Dear Jean, thanks for your latest installment. I have to say it's highly amusing to find an artist and teacher with "several decades of experience" unable to explain what he thinks art is. Joking aside though, you have raised some serious issues. Presumably your frequent references to philosophical texts are intended to underline this. Unfortunately neither they nor the "cunningly" deployed "quotation" marks peppering "your" "article" can "disguise" the "inconsistencies" "in" "your" "thinking". You didn't reply to my comment on your last article (I hope it wasn't too rude) so in a way this is a continuation of it. As for the question of "art". Peter Fuller in Beyond the Crisis in Art (ISBN: 0 906495 33 4 2 P/B), a very illuminating book, writes of the way "great and authentic art, whatever its subject matter, constitutes a ‘moment of becoming’ which speaks of a possible historical future now." Assuming one wants to regard authenticity as a creative merit, this seems a pretty useful definition to me. One of the problems with your "argument" seems to be your emphasis on "Art" and "Artists" in ideological terms. This isn't unusual these days: Damien Hirst, when recently asked whether his pickled shark was really "Art" replied that since it was in an art gallery, it must be. In other words, he seems to be saying that because he is an "Artist", "Art" is whatever he says it is, and its status is confirmed by its presence in a socially and historically endorsed institution and therefore within the western professional Fine Art tradition. Thus his lofty position as an "Artist" in the social and economic hierarchy is assured, as a producer of luxury commodities for the cognoscenti – somewhat above craftspeople, and even further above peddlers of "mere merchandise". This isn't very satisfactory, as I feel sure you will agree, and even if it is not what you mean, it's where your thinking appears to lead. There a number of reasons for this kind of attitude within the "Art" world. One of them might be the fact the professional Fine Art tradition has been eclipsed by what Peter Fuller has called the "mega-visual" tradition of monopoly capitalism: ie, advertising, movies, colour supplements. He also wrote: " We tend to hear a lot about the enduring ‘autonomy’ of art, and so on. But this position can be defended only through the kind of sophistry which which accepts, say, the markings on a Boetian vase, or Lascaux cave paintings, decorated Greek mirrors, Cycladic dolls, Russian icons or Italian altar-pieces as art, but which denies that billboards, colour supplements or posters belong to this category while going on to assert that certain (but not all) piles of bricks and certain (but not all) grey monochromes do. I believe that it only really only makes sense to talk about the visual tradition as a whole as constituting a relatively enduring and autonomous cultural component. There will always be images but under different social formations they will emerge in different forms and be put to different uses. There is nothing about the professional Fine Art tradition which makes it more likely to endure and to continue to occupy the centre of the visual tradition than, say, the great medieval tradition of manuscript illumination. Indeed, if we look at the Fine Art tradition from the closing decades of the nineteenth century until the present day it is clear that not only has it become progressively less central culturally and socially but internally it has itself been ebbing away." Can you see the irony in your wish to co-opt animation for the Fine Art tradition? It is a form with a very different history and practice, and in some ways might actually be responsible for the erosion of the status of Fine Art. And who could say that, perhaps, a few hundred years from now, people looking at an episode of Road Runner won't experience a "moment of becoming" every bit as real as we as do now when looking at Van Gogh?

To Erwin Lian: Erwin, when you say “But what is not Art ?”, I can relate to your questioning, but I feel you are asking the question backward. I would put it this way: “What is Art”? To which I would answer “I don’t (really) know.” But as to “What is not Art?”, the answer is easy: “plenty!” So much of what we see around us, especially in animation, is nowhere near “Art,” It is craft (sometimes at its best), but most often, it is commerce, a mere merchandise. Most animation, especially of the commercial kind, brings nothing of importance to its doers, and even less to its viewers, it is precisely the opposite of “Art.” Remember my first article in this series, its title was “Animation: Prozac or Kyosaku?” Either “it” helps us “awake,” or it puts us to sleep. It’s here: You also ask: “And who is to say ?” You, me, each and every one of “us.” We do know the difference, though we often have dulled our awareness of that difference. And you continue: “Can we "really" put what we "see" on to a canvas ?” No, but that’s one more (“The?”) reason to try. If failure is inevitable, at least one can get closer to succeeding, by daring the impossible. (“The failure shall be the measure of success” as Camus said). You still: “Can we "really" share what we see ?” As in “totally?” I don’t think so. Can we really get in the shoes of the other and see through his/her eyes? Not at all, or at least, not often. Yet, a work of Art is precisely one that transcends that unbridgeable gap between “me” and “the other,” and which, if only briefly, makes “me” see as “he/she does.” “Art is what makes us see” is still true for me, there are so many experiences we all have had in connection with “Art” that made a difference in the way(s) we see. Again: “If not ? Why the worthless effort?” “He who does not go for the impossible will scarcely do anything worthwhile!” (This was possibly the most significant graffiti of May ’68 for me). And finally: “If yes, why the explanation?” Because many of us need just that little push to get going in attempting the impossible. Many of us already know much of that “stuff” intuitively, but too many of us do not trust their intuition. To have some of those “things” mentioned be it in a classroom or on a public forum can help a few that are/were just ready, and we will all benefit from their resuming real work, they will contribute to make our world a better place to live in. But seeing what you asked, you most likely already knew “all that.”

