#Animations
26 messages in this thread
>unless you're planning on making Bugs Bunny type work, you need
^^^^^^^^^^ >to have a crew that has solid
film experience.
Sincerelly, I could give one leg, one arm and one eye if someone guarantee me
that I will have someday half the knowledge, the creativity and the talent of
one of the animators who work with genius like Chuck Jones or Tex Avery. I
could also sell my soul to have 1/1000 part of the ideas of Bakshi or
Kricfalusi. I think that NOBODY in this forum can do a work as 1/100000 as good
as one of the worse Avery's.
That's all, folk.
Ana
Ana,
I think you knew you were taking the message out of context when you replied,
just to start a discertation about a few traditional animators, but…..
First of all the reference was to traditional 2D cel animation versus the
bleeding edge realm of computer graphics based animation and special effects.
Second of all although both Jones and Avery are very well regarded in the
traditional field, it seems extreme to want to become parapalegic and half
blind simply for an artistic gift, that the thousands of people who worked with
these animators obviously had. The early work of these animators was extremely
rigid and broken, and the Bugs Bunny that everyone loves was the culmination of
a tremendous amount of work for a large number of years. Not to mention the
hundreds of thousands of hours invested by the staffs to generate all of the
inbetweens,reworks, etc.
Third, I have personally met hundreds of traditional cel animators that are
alot better than the 1/100000 percent that you use as a reference in Avery's
work. If you haven't broken into that realm, and you really want to, then I'd
probably suggest keeping your anatomy in tack and investing the time and effort
into joining a traditional firm, thereby allowing yourself to become fully
immersed in the medium, and no doubt after years of work you will asssuredly
reach your goal.
Fourth, the two mediums are quite obviously a world apart and mastery in either
requires a true dedication, but if you'd like to compare artistic talents and
vision, I firmly believe that the photorealism and FLUID movements visible in
the work of the top firms today far surpasses any traditional animation ever
created. Have you ever seen the work of Maley, Ordaz, Pangrazio, Green or
Evans? Or is your sole source of reference Saturday morning cartoons?
Thanks, Paul
Aparently, you have taked my message as an offense to animators in general, and
3d animators particurarly. By the contrary, my message is only intended to
express my admiration to the work of the _artist_ who do or did classic 2d
animation. My words regarding parts of my anatomy are an exaggeration that I
think explain my DEEP admiration to the talents of this men and women who makes
possible the birth of a new form of communication, and in last place, a new
form of art with HUGE influences in cinematography. In any case, my intention
is to express that admiration which is the result of DEEP study and never I
want injure any creative spirit in the forum. HOWEVER, there some personal
references which I want to answer.
Paul, fortunately, my opinions are not based in the Saturday morning cartoons
(BTW, we don't have that show in Spain). My admiration to ALL the classic
animators (and not only the Great Ones, that have won Oscars and other awards
-anyone here with an Oscar?- plus the admiration of all the industry) is the
result of SIX years of study on advertisement and art, plus one year of
preparation of my final thesis (I don't know the word in english for that) on
art (titled "Computer and Classic Animation: Looking for a New Communication
Form", which is a "little" 258 pages paper -including Index and bibliographic
pages-). Man, it's not an exageration to say that all my life is oriented to
the art field, especially photography, illustration, painting and -yes!-
animation -no tool is bad to express yourself:). Along my studies on
advertisement, I also do some HARD study and research on cinematography (with
especial care to the study of kinetics and animation, and the formalism
movements) and colaborations in some fanzines and commercial magazines as art
and movies critic and as illustrator. If you ask for documentation instead of
personal knowledge achieved during several years of study and own work as an
artist, I can show you more than 200 hours (223) of cartoons, movies,
interviews, documentaries; several original
[More]
[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]
[Continued]
These are the things who makes Winsor McCay a MASTER of MASTERS. The ideas and
the result of the earlier toons of Tex Avery (for me, the BEST cartoon director
in the world, and one of the best humorist in the world -along with the Monty
Python's-), specially his work on Tom and Jerry, results on the wildest
cartoons ever from the Warner, with the most hilarious scenes in the story of
animation and one of the best kinetics and expressions I have seen in
animation.
