SCREEN-L Archives

January 1994


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sterling <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sun, 16 Jan 1994 14:42:00 EST
text/plain (27 lines)
Bill Mikulak: thanks for the tip on resources.
I apologize for my muddled, vague whine.  I don't intend to judge
whether or not something is "Art" since such a discussion is somewhat
pointless and based largely on subjective value judgements, but I do
think that Derek Bouse is considering a legitimate issue which is
implicit in any cinema/tv form: the tension/duality/whatever between
a text's content/story/"meaning" and its aesthetics/camerawork/etc.
I think that with animation, this possible duality is made more explicit
since it is understood that the animator/director/creator is always
present.  This author's presence is true of any cinema but often it
is obscured--especially in Classical Hollywood and Realist films in
general.  However, I tend to doubt that animation can attain a similar
"total audience persuasion" no matter how "realistic" --at least for now
.  With advancing technology (digital processing/manipulation of photos
or whatever), this will probably change in the relatively near future.
At any rate, too often animation debates focus stricty on the technolo-
gy, technique, and aesthetics.  There is generally less of a discussion
on the "content" portion, and perhaps there currently less range in con-
tent.  Obviously, this needn't be so and there exists "content" rich
animation, but how should one approach animation?  Is is a separate form
or medium which should be considered on its own, or is it merely a per-
haps more "purified" version of cinema in general?
--Sterling chen (UNc-chapel hill)