After reading the essay by Wells I find myself aligning with experimental animation over what he refers to as “orthodox” animation. This isn’t surprising though, given that I am in an experimental film class and that Wells is extremely bias on the subject. I think it also has a lot to do with the fact that I am much more of an abstract thinker, geared towards a creative, artistic mindset. So of course I’m going to favor a kind of animation where a “presence of the artist” is a key factor. Also, I really like that experimental animation redefines aspects of orthodox storytelling and focuses on things like rhythm and movement, not just in a character, but as their own entities.
Thereare a lot of other points I agree with, but for me reading this, I feel like
it’s stuff I already know and have drilled into my brain pretty well. Yes, experimental film is different from mainstream, narrative filmmaking. This just talked about it in terms of animation. Don’t get me wrong, I found the article interesting and enjoyable to read. I especially found inspiration in the quotes by Leopold Survage and William Moritz. I have an equal passion for both painting and filmmaking, which Survage considers to go hand in hand. I too could probably spend my days painting on film, making moving art filled with rhythm and movement. Corny I know, but it’s true and I’m feeling in a cornball today. I also this Moritz’s words are sentiments that should not be forgotten. If you’re going to make an experimental film then great, but don’t forget to give it some depth along the way. Otherwise, its just another amateur mess that people either derive a single meaning out of or don’t get at all.
One thing I always notice when someone writes about commercialism and mass
production, it always seems that the mass produced art is barely even
recognized as art. It has no passion, no depth, no originality. Wells even goes so far as to say that it lacks a presence of the artist. How can you have art without an artist? Now while I do tend to agree with this theory for the most part, I feel like there must be some legitimate art that is thrown to the masses and widely accepted. It just has to be out there somewhere getting looked over because everyone likes it and the artist is making lots of money off of it. I do wish it could be different, that the praise would go to the authentic work rather than the most commercial, but thus is life and I guess then all those hipsters who only like things that no one else has ever heard of would have to like some really crappy stuff.
1 comment:
This presence of the artist vs. lack of presence of the artist can get pretty fuzzy if you look at more micro-cosmic levels of say, Pixar or Disney cartoons. What sort of "subliminal"or subtle in-studio jokes do individual animators infuse into even the most commercial of animated films?
Then, as you mention, commercial films can also be seen on the broader scale, as works of art. Take a film like Wall-E which , for the first 30 minutes, tries something that we don't often see in animated features - a total lack of dialogue. In this way, it breaks a little from the formula and yet is commercial.
Post a Comment