I know that there are people with the same talent as Avery or even Michel
Angelo, but Avery and Michel Angelo are Avery and Michel Angelo. Do you
understand the idea?
Sincerelly, Ana
ps. I want to apologize if my previous message hurted any of the people in this
forum. It was not my intention to do that. My only intention is to express my
sincere admiration to the work of this masters and his teams (I hate the
"corporate spirit" of Disney, Paul. I know that great artist are in the
shadows). I think that, in some way, they are the inspiration of our work as
animators (although the diferences between 3d and 2d). I also think that all of
us have more than one reason to say : Long live Avery! 🙂
ps2.BTW, why not make a poll asking for our reasons to be in the animation
world? Architecture, engineering, art, (boring life, money… 🙂
Ana,
Wow, what a message! And I'm always afraid that I'm too long winded.
Let it suffice to say that although you've spent alot of time studying the art,
there are a tremendous number of individuals in the animation world, not to
mention in this forum who have qualifications far above and beyond your
research. Additionally you did not simply state a liking for the masters, you
directly attacked forum members by saying that no-one had 1/100000th of the
talent possessed by your favorite animators.
This forum is extremely diverse and full of talent, and IMHO your references
were out of line and out of touch with reality. First and foremost, I am an
artist. I have made a living as a commercial artist for over ten years, and
I've had twelve different full gallery showings of my work, and in addition to
owning a fairly nice animation company, I currently sit on the Boards of seven
different art foundations, and preside over two of them. Being fully immersed
in the art community, let me say that I have never seen anyone with any real
basis in the art community attack unknowns under such a blanket opinion as you
did in your first message. A few hundred pages( short for a solid thesis
covering such a large body of work) does not qualify you to short change the
thousands of animators in the world or on this forum.
As a person who regards art above life itself, I am always shocked by
individuals who do a little research and think that they have the tools to
judge others.
I'm not really in the mood to continue reading and responding to your ravings
as a critic. I have to deal with enough backwards art critics on a day to day
basis, and have no real desire to continue the discussions on CIS.
Thanks for your opinions, Paul
P.S. -BTW your reference to Oscars is out of line and out of touch. Few if any
great artist have ever been highly regarded in their own lifetimes.
[>> Continued in next msg]
[>> Continued from previous msg]
Instead most have had to endure the indignities of people like yourself,
telling them that their work would never be what the masters had created. But
since it appears your existence is based on paperwork you'd probably like to
know that some of the individuals I listed in my original response work for ILM
and ILM has taken home quite a few Academy Awards, around 30 I think, oh and I
forgot the Emmy for the Ewoks.
Quite the wordsmith Paul. I thoroughly enjoyed reading your message to Ana. One
thing I beleive though is that formal schooling does not always an artist make.
I have had lots of art classes but never went for a degree or anything and
maybe that shows in my work and maybe it doesn't. Who knows. What is paper
anyway? BTW – Do you guys (ANIM8) have a bunch of work on the Wavefront users
group demo tape. I got it a while back – great collection of work.
Dave Mennenoh
David,
I'm glad you liked the thread. I always hesitate to discuss art because it is
extremely dear to my heart. When you become passionate about a subject, it
becomes increasingly difficult to discuss it. ( Ever tried to discuss religion
or politics? 🙂 )
I agree that formal schooling doesn't make an artist. It can be effective in
strengthening discipline and sharpening your skills but there are definately
limits.
ANIM8 Inc. hasn't ever submitted work for any user group tapes. Almost all of
our work is military/government contracted and is therefore not open to general
public showing. But if you ever happen to visit an international arms trade
show, you'll be able to see our work, both in demonstrations and in general
presentations.
We are working on expanding outside of our niche, and currently have a couple
of projects that will help us show our work to a larger audience. One of the
projects actually involves some 3D work for a film so maybe we'll get our names
in movie credits.
