Animation Aesthetics F18

Last Tuesday, we were watching some foreign animation that made me strongly remember a cartoon that my family used to watch when I was young. Growing up, my mom was with a man from Hungary so I would experience a lot of the culture of Hungary. One of the things that he introduced to me was a cartoon from Hungary called "The Little Fox". It was about an orphaned fox that was raised by it's uncle and I can't really remember much, but it was very sweet and wholesome. I remember we would watch it in Hungarian, but I'm pretty sure an English version has come out since. The amount of nostalgia I got from watching some short European animation in class made me call my mom and have a long conversation about some random Hungarian cartoon that we used to watch. All I'm saying is that animation is a really cool art form that can make you feel in a lot of different ways!

I have been waiting for this for almost a year. The new season of Bojack Horseman!! This is one of the first (if not the first) animated Netflix original series. It takes a while to develop depth, but towards the second or third season Bojack Horseman really grabs the bull by the horns and begins playing not only with more sincere philosophical concepts but also with different styles of animation. In our readings William Kentridge reflects how the act of repeating and drawing the same image over and over again can contribute to the creation of the film itself. Discovering new elements and ideas as you create. It got me thinking about something I have always wondered. How do artists in collaborative settings undergo this same process? Specifically I'm thinking of montages, flashbacks, and drug-trip sequences where one image can morph into another or when the show adopts a totally new animation style to represent the inner thoughts or memories of a character. In Season 4 the show e

If you know me, then you know I am a huge Disney freak. Yes, I am one of those people. I have seen the classic Steamboat Willie before the screening in animation and I have always admired it. Disney even uses it as part of their production logo for some of their films. Whenever I see this short I always think that the animation style is so interesting. I love how seeing how much Mickey Mouse's look has changed between then versus Mickey Mouse now. The animation style is different but I notice that the character still feels the same. After thinking to myself why this is, I came up with the solution that even though he looks different and the animation style is different (2D to 3D), the movement of animation is still the same in my eyes. He still moves the same and has the same personality, which is why we all get the same feeling when seeing Mickey on screen. I just think it's incredible to think about how different something is but because of the movement between two images

After watching the film Flux,  my life was changed. It was easily the best short film I have ever seen and I am a much happier person having seen it.  From the start, the style of the animation was so crude, yet so beautiful. It reminded me of how I doodle in my notebook during class, not Animation Aesthetics, of course.  Mouths larger than their heads, unrealistic yet simplistic setting and details. I was engaged from the start because of the style, but the story is what really got me going. Life. It's just a simple film about life. Yes, it is very exaggerated but overall it is simply life. The child gets hurt, and the parents care for them while the sky's utters poor down on them ever once in a while. We've all seen it, no need going through the story, but the bookend of a child swinging and getting hurt makes the story really work well. After going back and looking at the film again, the manipulation of space is ridiculous. The characters just grab the house t

I think that Animation is such a unique and interesting medium because of how creativity can be expressed through it.  When a director on a (live-action) film set has a creative idea, they have to use the limitations around them to try to make it into a reality.  Animators, however, when they have a vision can actually just draw it out exactly as it is in their brain.  I think this is such a powerful tool because of this and allows for so much more stylistic and creative choices to be made.  This can also be a double-edged sword, however, as with this limitless creative potential it can take much more time to create something, and can be difficult in choosing what to make.

My first impression of Flux was confusion and difficulty trying to grasp what I was seeing. The transitions between scenes were unlike anything I'd ever seen, and it was confusing at first to figure out the space that a scene was taking place in. The total rejection of having a frame and relying on movement to transition between beats was really cool to see and added to the humor of the film. I really enjoyed how Hinton depicts his characters as having almost a throbbing motion even when they're standing still, as it adds to the crazy energy of the animation. I also thought sound played a key role in this film, adding to its comedy but also grounding it in reality. The characters spoke complete gibberish which added to their outlandishness and hilarity. Certain realistic sounds however such as the crashing of the tea pot on the floor helped create a sense of familiarity in an otherwise fantastical film.

