To Lilian: The final installment, part 6, should be published any day now. Expect never seen before clips from some very remarkable people, some very well known, others not at all. Regards, Jean

To Erwin Lian. You say: “I re-read all your articles tonight, and was quite please to have done it. Honestly, I found myself closer to Art when I paint. I've never view animation as a form of art, and quite frankly see it as an entertainment...” Erwin, The main difference I see between “Art” and “entertainment” (I have even heard lately of “tittytainment“) is, for me, between exploring an unknown while totally available to the many hints it may give us, regardless of what that may do to the idea of a finished product, and being totally at the service of the finished product, continuously having to deny all that the unknown grants us, even being so "well trained" in this narrow minded approach as to not even noticing those hints, those “nibbles.” “Art” seems to me to be the almost inevitable by-product of work done without a defined goal, but with the total investment of one's full attention and caring. Animation, with all its heavy “plumbing” requirements, seems to have fallen for the “sure” thing, if only because of time and costs involved in the making of traditional “habitual” animation. Yet, with the tools we have today, which are much more affordable than before, we can fairly easily dare take risks and explore things without surrendering the scope of our discoveries to the demands of a preconceived end-product. Very little of this seems to be done today, and yet, I can’t see a way out of the habitual animation box unless we start exploring the process as if we had never seen it before. Let me quote Picasso again: “What saved me is that I became more interested in what I was finding than in what I was looking for.” You also say: “Few days ago, I was still questioning myself over influences of pop, imageries and the intoxication of concepts and ideas. I do not know what I am trying to say over here but I've been painting Spam for the past few weeks, and jokingly bullshitting with my friend that Pornography is Art-> something which I do not believe in, but felt its been the case!” I personally feel that porn falls in the same category as entertainment, they both are basically a denial of the worth of “the real as it presents itself to us” and attempt to compensate for the dullness of our awareness with a gross oversimplification of life. If more people paid he price that comes with the ability to see and respond to the magic in the ordinary (the universal in the particular), there would be a lot less need for entertainment, and porn. So, in that sense, if I can see eroticism as sometimes being a facet of Art, I think porn is yet another denial of it. You also say: “I was once a student of Yian Tien and have been forwarded to your articles from the beginning.” Tien is a great guy and a super teacher, I expect him to send me a clip of his most recent work to be included in my next and last article. You also say: “It was quite hard to digest your thoughts when it all began. Nonetheless, that urge opens up some avenues.” There’s a very serious problem with popular Western culture, it aims at reducing everything to tidbits, tidbits that would then fit within the kind of attention span most of us have been trained into by TV and the likes. Yet, life is wonderfully/frightfully complex, and the closer one gets to some level of truth, the more contradictory it all reveals itself to be. That complexity/ambiguity is very much what I see habitual animation not only avoiding, but even worse than that, trying to deny all together! Finally, you say: “I still going nowhere, but hey who ever said there's any way.” Erwin, to not know where one is heading is one thing, but to extrapolate from that “ignorance” the certainty that there is no way is a bit presumptuous. Trust your not-knowing, and if you don’t know where you are going (neither do I), also acknowledge that you don’t know whether there is a way, or not. That trust in our own not-knowing could be the biggest asset we all are born with, and yet, most of us are working very hard pretending they know, as if “not-knowing” were some kind of weakness, or even a disease! If knowledge is so important, does it not behoove us to discover and acknowledge where it is actually coming from?

Jean, Great respond. I re-read all your articles tonight, and was quite please to have done it. Honestly, I found myself closer to Art when I paint. I've never view animation as a form of art, and quite frankly see it as an entertainment... Few days ago, I was still questioning myself over influences of pop, imageries and the intoxication of concepts and ideas. I do not know what I am trying to say over here but I've been painting Spam for the past few weeks, and jokingly bullshitting with my friend that Pornography is Art-> something which I do not believe in, but felt its been the case! I was once a student of Yian Tien and have been forwarded to your articles from the beginning. It was quite hard to digest your thoughts when it all began. Nonetheless, that urge opens up some avenues. I still going nowhere, but hey who ever said there's any way. Erwin

