I'd like to pick up a thread in Sterling Chen's note on Animation. How many of you out there would grant the status of 'Art' to the classic Warner Bros. cartoons, but NOT to Beavis & Butt-head? If so, WHY? Is it the old "test of time" ? It's true, as Sterling suggests, that animation is changing. Obviously there is less emphasis on visual perfection, and possibly more emphasis on the writing -- though the Warners were also superbly written. WHAT, then, is it that distinguishes the 'new' animation from the old? Or is this not the right question? I happen to think that the strength of The Simpsons, and of Beavis & Butt- head is the writing, the (dare I say it?) WIT, and that this compensates for the 'minimalist' qualities of the animation. Back to my earlier question, then: if we're ready to call the Warners films 'Art' (as I think we should), then what arguments are people using to deny this status to Beavis & Butt-head? (as many seem wont to do) Because this would suggest a fundamental difference between the two cases, and I don't see it. Reactions? -- Derek Bouse