The way that each person views animation is extremely different. When thinking specifically about our most recent screening from last Tuesday, each animation was so unique in its own form. I personally enjoy a more strange and mutated form of animation, rather than one that is more lifelike. For example, the film Flux  by Chris Hinton was by far my favorite film from the screening. The way that he utilized space and the complete mutation of reality was not only mesmerizing, but also hilarious. However, once we get to a form of abstraction that is as minimal as Oskar Fischinger's  Studie Nr. 7 , I find myself lost and uninterested. Of course, this is only my personal view of this. Going back to my first sentence, each person views animation in a different way. For some of the people in the class,  Studie Nr. 7  may of been their favorite film from the screening. This fact makes us appreciate animation even more. The diversity that comes with animation is never ending.

Seeing the artists footprints makes draw animation a humanizing experience. Not only do we see the process to which the creator went on in order to produce what we see, but it makes us see how everything is made by a human. CGI animated movies like "Up" or "Toy Story", don't have a grounded feeling. Though, the movies I just mentioned produce extraordinary ranges of human emotion, they do not, in my opinion, produce a real connection. This is because of the lack of human footprints on the work. When we watched "Flux", I could see the pencil marks from the artist and I felt the texture of the work. I knew that a real person had touched what I was viewing, and because of this, it became more personal.

I wanted to look a little bit at one of my favorite animators Gerald Scarfe. Scarfe was responsible for the animation in Pink Floyd’s  The Wall  film. He also designed some of the bands artwork and album covers. What I like about Scarfe is his ability to create visceral and compelling images seemingly in every frame. From walking hammers to grotesque screaming faces, his artwork is eye-catching and often stays with you for a long time after viewing. He also has great skill in morphing his subjects into other things with fluid motion. Overall, I just think Scarfe is a terrific animator and was hugely responsible for the lasting image of Pink Floyd. If you haven’t seen  The Wall  you should check it out.

Can most people bear to watch a full, feature-length, 2-D line drawing animated feature?  As Disney animation continues to rule the box office, as well as the standard for this "Hollywood animation", I always wonder, why this style, with this simple meaning, and it's realistic look? Last week, I posted a blog posing the question of whether moviegoers wanted anything more in terms of meaning, now I am asking whether or not they want something different in terms of style. I ended last weeks post deciding that most people do not want a deeper meaning. People are always assuming animation is an art form for children. However, these same people probably watch nothing more than Disney and Pixar features, which are known for their simple message. But now I wonder why they watch it as well if it's for children. Why do we not have R rated animated features in theaters? That's the way it is with live-action film. I believe this is because most people don't want to wa

I commented on another post just a few minutes ago about how I don’t think the Apollonian and Dionysian should be kept separate when it comes to certain films, and how it seems to be more of a matter of perspective as to whether a film falls into one or the other exclusively. A film could be called Apollonian from an audience perspective, by someone who found themselves more actively thinking over the film during viewing, and felt separated from the experience enough for it to provoke thought about specific elements of what was being shown. On the other hand, that same film could have been a pure expression of it’s animator, not necessarily designed to provoke that kind of thought on the part of the audience, and more taking it’s intellectual reception as a latent effect. That being said, I could see a film like Triangles being Dionysian from both perspectives, audience and creator. It’s not to say a film should or can’t be a mix of the two or one or the other. I just think it makes m

Teusday's screening was probably my favorite one so far. Triangles   and The Though of You  were definitely my favorite animations that we've seen. The animation is so fluid, and even though the models weren't very detailed, their movements and actions made them so expressive. Because of this, i've been wondering if animation is the perfect  medium for filming dance. Of course, watching dancers perform live is impressive, because dancing is an incredibly taxing effort, but  I believe it's doubly impressive to see the fluidity and passion of dance translated through drawings. On top of this, animation is able to add effects (like the subtle electricity in The Thought of You ) to heighten the experience. Dancing, I believe, is the perfect subject for animation too, as it allows animators to really flex their technical muscles and show fluidity and grace through their drawings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7LY2z-V3qQ I am a big fan of YouTube channels Like Looper, that tell you behind the scene fact about different films. The one that I chose to share today talks about one of my favorite films,  Coco .  I find it interesting to know all the complications that the production ran into and how they solved them to put out such a great film.  I particularly find really fascinating how Pixar had to update their software to give the skeleton’s the look they wanted. Funny to think that such a successful studio like Pixar had to go back and redesign part of the software to create a new film.  One thing that did bother me that was touched in the video was how Disney tried to trade mark a Mexican holiday. It feels unnecessary but either way and a little greedy but either way, its really satisfying to see all of the research that went into making this movie in order to feel completely authentic. Watching the movie, characters literally look similar to some o

