CompuServe Messages

[Continued] artwork and frames form Disney and Warner Bros.; one ton of reproductions (specially from Fantasia) and another ton of books (most of them BIIIG -lovely- format). I think that this little resume is enough to demonstrate what is the basis of my opinions. Regarding the relation between talent and work: obviously, most art master pieces are the result of HARD work (although you can easily forget this by seeing the first drafts of the bird's flight by Leonardo or an bull-fighting scene by Goya). Seeing last week an slide series showing the creation and development of a bull in print by Picasso, taked by one of his wives (I can't remember the name now), you can easily understand his works regarding his condition of genius and the creation of a work: 90% of a master piece is SWEAT…the rest, talent. However, you CAN'T create a masterpiece just with work, work, work…you need talent. And those people with talent is the people who will have their names in the Book of History. Early work vs. experience. Of course the work of these animators are not as good as the lastest animation pieces. Again, you are pointing the obvius. Are the first sculptors of the Greece art bad because their work was rigid? No. You can't deny the value of the work of that people as pionners of a new art of expression. Man, when you see one of the first B&W masterpieces of animation by McCay (i.e. Gertie the Dinosaur) you can appreciate the work and the talent involved in that animation although they not look as good and perfect as the Beauty and the Beast. John Canemaker, in "Winsor McCay, His Life and Art", writes, refering to Gertie…: "I remember being impressed with how Disney-like this early animation effort was- how fluid the movements, how naturalistic the design…" [More]