To Pigalow Bradley, You said: “what is the difference between the techneek's you are talking about and just some sullen teen looking in the mirror until they dont recognise there own face ?” Your teen most likely stops there (probably in terror) even if that is barely where the beginning of real work is. “We project meaning into the experience while simultaneously deriving meaning from it,” so where do the senses end and the “intelligence” begin? For that matter, where does the world end and “I” begin? It seems to me as difficult to separate the senses from the mind as it is to separate the world from the self, the boundaries, if any, are very blurry, and get blurrier the more one looks for them. Also, I am not talking about “technique” at all here, you’ve been around schools too long, I am talking about what may happen if you pay attention to the workings of your mind “as is,” without any intentional interference (“to cater to the appearing as it appears” of Husserl, or “shikantaza” in Zen practise). Start drawing to the point when you loose all hope, and then carry on hopeless, but with full caring, “just” doodling. Only then, with "luck," may it become clear(er).

No I do not think inteligence is a sence . A sence deliver's information . Inteligence take's information apart . If you are navigating a dark room with your inteligence you are only navigating by bious and pregidus . And to explane the part you didnt understand . There are two inclanation's whitch bring one to a correr in the art's . Pushes one past doodling in a note book to a twenty hour day . One the inclanation to build up an identity and elivate that perseved identity above thow's around them . Two the inclanation to learn about life using the tool's art has to provide . Question what is the difference between the techneek's you are talking about and just some sullen teen looking in the mirror until they dont recognise there own face ? I will read your article again if I come to different conclusion's than I did in the first one I will post an apaology .

To Lloyd Raworth: First, I appreciate the change in tone, it is now a lot more conducive to having a civil conversation. Thank you. You say: “Correct me if I am wrong here, but your approach is that you are happy for a computer to do the "mechanical" part (in-betweening) between different frames (or separate paintings). My present understanding of animation though, is that it is in precisely these in-between frames that expressive possibilities exist. So how can you leave those to a computer in the light of what you have written about faith to experience? (I am not asking this to annoy you by the way, it's a genuine question).” I see this as a great question, and one that is front and centre of the work I do. As I work mostly with “Studio Artist” (a Mac-only amazing application designed by John Dalton, at www.synthetik.com, to me a paradigm shift in digital media and animation), the “in-betweening” is most often done by morphing on layers, and by using the process of Bézier selection and editing as if it were one of “painting in time.” Not only do I paint in time with the Bézier selecting and editing, but also, the morphing engine that is part of Studio Artist is based on an intelligent model of perception derived from cognitive science. Add to that that just about every single parameter in Studio Artist is highly customizable, and you have one super tool, a tool like I have never seen before. There is very little that is “:mechanical” in Studio Artist. It is a tool powerful and intriguing enough to have several of my friends, PC based artists, switch to the Mac, just to have access to it. With a bit of familiarity with Studio Artist (it is a real bitch to learn, very complex), one can actually sense what the “in-betweening” will be like, and still have those glorious fortuitous accidents take place, so vast are the variables at play, I do believe that artists have been deeply committed, for quite some time, to an ever increasing contact with fragmentation, with randomness, with something that cannot be “recuperated,” or/and turned into another merchandise. Working with a tool like Studio Artist can be a sure way of regularly pulling the rug from under one’s feet, and learn to practise more what Picasso preached, “to become more interested in what one finds than in what one was looking for.” The difference between “image 1” and “image 2,” especially if “image 2” is a variation of “image 1,” is already an animation of sort, the passage from one to the other is what I am working with, and if there is any intentional element at play in this, it is my hope to “unearth” that which is already present, though potentially, “in between” those two images. I am currently reading “Non-Photorealistic Computer Graphics,” a book that goes in depth into what is under the hood of the applications we so often use (Photoshop, Painter, Studio Artist, Expression, Illustrator, etc.). Even a single stroke, especially if on a virtual paper texture and simulating a wet medium is already something that calls greatly upon the computer in order to exist, and is doing so in ways far above what I can comprehend in programming terms. So the suspicion you harbour towards computer generated “in-betweening” could be addressed to even the simplest of computer aided operations. The fact is that, with a programme as intelligently put together as Studio Artist, two people, using the same tools (“presets” in Studio Artist) are bound to come up with different results, so in my view (and please remember I can no longer go back to natural media due health reasons), it is not what one uses that really matters, but what one does with it. Studio Artist is using the music synthesizer as its metaphor, and what it is doing to/as images is very similar to what synthesizers can do to/as music. I love it. You also said: “You can see some of my work at www.lrd.biz. Please feel free to trash it publicly if you feel so inclined – you won't be the first. (But you will be one of the few whose done it for free…) “ I took a quick look and did not see anything there to either “go against,” nor “for.” It seems to me, based on your words, not on your work, that your heart is elsewhere, and that is the part I would like to see. For what it is worth, I have received many private letters since starting this series of articles from people who were caught in “plumbing,” and who have seen yet another prodding, in my papers, to try to go back to something that matters more to them personally. The more of us that can and will do that, the better we all will be.

