Week..6? Representation and Digital Animation

I never had a real concern with how animation was represented because I can see it isn't real. However, there are things that bothered me in older cartoons like female characters only giving off that 'sex' connotation. Like Pepe Le Pew always chasing after the black cat, or damsels in distress kind of cartoons (betty Boop). The presentation of man supposed to be body builder types does have a impact as over the top but I don't believe people were bothered by it. That representation of man dates back in the ancient greek/ rome period when all the statues were of build figures.

Cross-Dressing and the Like.

Haha. Yea I never understood that as well. But thinking about the theater, cross dressing was needed for female figures. I guess thinking about it too much might draw nothing. I grew up watching cartoon crossdressing and even Monty Python, it's just taboo that few people can act through, let alone is drawn about.

Digital Animation.

I've had a cold shoulder to the digital animation when I was younger. I think it was because it was too easy? I'm actually not sure. Thinking about my grudge now makes it seem foolish. But I watch older movies with puppet effects and backdrops that it does feel like it is too easy. People would spend probably days to make this elaborate sets and now it's all computer made. Yes it looks real but from what the readings say, some things just became more expensive and unnecessary. With the technology now, things look real. Like the 80s when all the computer effects were extremely pixelated. I still liked the puppets though especially in Jurassic Park (90s).

I have seen the Tin Toy short by Pixar as well as their other early stories. The baby is a very scary looking design but I was impressed by how good it looked then in the 90s. The other early shorts they had previous also looked top notch and their first one was in the 80s.

Abstract, wk. 5

I enjoyed the readings for their psychological drill about abstract animation. Although I'm more drawn to narratives, the points that they make strikes as a truth. Abstraction is much more of a deeper meaning, or maybe not necessarily a different meaning, but you have to watch it a different way. Kandinsky seems to sum it up perfectly, "There are no characters with which to identify,...no diegesis... and when the animation is over, the viewer does not have a complete 'understanding' of its meaning as he or she would with narrative structure." Any kind of artwork could also follow this description. Abstraction is made up of no real direction (although that could be questioned) but I think it's more of something to have the viewer make up for themselves.

I've seen a couple of Norman McClaren's films and I felt like I was being hypnotized almost. The series is called Animated Motion (1-5). I watched two of them. The animation was interesting, fast and moved with the music. I expect Cannon to be as such, a rythmic abstraction to make the mind wander and explore. I've always like how music and animation went with each other. It's like that experience that some people have when they listen to music, they see color. I've yet to experience it, but it's an interesting brain stimulation.

Narrative wk. 4

So far we haven't gotten to any fully narrative animation, besides the cut out last week. Narrative has always been the basic teachings of anyone who is going to be a storyteller. I guess the animations we did see did have a story, but not of their own. Many were real and then the creator would then do the drawings. Then again, sound didn't enter the age of creation for the animations to gain their full freedom. With animation that freedom can be easily achieved and the characters can do anything that creator wants them to do. The chapter talks about the diegetic world, and really it's open for all possibilities.

I wonder if narration is a must for everyone to appreciate this type of art. Looking back at all the things we've watched and then thinking about the abstract animators like Norman McLaren. I think his stuff is interesting but some of his other things throw me out of the loop. I think it's like watching a fast slide show without any real start, middle, end. It's interesting, yet I need something for my mind to grasp.

At least I now have an answer for comics...

So I guess comics were the first forms of storyboarding in a sort of sad way. I think there was a time when I questioned about the use of comics being visually the storyteller to the film now. I wondered how long comics were in existence. I know that ever since printing, there were ads or comical pictures used to display current events. I guess I never knew how much comics and film balanced each other? if that's the correct word.

The Before Mickey article (I don't see an option for underline) goes into details about lightning sketches. I think we've seen some of these types of drawings before, if not it was present in the article about McCay and his work with Nemo and Slumberland. McCay's animation was set up first as bet on whether he could make his characters move and you do see him draw them. It's a strange way thing to call these lightning drawings animations. I don't see them as a type of animation but more of a layering process. Perhaps I don't understand fully how it would be considered animation if the canvas is blank to color.

Lotte Reiniger, the first cutout animator. It was interesting to read about her imaginative ideas and concerns about the 'modern' world then. She loved the ideas of fairytales just as much as I do. Her placement of homosexually and views were quite simple matter of fact in her description and she was very open. It kind of makes me sad that she didn't get more publicity, at least in America. The movie sounds brilliant, like many of the first animations do.