We're also submitting a couple of pieces of artisticly based work for the new
3DStudio tape, so maybe Gary will find it in his heart to include it.
Are you going to be at SigGraph this year? If you are I'd be glad to bring
along a couple of tapes and show you some of our work. Or if you happen to be
on the East Coast we could probably arrange for you to stop by our studio.
Paul
>One thing I beleive though is that formal schooling does not always an artist
>make. I have had lots of art classes but never went for a degree or anything
My studies are not on Art, are in advertisement and cinematography. However,
I'm painting since I have four years, and actually I sell part of my work in
galleries (specially with acrylic and pastels, and recently making some
sketches with computers). And BTW, I also think that a class won't give you
talent. There are people who finish art and paint as well as Rafael, Murillo,
Sorolla or Degas…technically, of course. In the other side you can't deny
that, although some people (like me) teach himself in the technical side,
others doesn't know how to use an airbrush, paint with oil, or make an acid
print (I don't know the english name for this technique, sorry). Also, the
knowledge of nor just ancient techniques, but also other artist and movements
will help you a lot to understand or just in your own satisfaction and personal
knowledge. Although renovation and investigation is an important part of Art,
tradition and history are necessary for evolve and just KNOW. We know something
about that in the "decrepit" Europe <g>
Ana
Paul,
If you really can call special effects art, ok then. In my opinion, Terminator
II effects can't be called art. They ARE PERFECT, amazing, awesome,
i-n-c-r-e-d-i-b-l-e, I agree! Special effects are wonderfull and a needed
element in some movies and ads, but an special effect will not make a movie an
art piece (although there are master pieces that can't be a masterpiece without
special effects…"Vertigo", from A.H. could be an example, although it's
painted tower or they camera movements and artifacts are not as perfect as
computer generated effects). I admire ILM work, they are simple the best in
their business. The human talent and work involved in the creation of special
effects are awesome, impressive, and they all are great artist…however, I
think that in special effects works has an inherent cold and technologic part.
That happens also with 3d work. And then is when artist has to to take their
roles (and I include me in this category) and make things more than perfect
infographic pieces. In my opinion, that's the difference between Tin Toy or
Grinning Evil Death and a militar flight simulator or a morphing between a
police and a liquid metal form.
Ana
ps.Oh, and sorry if I'm bothering your divine omniscient mind with this
message, master (not offense, here 🙂
Ana,
I'm beginning to lose alot of this conversation in the translation, so I'd
prefer not to take up the forum space continuing the thread.
To close, the top industry work does involve a tremendous amount of artwork,
far more disciplines are involved than you may realize. In addition to the
animation personnel, there are phenomenal sculptors, matte painters, scale
modelers, airbrush artists, not to mention cinematographers. My shop employs
all of the above and we value our artistic work above all else. Everyone of my
employees also show their works on a regular basis, and we happen to be one of
the only privately held shops that pursue work on a purely artistic realm. I
have a tremendous love for the work and have been fully immersed in it for a
long time. Due to the fact that we don't have to answer to corporate management
or base our ideas on the wishes of distributors, we enjoy exploring the mixing
of artistic mediums. If you happen to be running a similar shop then I take my
hat off to you.
I still believe that your 1/100000th statement is out of line, and a couple
hundred hours of animation on tape is about one fifth of our collection. Do you
realize that the average american child watches more than 200 hours of
animation each year in the form of cartoons?
Anyway, I wish you great luck with your company, and I hope to see your work
soon.
Paul
P.S. – As to my divine omniscient mind ……. don't you think that
elementary sarcasm is out of line here? Six years of art school and
you resort to that?
Paul,
Thanks for ending that for us and thanks for your opinions. I feel the
craft/skill of animation, be it technical or artistic, has been greatly
de-valued to the point where people see it as a technical exercise only.
For shame on those people! Thanks again for sticking up for us backyard
visionaries!
Glenn.
>To close, the top industry work does involve a tremendous amount of artwork,
>far more disciplines are involved than you may realize.