To Jean Thanks for your reply. I have read all your articles and as already stated found in them food for thought and little to disagree with (apologies about the confusion with the dates). Your position seems to be we should be aware of our ignorance. So far, so Socratic. As your tone can be confrontational, though, I’m simply responding in kind, thus my comment about your being unable to define art. If you accuse others of being "borderline fascists" you shouldn’d find this surprising. As a Frenchman I am sure you don't use words like that lightly. Coleridge once called poetry "the blossom on the tree of human knowledge". I was merely hoping to provoke you into making a similar kind of reply – I realise there is no 'theoretical' definition. In view of what you have written though, a suitably metaphorical and imaginative one shouldn't be too much to ask. As for me, I currently work as a graphic designer. Boredom with this has led me to animation which I'm presently teaching myself. It's hard work and, to be honest, I have found some of your remarks quite dispiriting, which is one of the reasons I responded. Unlike you, I see things to admire in some commercial animation. For me the possibilities it holds are to do with storytelling. You have called it a "mechanical" process. But it's no more so than drawing. Correct me if I am wrong here, but your approach is that you are happy for a computer to do the "mechanical" part (in-betweening) between different frames (or separate paintings). My present understanding of animation though, is that it is in precisely these in-between frames that expressive possibilities exist. So how can you leave those to a computer in the light of what you have written about faith to experience? (I am not asking this to annoy you by the way, it's a genuine question). You can see some of my work at www.lrd.biz. Please feel free to trash it publicly if you feel so inclined – you won't be the first. (But you will be one of the few whose done it for free…) Best regards, Lloyd Raworth

To Pigalow bradley: You say: “Ok! We understand what your saing. The universe gives out huge load's of information. Our senses do there thing .Stuff is polished stuff is tarnished and stuf is omitted . we never see the universe, we only see our swaying perception's of it . Got it. Dune. Fin.”” You’re kidding right? Surely, you place “intelligence” amongst our senses, don’t you? And if you do, don’t you see that “The universe” you are talking about is already constituted by perception? It is not “The universe in itself,” it is “The universe as it is constituted by my intentionality,” in other words, “The universe for me” or, if I really work on that, “The universe itself for me.” You are merely ontologizing again, which is another way of demonstrating how little you actually understand of what I am talking about. Mind you, that has to be my fault, I did not simplify my discourse enough so that you would be able to get it. You add: “Only mystery is why you think this is such a dam secret.” Obviously, it is a bigger secret than you “think.” And you go on: “I think I have some lite to shed on that one. In my experiance there are two reason's one come's to art. First to think there beter than other people and they whom persue both internal tool's and exterior tool's to see the world in a superior degree. Yes there are gradation's but I have found this to be usualy true. I believe you are part of the first group and simply dont understand how many people are in the second.” I am at times painfully reminded of the fact that English is not my native tongue, so I can personally relate to the serious problems you are having with that language as well. I sympathize. But still, try as I may, I don’t “get it,” what were you trying to say above? And you still go on: “This conclusion's raises two question's for me. One ,how can one observe the idea that there is a near infinite amount of information behind very perseption and not take away a sence of humility. Rather turn it into yet another tierd excuse to pontificate . Sad .” ? What else am I saying than “pay attention, look again?” I have quoted several times Giacometti’s “I could paint the same chair all my life.” Isn’t that humble enough for you? You conclude (sort of): “Second. If you are realy studing human perseption why do you ignore , yes I herd you phrase it "move away from" But I say ignore, the staple's of human perseption ? Hope this point of view help's you out.” It does, a lot actually. I owe it to you to realize once again (I had almost forgotten it) that those who know don’t need to be told, those who don’t can’t learn. Hopefully, there are the very few on the fringe who are ready for some sort of a leap, and were it not for those, I would not bother you with my writing. Why waste all that time? Why do you waste your time reading my stuff anyway, just “zap” it and move on to another programme, something on the “lite” side perhaps? And just as I asked to the previous person who commented on my article(s), do you have any pudding on line, can you show me some evidence of where your words are coming from?

