Animation as Poetry: embracing imperfection
I view art as the second language that all humans can read. Where words and spoken language represent the tangible and logical, art is the abstract and emotional. Both systems rely on a culturally constructed array of symbols and signs, when combined in different combination create new meanings. Academic writing strives to be as precise as possible, conveying the same meaning to each reader, while something like poetry breaks the convention of grammar and challenges the agreed upon meaning of words; poetry creates gaps that are filled with your personal experience. The imperfection leaves room for connection. In a broad sense, words are inherently imperfect: when you read "Tree", the sensations it conjures will always be different from any other reader or the author. I think of the old lonely birch tree in the Adirondacks, you I'm sure think differently.
Cinema is a language in itself, just with a more extensive vocabulary and different grammar. Image and sound replace words as signs, cuts/transitions replace punctuation. But sometimes it feels like modern cinema is too perfect. Cinema doesn't write "tree" and let your experiences fill in the gaps, it shows you a tree. Modern hollywood films feel like Academic writing, with an agreed upon grammar, wide shot, then shot/reverse shot, follow the formula with a different combination of the same handful of character, the soundtrack swells at the big moment and then they kiss and everything is wrapped up nicely. Realistic CGI has brought this perfection to a whole new level. I'd also like to make it clear this isn't a value judgement, hollywood films have a right to exist and I enjoy them; their entertainment value comes from how easy and accessible they are to watch, and their ability to manipulate our emotions is impressive. We can only be challenged a few times a week or else its just exhausted.
So where does traditional animation fit into all of this? In my opinion the strength of animation is it's rejection of perfection. Animation doesn't show you a "tree", animation shows you a representation of a tree. It manipulates the human urge to connect and personify to give life to artificial beings. Something in our unconsciousness wants to cry when a non-existent representation of an Irish boy's supernatural mother has to go to a heaven none of us believe in, and that is fucking crazy to me, but I digress. Good animation implies, it doesn't say. And I think the language of animation leaves a lot more room for reflection and connection then traditional cinema.
Good animation is poetry. It conjures meaning instead of stating it, and can be more challenging without being exhausting because of that. But like, fuck, what do I know?
Cinema is a language in itself, just with a more extensive vocabulary and different grammar. Image and sound replace words as signs, cuts/transitions replace punctuation. But sometimes it feels like modern cinema is too perfect. Cinema doesn't write "tree" and let your experiences fill in the gaps, it shows you a tree. Modern hollywood films feel like Academic writing, with an agreed upon grammar, wide shot, then shot/reverse shot, follow the formula with a different combination of the same handful of character, the soundtrack swells at the big moment and then they kiss and everything is wrapped up nicely. Realistic CGI has brought this perfection to a whole new level. I'd also like to make it clear this isn't a value judgement, hollywood films have a right to exist and I enjoy them; their entertainment value comes from how easy and accessible they are to watch, and their ability to manipulate our emotions is impressive. We can only be challenged a few times a week or else its just exhausted.
So where does traditional animation fit into all of this? In my opinion the strength of animation is it's rejection of perfection. Animation doesn't show you a "tree", animation shows you a representation of a tree. It manipulates the human urge to connect and personify to give life to artificial beings. Something in our unconsciousness wants to cry when a non-existent representation of an Irish boy's supernatural mother has to go to a heaven none of us believe in, and that is fucking crazy to me, but I digress. Good animation implies, it doesn't say. And I think the language of animation leaves a lot more room for reflection and connection then traditional cinema.
Good animation is poetry. It conjures meaning instead of stating it, and can be more challenging without being exhausting because of that. But like, fuck, what do I know?
I think this is an interesting take on animation. I tend to agree with a lot of what you're saying, I'm curious who wrote this? I've always found it kind of incredible that animation is basically thousands of paintings/drawings/whatever. It leads me to believe animators are the greatest artists to ever live. Of course animators don't spend as much time on a single frame as a painter spends on a single painting - usually - but still the amount work and scope of the world created is incredible. It does become something of a new language - due to the very "man-made" aspect of it, naturally it is incredibly expressive to the individual. It's hard for me to argue that it inherently creates a world more poetic than live action or more expressive than live action, though. The question becomes whether the ability to transport someone to another state of meaning, one that is personal and reciprical between you and the film like you describe - whether that ability comes from the inherent abstract nature of the animated film, or from the associations made within the context of the film. For example I may make a film that is extremely abstract, but it may not have the internal cuts and sentence structure which would elevate it by subverting your understanding of context and meaning. On the other hand I could make a live action film that represents objects as they appear in reality, but pairs and layers objects and our understanding of them in such a strange and stimulating way that it becomes as abstract and poetic as any animated film. Maybe what you were implying was that any film be it live action or animation can challenge us, and that animation naturally has a bit of a one up on live action, but i don't know, I think its interesting to think about whether its the feeling of abstraction or the physical representation of abstraction which moves us. Can a live action film be just as "animated" as an animation?
ReplyDeleteThis is what this blog has been missing! You're such a thoughtful and intelligent artist. I totally agree with you, so much of good film lies in the subtext and the implied. Room for reflection as you put it. Feelings and emotion are so disconnected from fact or logic. You can feel poetry even when it's not stating exactly what the feeling is or following logical grammar. Animation's not perfect in terms of it's representation of reality (photorealistic) but it can be powerful and in some ways more "real" in terms of how it makes you feel. It feels more real, but it looks less real. ? right ?
ReplyDeleteThanks! If I’ve learned anything from school and exploring different topics it’s that very different styles of media or really anything can all evoke the feeling of great poetry or of “reality.” It really has everything to do with not being able to describe it exactly because at its core it’s playing with language and context in such a way that enthralls us. That could be done in an animation or a documentary. I think then it all comes back to our feelings. It’s all about our interaction with the film. Our concept of “reality” in a film like you say is more of an emotional reality than whatever an “objective” reality would be. I think the best feeling to come away from a film is one that pushes the viewer into their own emotional world where they feel inspired.
ReplyDelete