^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^ Probably is a problem
with my english (which is BAD), but what are you trying to teach? Are you
really implying that me, or anybody who has a little interest in cinematography
doesn't know what disciplines are in the sfx backstage? Please, Paul. I'm sure
that your level in the bussines is far from mine (and my little 4 persons
company trying to survive in the animation and graphics world) but you are
really pointing topics that even a Troma teenager fan knows (well, regarding
the Troma, I'm the first fan of the…TOXIC AVENGER!!! 🙂
>hundred hours of animation on tape is about one fifth of our collection.
Vaya suerte! (what a luck or something like that in Eng.) This is starting to
sound like a children chat: -"My father have a car" -"Mine have a Cadillac with
26 doors" -"Mine have a jacuzzi and a satelitte antenna" (just kidding)…
Seriously, it seems that I can't compete with you in anything (in creativity
and art skills? maybe 🙂
>Do you realize that the average american child watches more than 200 hours >of
animation each year in the form of cartoons? I can affirm that the "average
american ("some" of them certainly "over-feeded" with TV programs) child"
cartoon menu is far bellow in quality from my honest hours of films and
cartoons. Paul, it's better quality than quantity (as a popular spanish phrase:
"Lo bueno, si breve, dos veces bueno" "The good things, if brief, two times
better"). Ana ps.Regarding the space forum, I'm ok if you want to go private.
Ana,
PMJI again, and apologies to those who wish to see this thread of discussion
end, but one of your
statements surprised me into responding.
> If you really can call special effects art, ok then. In my opinion,
Terminator II effects
> can't be called art. They ARE PERFECT, amazing, awesome, i-n-c-r-e-d-i-b-l-e,
I
> agree! Special effects are wonderfull and a needed element in some movies and
ads, but
> an special effect will not make a movie an art piece
> The human talent and work involved in the creation of special effects are
awesome,
> impressive, and they all are great artist…however, I think that in special
effects works
> has an inherent cold and technologic part. That happens also with 3d work
As person of such deep understanding, appreciation, and education in art, how
you can relegate special effects into non-art is beyond my comprehension. You
must be keenly aware that being created for functional, practical purposes,
does not deny a work it's artistic content or stature. Even further, I would
venture you'd agree that most of what the world judges to be art was created
practical uses. So what's your beef with special effects? Is it intrinsically
less "artistic" or "colder" then buildings created for shelter or worship,
furniture created for storage or sitting, oily canvases or stone replicas to
let the people know what their kings or gods look like? Maybe art has to be
practical and old?
Also, there are films which are considered works of art solely on their special
effects – "Metropolis" and "Bladerunner". Neither are revered for their story,
acting, nor cinema verite. And if they were being made today, I'm sure they'd
be crammed with computer generated effects.
PS – think about the great artists of the past – how many of them would have
dove into computer
animation as Bach would have into synthesizers? It's an interesting, and
illuminating, thought game.
Martin,
Yes, I agree with you mostly. However, always in my own personnal opinion, we
can make some distinctions between diferent kind of special effects. Althought
I personally HATE classifications, you can see special effects throught many
perspectives and sides. Take Terminator II as the example. The effects are, as
I have stated before, impressive -my mouth make water with them- (and not only
the computer generated ones, but also the rest of elements which gives that
impressive realism to the movie -i.e.stunts men, pirotechnics, etc…-).
However, it's a little difficult to say where to put the frontier between
machine work/men huge efforts (and patience) and the artist side. Creating that
liquid chrome T1000 throught all the scenes in the movie was, always my
thoughts, more a technical process, more dependand on physics rules (i.e.
reflections) and computer intensive work than men creativity. Once you have the
idea, and this is for me the real creative process, of a liquid robot, his
form, his movements…all the aspects that will conform that physic subject,
the rest, althought it's very difficult and in anyway easy, is a matter of
(VERY HARD) work and computer aid.
