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)