new ways to articulate ourselves.
I'll be honest: How does one develop an appreciation of all animation when broad pessimistic narratives emerge?