To Lloyd Raworth. You said: “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.” Lloyd, I fail to see the irony in that as I do know for a fact that just about anyone I have met who has gone in depth into any subject shares the same awe in front of that very subject that has been investigated for so long. We share the same sense that “the more one knows, the less one understands.” (Or is it “the more one understands, the less one knows?”) That being said, if I can't really define what Art is, I can most definitely see what is not Art, and that includes a lot of the animation we can see today. You also said: “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. “ That article was published on February 28, 2002. Your comments were posted on July 23rd of the same year! I had not seen them, but had I done so, I am not sure I would have bothered responding anyway because of the time between publication and comments (things have a way of “moving on”), and the tone in which your comments were uttered. As for the contents of both those “lost” comments and the present ones, I find myself lacking the interest and drive it would take me in order to examine them one item at a time. I have far more interesting things to do with my life, in animation especially. To make a long story short, let’s say that you are swimming in waters that are all about what one does “with” one’s perceptions, sort of an “intentional path to some kind of art,” while I am all about what precedes that, what makes it possible, very much related to Heidegger’s “always-already-there.” To say that Fine Art “has become progressively less central culturally and socially but internally it has itself been ebbing away” is missing the point I am trying to make. I am not talking about the “Fine Art tradition” as exemplified by late 19th Century works, I am talking about a “tradition” that can be traced as far back as cave paintings, a “tradition” that is not in need of being transmitted verbally, it is indeed something we are all born with. It is the tradition of “catering to the appearing as it appears.” This “tradition” is much closer to a universal than the 19th Century Fine Art tradition(s) ever could be, though there are a few 19th Century painters and paintings that managed to connect with it, transcending the great limitations of that era and genre. Philip Guston called it “inherent composition,” and I borrowed from that great painter positing that it also can be seen at least potentially as/in “inherent animation.” I could also call that “Art,” in fact, I will. But considering that all you have seen of my writing in this “Notes from the Underground” series consists only of part #1 and #5, and that you did not seem to know that part #2, 3 and 4 had also been published since February 2002, I can’t expect you to “know” what I am talking about. Mind you, I am only too painfully aware of the fact that reading this stuff does not make one able to comprehend it, let alone “apply” it in/to one’s work, one's life. All I am saying in these articles both stems from and is leading to work, not mere theory. As I always try to put my work where my mouth is (there is lots of it all over the web, including here at AWN), I’d really love to see where your words are coming from, do you have any “pudding” available on line?

Ok! We understand what your saing. The universe gives out huge load's of information. Our senses do there thing .Stuff is polished stuff is tarnished and stuf is omitted . we never see the universe, we only see our swaying perception's of it . Got it. Dune. Fin. Only mystery is why you think this is such a dam secret. I think I have some lite to shed on that one. In my experiance there are two reason's one come's to art. First to think there beter than other people and they whom persue both internal tool's and exterior tool's to see the world in a superior degree. Yes there are gradation's but I have found this to be usualy true. I believe you are part of the first group and simply dont understand how many people are in the second. This conclusion's raises two question's for me. One ,how can one observe the idea that there is a near infinite amount of information behind very perseption and not take away a sence of humility. Rather turn it into yet another tierd excuse to pontificate . Sad . Second. If you are realy studing human perseption why do you ignore , yes I herd you phrase it "move away from" But I say ignore, the staple's of human perseption ? Hope this point of view help's you out.