Sterling Chen brings up a number of points that make
animation so interesting to study. The term encompasses such
a wide range of techniques, materials, and organizations for
production, that separating form from content becomes an
increasingly arbitrary decision. When we look at different
works of animation, we cannot always see the institutional
parameters that impinged on their production.
In particular, identifying or even being aware of an author
is problematic when animation is produced by large
organizations, hierarchically divided into artists and
technicians and support staff. These terms artificially
limit our attribution of authorship to a small number of
individuals while effacing the contributions of others, and
denying the economic and time constraints imposed on all of
them.
Comparing individually produced works of independent
animation to those created by organizations is fraught with
problems of misattributing authorship, intention,
aesthetics, and meaning.
There are many approaches to the placement of animation
within traditions of plastic arts, computer graphics, and
motion picture production. Rather than see it as the purest
form of cinema or even a mode of practice that encompasses
live-action film, I prefer to see it in its multiplicity.
I agree that much animation seems to excel at depicting its
own constructedness and as Donald Crafton has shown in his
book, _Before Mickey_, early animation often included a
visual representation of an author/artist. But the actual
process bringing the pictures, objects, or pixels to life
remains hidden to most viewers, even as we see obviously
'unreal' images on the screen. And our ability to identify
with drawn characters is just as great as with live-action
ones.
Bill Mikulak ([log in to unmask])
|