SO...art is a sort of expansion of what we experience and is produced for necessity (a bed, plate, cup), pleasure (a picture, toy) and knowledge (mathematics, philosophy).

Nietzsche's Two Thoughts...
Let's skip ahead in time to Mr. Nietzsche. In Birth of Tragedy, the little pastor says that we can divide art into two streams: Apollinian and Dionysian. The former is a subjective individual approach that seeks beauty and a higher form (i.e. how the world SHOULD BE), while Dionysian is a more objective form that shows "the incompletely intelligible everyday world" (which...umm...is still a subjective viewpoint). So certainly we can see how the Hollywood system strives for the Apollinian form of harmony and order (EVERY Hollywood product is based on a classical narrative system that gives stability-disruption-resolution-closure or what is the Aristotelian notion of completeness), whereas some like Phil Mulloy and Ryan Larkin are slightly more Dionysian in that there is no sense of completeness, harmony, but more a concern with showing the world as it IS. The audience is left ALONE to figure out the "incompletely intelligible."

Yet this system doesn't quite work because animation is by very definition limited to the boundaries of its technological infrastructure (material of film/video/digital, camera -- and the speed, aperture, framing -- and projector -- and projectionist). As such no animators are truly chaotic and wild. Certainly cameraless animators are (to use the Plato ratio) a step or two closer to the reality/disorder but they still rely on film. Of course, with that hardcore logic...painting, literature and music have SOME whisper of a structure. The only truly free arts would be speaking, singing and dancing. Cha Cha Cha!

It gets more confusing when you see that Nietzsche says that individualism is commonly Apollinian whereas the loss of self into oneness is Dionysian (like when you're stoned) BUT clearly the Hollywood system in fact diverts the individual into the illusion of a form of oneness through its production of films that it thinks will reach a UNIVERSAL audience (as opposed to the particular -- although it relies on the illusion of the particular/unique experience to sell merchandise) and through its use of tragic/comic models seeks to EVOKE a general emotional reaction from the audience. Whereas the Dionysian reps like, say Ryan Larkin or David Ehrlich, make films from an individual perspective for the pleasure of the ACT itself (i.e. little care for audience). Furthermore in showing the world as it IS, the Dionysian artist is seeking an understanding of this state while leaving the audience to do the same individually. Some would say this is self-absorbed but clearly Hollywood does not REALLY give a shit about the audience (as individuals) whereas MANY (not all) of these apparent Dionysian folks DO actually care about individual perspectives.

Sooooooooo the way I see it...Apollinian offers universal types to present the world as the Artist thinks it should be using examples of BETTER or WORSE, which then evoke emotions from the audience and give them a feeling of oneness. Whereas the Dionysian shows the world as the Artist thinks it is, warts and all and leaves the audience to sort it out for themselves.

A-ha! Kant Has A Point
Let's see what that pissant Kant has to say. In the Critique of Judgement, he talks briefly about what Art is. First, he separates it from nature (art is work, nature is effect) and ESSENTIALLY says that art is work by man (which means that ALL humans are works of art -- except that grade 9 French teacher who wanted to touch me in odd places). He then distinguishes Art from craft and science. Science knows. Art can know. (What about science films like Haemorrhoids, a 20-minute film depicting the removal of IT from someone's hairy red ass? Is this science or art?) Art is Free Art. Craft is Mercenary Art. (Ah...hold up...now we're getting somewhere!) Mercenary Art is a disagreeable occupation that attracts someone mostly because of the pay cheque. So could we not say that MOST kids who go to school to LEARN how to be a big studio artist are in fact NOT artists (but craftsmen) because they have a specific purpose to make money (check out those discussions groups where some youngin' asks, "How much should an entry level animator make?") and gain recognition (e.g. being ACCEPTED in a school and then a studio)? In Free Arts, the artist creates for the sake of creating. Fame and fortune are secondary. The primary pleasure comes from the act of creation (oops...sorry...production). THEN again...the free artist seeks grants, subsidies and has screenings, readings, openings...so is that not tinged with fame and fortune as well? And anyway...from what I've seen, the kids at Pixar (for example) are MIGHTY content whereas I've encountered a lot of 'free' artists working in miserable/disagreeable conditions.