A few classes ago we talked about animated films in terms of the Dionysian vs the Apollonian. I didn't get the chance to share this in class, but I think any type of film is really both of them. Different people find different things enjoyable, especially when it comes to film. I think in terms of animation and live action, the person creating the content gains pleasure from making what they want to make and I also think that depending on the person viewing, they may find enjoyment in it or not. Thus it's too complicated to say it's strictly Dionysian or not. Animators each have their own process for their art and in that sense, the technical one, I believe that makes them Apollonian as well. There is an intellectual aspect in creating these stories. However, the actual stories themselves and the opinions of those viewing the final product can be Dionysian. I don't think any film is one way or the other.

As I was sitting in my room, I was thinking, where/how did animation begin? So, I did my research and turns out animation has been around longer than people actually realize. By definition, animation is simply just the act of creating the illusion of movement through still images. Depending on what you consider animation, it can date back all the way to the Paleolithic period. Many people are familiar with the stereotypical cave paintings, which usually was hunting depicted in motion. There was also shadow play, an ancient form of storytelling, that could date back to the 1st millennium BCE, which used flat articulated cut-out figures. There was also the magic lantern invented in the 1650s, which   employed pictures that were painted, printed or produced photographically and   projected images on a screen that was moving. Then, major studios, who were not so major at the time, helped to push this new type of art form underway. It's just kind of crazy to think a

Recent Hollywood Animation has adopted a sort of singular look in this day and age hasn't it? The majority of big budget animated films released in theaters nowadays seems to be primarily computer-generated. Why is this? If I had to guess, I'd say because it's more realistic. The characters and environments have more constant structures and shapes which creates a much more real looking world than most other forms of animation. However, part of what makes animation so unique is that everything that it creates is unique. The entire world and all the characters can all have the most attractive, ugly, or outrageous designs, if it is desired. So, what exactly is the point of animating something if you're just going to make it look as close to live action as possible? I feel like the fact that animation today is primarily three-dimensional is detracting from the creativity that animation is supposed to inspire. For example, look at modern Disney designs in their computer

Almost all of the films we watched on Tuesday were just simple line animation, but every artist did something different with it. We discussed the malleability of the medium, which is exactly what the artists explored. Line animation isn't restricted to staying in the lines, as we saw in Chris Hinton's Flux, which was constantly being molded and shifted. Bill Plympton also explores the malleability of animation in Your Face. We have such a specific image in our minds when we think animation, but in reality it can really be whatever the artist wants to make of it.

One of my favorite films of all time is Robocop and I've been dying to talk about it. The explosions, the gore, witty one liners, and humanist narrative taking place in dystopian society full of hilarious satire and commentary. The way this film manages to balance all of these tones effectively is another conversation in itself, in many ways Robocop is a perfect script. All this aside what I wanted to get into was the stop-motion used in this film by animator Phil Tippett. Tippett’s work at one point had a place in blockbuster movies, most notably his work in Star Wars. In the original film he created the chess game on the Millennium Falcon and his work is even more utilized in Empire with AT-ATs, and Tauntauns. But for some reason his work in Robocop always stood out to me more, in Star Wars the cut between miniature and life size live action sets is a lot more seamless and even though the stop motion in Robocop might seem more hokey because of this it alway

In our most recent reading, it explained that artists can get new ideas while in the creative process. It makes me wonder what ideas were added later on in famous animated pieces, and how big of a difference it would be had they not chosen to add it. I know that many, if not all, films (any kind, not just animated), had numerous amounts of first drafts that have been altered over time as the artist(s) brainstormed and started to develop them. If artists were forced to make the first draft into a finished piece without any alterations, I predict the film world would be very different, and maybe not as exciting.