I like your articles and work. But what is not Art ? And who is to say ? Can we "really" put what we "see" on to a canvas ? Can we "really" share what we see ? If not ? Why the worthless effort? If yes, why the explanation?

To lilian igbinosun Lilian, You raise an interesting question, the connection between “work,” and “employment.” I am old enough to have had the privilege of going through school at a time when the agenda was still set by the Socratic ideal of “know thyself.” It is with great dismay that I witnessed universities and other schools of “higher learning” progressively abandon that goal and turn into glorified vocational schools. Whereby schools, and especially art schools, then placed the emphasis on “your” discovery, they now funnel “you” into career tracks. With that in mind, I reflect on my decades of work as a painter, and see that many of my peers barely made a dime through their work as painter. Indeed, most of us have had to support our real work by doing something else (teaching im my case) and now that I have a foot in the animation community, I can see that some of the most interesting independent work done today is done by artists who do not make a living from their work in animation. (I will show some clips of that type of work in my next article.) Animation suffers a lot from its being identified with the productions of the major studios, the economic model derived from that “poisons” the frame of reference of animators who could do some exceptional work but choose not to because it may not be financially profitable. In this sense, animation lags far behind what artists have known for years, we can go as far back as Rembrandt in painting and Mozart in music to see examples of great masters who worked whether they were commissioned to or not. I have so little respect for the entertainment side of animation, for its crass commercial aspect, that I think you should feel grateful that somehow, the work you showed that prospective employer was immediately perceived as “not fit for the industry!” Congratulations! (I mean it.) Given you interest in “eye candy animation,” can you imagine what you might have fallen into if you had been accepted? ;-) Jean

hello Jean first off i love reading your articles, they give me something to think about. my influences in animation are len lye ,norman mclaren & oskar fishinger, whilst in college i tried to emulate these guys in my work. when i went for my first animation job interview my prospective employer called my work "Eye candy" now with comments like these what does the future of animation hold. thank you . please keep writing i always look forward to reading your essays lilian

To Chris L.: ("each one of us is, simultaneously, (at) the centre of the universe, AND an insignificant peripheral speck in it.") "Geez, this sounds like the sort of dime-store philosophizing that can be found in 'Waking Life.'" Chris, I don’t think so. You don't need to buy this in a dime-store or from a fancy and expensive university. All you need to do is reflect a little bit on your own experience. ;-) Gotta go... Yeah, hit and run? ;-)

"each one of us is, simultaneously, (at) the centre of the universe, AND an insignificant peripheral speck in it." Geez, this sounds like the sort of dime-store philosophizing that can be found in "Waking Life." ;-) Gotta go...