But let's talk about computer generated (I hate this computer "generated"
because it gives the idea that the work is all do by a computer) graphics in
general. Probably in the United States you are far beyond from the spanish view
of computer "art" (imagine their tone when they say that: I hate them). I go
like crazy when someone say that you can't make art with a computer because
it's a machine. "A machine? A MACHINE? What's your idea of machine? Is a pencil
a machine? Is an airbrush a machine?" I usually say. Believe it or not, most
"traditional" artist here (in spain) think in computers as in cold machines
that do all for you!!! Absolutely false, I say.
[More]
[Continued]
Computers won't give you anything. You have to use them as you use a brush,
pastels, chalks, carbon or even a stone and animal blood. Throught the ages,
artist has been in a search for tools to serve their creativity. From the
hands, sticks, blood and the Lacaux or Altamira caves to our days: all is
history. I think in computers as an step in the search of new enviroments for
communication. And, as with most disciplines of painting, you can combine them
to make and even better art. Moreover, you can combine all the arts, from
sculpture to photography, to communicate (or just to express yourself for
yourself). But there always has to be creativity, imagination and talent to
make art. And here is when this paragraph converges with the special effects
and 3d animation issue (what do you think? 1K for nothing? 🙂 Some kind of
special effects has become a mechanical work these days. Are all the 3d
animations (although they are brilliant executed and planned) art? No in my
opinion. There's a "little" difference between a cold flying logo (although
there always are creativity, since the computer don't say:"Ok!, let's make a
logo for the news!") and the logo animations for the Spanish pabilion in the
EXPO'92 by the beloved Rebecca Allen. If you have seen that two awesome and
much different conceptions of a logo, you already know what I'm trying to say.
A classic logo, althought it can be technically impressive, created with the
last word in computer graphics and with a brilliant conception, doesn't
transmit the same fellings and emotions. She breaks new walls in the conception
of 3d. In my opinion there's the real art. I don't know if you are
understanding what I'm trying to say because I'm not using my native language
and my use of english is very limited. These are very deep concepts and I have
them very deep in my soul. Regarding art-fiction and what-if games, I'm
completely sure that Leonardo, Velazquez, Cezanne, or Picasso could had done
marvellous things with 3DStudio and a Targa+, and even create some IPAS
routines <g>. There's no doubt about the "multi-tasking" <g> spirit of
Leonardo. If there's a man
[More]
[Continued]
who can love computers, that was Leonardo da Vinci (Leonardo with a computer:
he! now we should have been talking throught a Solar System Wide Network, you
in Mars, me in Io 🙂 Regarding Velazquez, have you seen the studies about the
lay-out and creation of "Las Meninas". Wow! That man has a computer in his
head! He will not use 3D Studio, he will create the Release 19 (sorry Yost 🙂
Talking about computer and mathematics, how about Bach? Even better, how about
the Alejandria's library all stored in, say, 1,000,000 CD-ROMs? It was Carl
Sagan who said that now we could be present in all the Solar System if the AL
had not been destroyed. And maybe using Noveniums instead 486s <g> I agree with
you that this game, which I often play (what happens if we have a machine who
can record directly from your imagination? yes, I'm also an sci-fi fan)
Finishing, which is a gerund <-this is an tipical spanish phrase), I don't
think (I<-me, just my opinion) that Fritz Lang's Metropolis neither Scott's
Bladerunner are considered art just for the special effects. Both movies are
breaks in the way of understanding a class of cinema. I agree with you that the
aesthetic present in both movies can't be possible without one kind or other of
special effects (and don't forget the photography), but a movie never is
considered as a master piece just for the special effects. Moreover, special
effects can't never been taken as the objective, just as a way to reach
"something".
Hey! What about discussing the principles of aesthetic? What about Kant and his
discussions about art? Mmmmh, this is really interesting. Could we solve the
problems who had been rounding phylosophic minds since Democrito and Heraclito
in a Compuserve forum? Really! This issue had become a Bizantine discussion <g>
(just like the discussion between realism and abstraction).