I thought what tied many of the fine art screenings together was the visibility of each author's distinct style as well as the medium they chose. In the Owl Who Married the Goose, The Documentary on Norstein, and Scrounge in particular drew my attention to their mediums. For example, with The Owl Who Married the Goose, the use of sand drew attention to itself and cause me to ask "Why use sand? how does it add to the narrative? what does it say about the artist that they chose this material?" I thought that it spoke to the animator's artistic abilities and their skill of using positive and negative space. The fact that her animation couldn't be put down on paper and saved but instead could so be easily erased was an interesting concept, and added a layer to the folktale.

in the world of abstraction we're constantly critiquing the world around us and trying to interpret/many meaning out of different symbols (ex. the line to square to house). Watching Oskar Fischinger's "Studio Nr. 7" showed how lines and shapes can evoke human emotions, the shapes somehow strengthens the emotions within the music score and provide a visual representation to the song. Eric Russell's "Triangle" is incredible in how it captures the sense and emotional of realism with minimal lines and sketches. Only the very basic needed to allow the audience to understand what is on screen is drawn, allowing us to draw connections on our own.

We had a conversation last class, and these are my thoughts on it: The films in the most recent screening simply can not be grouped into one category. However, I believe that they all have multiple aspects of each "group". For example, the film "Death and the Mother" was very visual, yet could be considered visually simple. It showed aspects of fine art through the story and drawings, yet it was also an experience that shocked the audience. It also felt "unusual". I believe that there are films where, on the surface, may seem like they fit into one group perfectly. You need to dig deeper, and only then will you find how the fit into other categories.

All of the films we watched last week have some aspect of apollenian and dionysus to them. I keep coming back to "Death and The Mother", it is 100% a piece of art that could be stopped at any frame and thrown into a fine arts museum. But at the same time the lack of dialogue makes it an intellectual film that forces us to think about the relationship between a mother and her child and the lengths she would go to protect it. The artist left her imprint on the film by the style that she did it in. The edgy and sharp black and white film projects her thoughts of death and motherhood onto the film. I do believe it is also a film that can be consumed for pleasure but maybe not the same pleasure you would get from watching "The Incredibles" or "Toy Story." It fulfills a pleasure of something aesthetically pleasing. It is a perfect synthesis of pleasure, fine art, and intellect.

https://www.cartoonbrew.com/events/2018-ottawa-international-animation-festival-preview-164466.html I just read this article about the 2018 Ottawa International Film Festival. They screen a wide range of films and have the second largest attendance of any international animation film festival. They have a short film competition that is curated and designed to be seen as a whole. Their main programming event this year is called “Collideoscope” which is a series on collage animation. The series is followed by contemporary artists giving workshops about their craft. The rest of the dates are comprised of more screenings, lectures, and workshops. I feel it is important to attend a festival like this to see new and unique styles of animation. Mainstream media can be very monogamous in aesthetics and story telling modes, and artist driven events like this shine a spotlight on smaller storytellers.  What are your thoughts on their slate of programming? And do you wish more a

Showing tonight and tomorrow at Cornell Cinema! https://cinema.cornell.edu/Fall2018/have_a_nice_day.html and https://cinema.cornell.edu/Fall2018/road_called_life.html Showing this week: https://cinema.cornell.edu/Fall2018/night_is_short_walk_on_girl.html

My favorite animations that we watched this past viewing session were 78 Tours and L'home sans ombre. I've never seen this kind of style of animation before. I loved how dizzying the images were and how it was constantly changing where you thought you were and what you thought was happening. I thought it was so cool how these animations would go forward and backward in time and repeat scenes. I really appreciated all the work behind each of the pictures in it and how detailed the art was. This also relates to how important sound is in animations because since so many of these images were still, the sound design helped create the illusion of movement and action happening.

