Bringing to life

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 animated.

Comments

  1. I see (and share) your confusion about the definition of animation bleeding out into other genres of film. But I think that since we learned that animation is the umbrella term for all film, we could definitely say that everything IS animation. On the other hand, since animation is normally used to specifically name the type of animation we're studying in class, maybe we can assume that for it to be animation, there has to be some type of meddling on the part of the artist, whether that's designing the figures for the computer animation, moving the clay figures between frames for stop motion, speeding up or slowing down the frames, or drawing the next frame by hand. Any form of film that brings something to life while meddling with the frames of the film would, under that definition, be animation.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Bratz: Rock Angelz is the movie I didn't know I needed

Does Animation Have to Make You Laugh?

She-ra is my new favorite gay icon