To Chris Lanier: Hi Chris, Let me jump to “Waking Life” right away, although I want to save most of this for my part #6 and last article in the series: not only was the “philosophical discourse” in Waking Life utterly ridiculous, even outrageously “dumb” to me, above it all, it was this “canned universe” that aggressed me the most. What I mean, and will try to expand more on in part #6, is that the “pictorial space” defined by the original “life cinema” movie the animation was based on is extremely claustrophobic, the viewer (“me” in this case) is totally “boxed in” that which the camera defined, and at no times (save for very short, very minor moments), does the work of the animators transcend that. This is my biggest beef against Waking Life, even more than its dime-store philosophy ramblings, it is the fact that once again, the language never attained any kind of transposition. In Waking Life, we are trapped, totally and inescapably, in a boxed space. This actually applies to much of animation, too often animators have swallowed, hook, line and sinker, the “literal space” (and “logic”) ordinary life cinema movies wallow in. And yet, animation is, at every step of the way (every “frame?”) a total fabrication, a total illusion, potentially freed of all the habitual limitations most movie makers are blindly relying upon. But I want to save this for part #6! ;-) You also said: “I liked the bit about animating down to the atoms.” I submit that we are really, if involved with creative work, “in search of the elusive underlying form” (“Holy Grail?”) and yet, that most animation (with some formidable exceptions I hope to show samples/clips of in the next article) works on bits and pieces from a point of view of having the underlying form totally frozen, and/or completely taken for granted. Come to think about it, this too describes pretty accurately what I find so much lacking in Waking Life! This also touches on the limitations inherent in the very process(es) that are most prevalent in animation today, most decisions are made from the top down, so that when the “stuff” finally gets done, it is likely completely set and leaves no room for exploration, discovery, and definitely no room for what makes art so much worth doing for me: creating, “in-forming,” and above all discovering by way of “fortuitous accidents.” By the way, I am not set against using cameras, far from it, but I would hope that any aided perception we embark on has a purpose of enriching and even challenging our “comprehension” of the world we live in, of challenging and discovering more of whatever it is we are, instead of constantly reenforcing the same “societal lies.” You also said: “Of course -- we talked about this a little at Ottawa -- at the beginning of the enlightenment, scientific perception was non-habitual perception -- the source of much 'poetic' insight (what could be more poetic than the notion that our planet is speeding through space, at vast speeds that we are completely insensible to) -- and the habitual mode of thinking was 'magical' thought -- traveling along the worn grooves of inculcated religion. Scientific perfection is hardly 'anti-human.' And habitual thought practically defines the human mind." Just reflect on what happened with the invention of linear perspective (and yes, it is indeed an invention, I keep on being amazed at how many amongst my students come to the studio actually convinced that that is “how we see!”). The implications of “buying into” linear perspective as being that which informs the real are enormous, they actually set an “objective” world out there the same for us all to see. Gone is the “primacy of perception “ (although Merleau-Ponty sure showed us that never the less, it is always-already-there!), gone is the apprehension by each one of us of the magic nature of existence, the :”fact” that each one of us is, simultaneously, (at) the centre of the universe, AND an insignificant peripheral speck in it. This is I think one of the most potent flavors of our basic dilemma, a dilemma that our culture is busy denying. Pre-Renaissance ("primitive") world view is not “wrong,” it is the other side of the coin that we "are!" You also say: “By the way, I've always loved Chuck Jones' technique of "smearing" the action when there is a burst of speed -- there, he left Muybridge behind and trusted the evidence of his own eyes.” True, but so very timid though when compared to what I feel is possible if we only dared trust our subjectivity, and our “not knowing.” In that sense, I feel animation is to painting today what official Salon painting was to Monet and especially Cézanne near the end of the 19th Century. I was hoping that the amazing progress in digital tools (and the drop in computer prices matched by their increase in speed and power) would give animation the means to come to age as a bona fide art form, but unfortunately, it seems 3D “puppetry” has the upper hand so far, and “entertainment” is leading the way. Always a pleasure to talk to you Chris, though I’d rather do so in person! (My typing sucks!;-)

Jean -- a very provocative article, that had me agreeing and quarreling in equal terms. Most interesting, I think, is the concept buried in there, that animation has a priveledged position as a medium in which "subjective motion" can be made visible to others -- using the technology of the camera to, ironically, make an end-run around the mechanics of camera-based reproduction. Of course, I find it amusing you hold "Waking Life" in such low regard (you've implied that one practically has to be a spiritual nincompoop to "fall for it" -- a stance I'm obliged to object to). While only a small amount of the animation in "Waking Life" rises to this standard, the scene with Eamonn Healy, the futurist who believes that the mind will be the driving force behind humankind's evolution, seems to precisely capture this sense of "subjective motion" -- his gestures not reigned in by anatomy, musculature, etc, but rather riding on waves of thought and extra-corporeal "will." It seems a monologuist's analog to the wobble of your animated paintbox. I liked the bit about animating down to the atoms. I read an interview with one of the animators on Shrek (whose surfaces seemed profoundly ugly to my eye -- haven't seen the whole film), and he mentioned that, in animating the mouths for dialogue scenes, he had come to discover that, through looking at the evidence of cameras, when someone first begins to speak, their lips stick to their teeth for a fraction of a second - so the lips begin just slightly behind the words. This struck me as an observation that was scientifically interesting, but not artistically interesting at all. Of course -- we talked about this a little at Ottawa -- at the beginning of the enlightenment, scientific perception was non-habitual perception -- the source of much "poetic" insight (what could be more poetic than the notion that our planet is speeding through space, at vast speeds that we are completely insensible to) -- and the habitual mode of thinking was "magical" thought -- traveling along the worn grooves of inculcated religion. Scientific perfection is hardly "anti-human." And habitual thought practically defines the human mind. By the way, I've always loved Chuck Jones' technique of "smearing" the action when there is a burst of speed -- there, he left Muybridge behind and trusted the evidence of his own eyes.