         I have been sick in bed for the past week, so I have had a lot of time to watch television, and I found myself watching Spider-Man (2002). This is honestly a pretty incredible movie when it comes to the story, most of the acting, and the visual effects. There's just one scene that caught me off guard because of how bad the visual effects are. It's the scene where Peter Parker is figuring out his powers on the roof top in the city and he starts to jump from rooftop to rooftop and the camera goes to a birds eye view and it looks all elongated and weird. I assume this is because Sami Rami got lazy and didn't want to spend the time or money on good effects but regardless, it made me cherish new age CGI. P.S. there is something nostalgic about the bad effects though..

I'm very interested with the use of sound in "78 Tours". I'm specifically interested in commenting on the difference between the use of music during the scenes which were zooming and spinning almost out of control, and the scenes which had music as a background noise alongside the normal ambient sounds in the man's apartment. I found it really fascinating that although the realistic nature of the animation itself hadn't changed at all, there was a sharp jolt from what felt like "animation" in the more abstract sense, and the realness of that apartment. The music played loudly and then, when we first see the apartment, it pitters off and becomes a song on the radio, and then when we transition away from that scene, everything once again has the loud, immersive soundtrack, and feels hectic and rushed again. The simple change in sound from soundtrack to ambiance made the switch drastically more significant that it would have been had the music just ke

I think Stop Motion is incredibly interesting. It's such a vast umbrella term actually with lots of branches of animation that could fall under animation. Stop Motion can also be anything from a short film about two cut out circles dancing around, to films like Kubo and the Two Strings and Fantastic Mr. Fox. Watching a behind the scenes video on Paranorman I learned a lot about how much work goes into each character and model. The one specific detail that always gets me is when they build a second joint into the foot that functions as the toe. Just this small attention to detail can make a walking model look so much more life like.

We discussed the idea of time lapse being a form of animation. We also learned about how animation can be considered a form of film making that allows for the director or editor to change the details in between each frame. With this idea in mind, I would say that time-lapse isn't a type of animation. Unfortunately, it isn't that simple. Animation carries a definition along with it that describes it as bringing life to something. Now how can I say that something ISN'T animation? With this definition, every type of filmmaking could be considered animation. Even a standard live action film shot at 24 frames per second. What I think needs to happen, is that in order to identify something as being or not being film, one must combine the two definitions I just brought up. If a film matches both bringing something to life and having an artist reaching into each frame, then it truly is animation. This definition eliminates the need for an argument about whether or not everything is

In class, on Thursday, we briefly talked about the differences between the films we view and Disney/Pixar films. In terms of style, there is a huge difference, but the difference I am more interested in is popularity. Why are Disney and Pixar so much bigger than these types of animation? Why aren’t families running to go see a hand-drawn film? Loving Vincent was a very interesting film and how it was made is incredible and very difficult; however, they still shot live action for scenes in the film. I believe it’s this “lifelike” quality that makes these so popular. For example, the water in Moana is very lifelike, possibly even sharper and clearer. Similarly, the faces in Loving Vincent are very crisp and defined. Unfortunately, these films don’t require the same depth of thought as the films we watched in class. Which makes me wonder, do we want to think? Or do we simply want to stare at a screen and watch another story with a straightforward message?

In regards to the last round of animations we viewed this past week (9/17-9/21) such as those of Hedgehog in the Fog by Yuri Norstein, Breathing In by Jason Harrington, Scott Free Logo by Gianluigi Toccafondo, Jeu by Georges Schwizgebel, and many others, I felt as though the thing that stuck out to me the most was the obscure animating methods. Going more in-depth, the visual structures of these pieces give the audience a sense that things are not exactly as we perceive them by manipulating crucial aspects of the world, like color , lighting , and dimensionality . I thoroughly enjoyed these methods because it assures us that, even as we animate things to give them life and realism, the world and what happens within it doesn't have to be realistic at all-- originality, that's what grasps us. Now, surely enough, each of these pieces means something to both the one(s) who created them and to the one(s) who watches them, such like myself, and if they're different outlooks,