Keep in touch, Ana
In anyway I want to appear as a prophet or as the holder of the Truth of
truths. I only feel attacked by your "saturday morning show" as sole reference
that you write in your previous reply. In anyway my study of art give me the
rights to attack an artist. Moreover, I never attack an artist or a movement in
any of my critics and opinions (which I think very constructive) since I think
in a very "open-mind" way. I never consider one form of art superior to the
other, and one artist superior to the other because I like one more than the
other. I only have personal opinions which in any case I want to make
universal.
Regarding my attacks…well, I repeat that my intention is not to attack
anybody in the forum (please, read this last setence more than once) I simply
state, by exagerated words, I admit, my preferences and my admiration to the
work of the earlier animators as well as to vanguardism animators who are
giving new life to our media. However Paul, you can deny the role of that
people and their crews in the development of the animation and in the made of
one of the series of best animation EVER. They are THEY…and in my opinion
they are A source of inspiration and evolution to all the people in the
animation industry. Your words regarding other animators are true. There are
people who have GREAT talent and who are doing great things (it seems like you
are one of these (others waiting the oportunity, like many of us…sorry, like
me -I don't want to offense anybody anymore). Ana.
ps.Oh, yes…and regarding your words about "little research"…buff!, man,
which I'm really tired is about people who think that they have enough
experience to not only think that they are Gods, but also regret to continuing
discussions ("enough backwards art critics????") and, without arguments and
without respect, attack personally to other artist (which is my main spirit).
Since I love to discuss in a moderate ambient, I will love to recieve any other
thoughts you can write me…politely speaking, of course.
Ana,
No-one has claimed that they are devine, or that they hold diety status, you
really do have a tremendous problem with exagerations. No-one has attacked you,
or given you a lack of respect. Your opinion is just as important as the other
250,000+ art students with doctorates.
You simply seemed to take a few words in a thread out of context, and then
after jumping in the thread, began to bash every contemporary animator not to
mention singling out the animators in this forum.
Most of the animators on this forum are extremely aware of the contributions of
their predecessors, and to my knowledge no-one has said anything negative about
them. The original thread was a discussion of ILM's work in Jurassic Park, and
specifically dealt with their medium of animation and 70mm film. You have taken
a very linear conversation, jumped into it and then created this great tangent
outlining your background, abilities, and beliefs. I appreciate your opinions,
I respect your beliefs, and I surrender to your overwhelming mastery of the
subject.
Thanks again, Paul
P.S. – Are you going to be at Siggraph? I'd like to meet you.
> Are you going to be at Siggraph? I'd like to meet you.
Not, certainly not. I will be there next year because I will live in the States
for aprox. the following four years. I'd like to meet you personally too 🙂 I'm
sure that you and I are more similar than it can seem in a first time.
Sincerelly, Ana
ps. What about interchanging photos to know who is behind the lines? Most of
you in the forum know personally each other, but I'm certainly curious what
face have you, Martin, Greg and company. Could I upload my photo to the forum?
I think CompuServe to be very impersonal, probably photos could help.
Ana,
PMJI, I think it would be great to upload a photo. I'm going to be uploading a
photo montage creation soon which features me in an out-of-this-world place
<g>.
Great! Mine will be in the board soon. See you on…euh, what res.?
Ana
>>>I think that NOBODY in this forum can do a work as 1/100000 as good >>>as
one of the worse Avery's.
I do hope you are including yourself in this statement.
Dave Mennenoh
> Sincerelly, I could give one leg, one arm and one eye if someone guarantee me
> that I will have someday half the knowledge, the creativity and the talent of
one > of the animators who work with genius like Chuck Jones or Tex Avery. I
could > also sell my soul to have 1/1000 part of the ideas of Bakshi or
Kricfalusi. I think > that NOBODY in this forum can do a work as 1/100000 as
good as one of the > worse Avery's.
Those that never believe they can become the best, never do. Hence, I decline
to be included in your belief.
Please, see my reply to Paul Lind and you will understand my opinions.
Thanks, Ana