Before starting this class, even though I knew that Disney’s version of animation was not the only type of animation, it was still what I immediately thought of when I heard the word. Unfortunately, I know that this is true for a lot of people. Although Disney’s form of animation is enjoyable to watch, it has become known to be for kids. Due to the fact that this has become the mainstream, animation has now become thought to be for kids only. Of course, we all know this at this point in our class. However, the discussions during class of all these different forms of animation has really made me think about what I personally enjoy about animation. Tim Burton and Henry Selick’s work has always been my favorite hands down. I think that their approach and style is absolutely stunning. Coraline (2009), The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993), and Corpse Bride (2005) are my favorite animated movies to date. It can easily be said that these three animated films have a “creepy” aspect to

Something that this class has started to make me think is, "why is the major audience of the US attracted to the "Hollywood" animation films, whereas there are tons and tons of lesser known animated films that might be just as good, if not better?" Obviously this all relates back to distribution of Hollywood animated films and that plays one of the biggest aspects, but my mind wonders back to what Jason said about stuff being "good but boring." I wonder what people would say if you were to ask the audience of mainstream animation viewers (pixar, dreamworks, etc) what they thought of the animated films that we watch in class. Would they think the film is "good but boring," or just not like the film. Or possibly could they even fall in love with the films and learn to appreciate them as they do with Hollywood animation. I love thinking about the relationship between what we watch in class versus what is more popular in Hollywood, and would love t

So I've been thinking: is the opposite of Professor Harrington's "good but boring" bad but entertaining? I'm thinking like really campy films that are terrible but that everyone still loves, or films that aren't considered of the highest artistic/thematic/narrative quality, but are still popular (so I guess we could put modern blockbusters in that category). I guess this would be the full dionysian route if we're talking Nietzsche. In terms of animation specifically, I'm thinking maybe something like old newgrounds videos or asdfmovies (not to say that they're bad, but they're not on the same technical/skill level as a pixar film or one of the fine art films we've seen in class) and are made just for entertainment purposes. I also feel like this whole needs-to-be-entertaining thing might also be linked to the fact that animation is considered children's media, and as kids, I think we probably all liked things because they entertained us

Many of the shorts film we watched are created with a traditional medium of fine art, painting, drawings, or layering.  The ideas associated with such mediums is that of slow creation and stillness, two characteristics that don't lend themselves to movement. Despite these preconceived notions about such mediums, many of the films are able to capture a fluidity of movement that rivals live action. Other films that utilize sand displacement and drawings are able to capture and create a sense of space and movement in their worlds.  Fugu , for example manages to have it's central characters move about in the space to create really energetic movements while the films of Georges Schwizgebel are animated to move around a character or object to create a greater sense of space within the films.

Something that I have taken note of lately is how you barely ever find any mainstream animation that doesn't have some semblance of comedy integrated into it. For example, when was the last time you saw a Disney movie that didn't make you laugh (or at least try to)? And when was the last time you saw an adult cartoon that wasn't making a joke every 10 seconds. My point is, mainstream animation has seemed to simplify itself into a single tone: Comedic. Even in the films that are primarily covering serious topics there is typically a comic relief character to add some lighthearted fun to the film. But do all films need this? Is it necessary for all animation to try and entertain us in the exact same way? My answer is no and I wish that more animation studios and their production companies would realize this. One thing I don't think many people realize is that animation can be lighthearted without being funny. When I say you don't have to be funny all the time, that

By definition the auteur theory is being able to distinguish personality of a director and an auteur is someone who has a recurrent characteristic of style that reflect their worldview. As Harrington said in class, if he played a few clips by Wes Anderson everyone would know it was Wes Anderson because he has a quirky kind of style, his own style. I would say that all of the films we watched in class fit into the auteur category. The reason I say this is because you could tell in majority of the work that whoever the creator was they had their own distinct style and that they loved creating this work for people. This is very clear in Loving Vincent  and even the Documentary on Norstein . In both of these films these people put their heart and souls into their projects, even if it meant it would take awhile. I was amazed by Loving Vincent , I truly didn't realize how long of a process it took them to complete. It was interesting to see how these creators really did love Vincent van