To Chris: You say: "The NFB problems have less to do with budget cuts then with a thorough lack of creative vision. Certainly the overall decline of state funding along with the opening up of an animation marketplace has changed the way the NFB has to do things...but let's not blame all of it on globalization because that's just wrong. Me: Chris, you know much more about the NFB than I do, so I believe you. But here's a quote from an email I recently received from the NFB after I enquired as to why an article of mine they were to publish in March was not yet posted: "The NFB Animation web site, and the site itself will no longer be under the management of the Animation studios. Instead, management of the NFB Animation site will fall to a newly-created Internet team, under the auspices of NFB Corporate Communications and Outreach." Chris, "NFB Corporate Communications and Outreach" sounds awfully like "Globalization speak" don't you think?

I find there are many valid points in this article. I heartily agree that animation need not be dumbed down. However, Detheux seems to be laying the blame entirely on artists. It often seems that artists are interested in pushing the envelope and creating fantastic new works of art. It is the people who fund the projects and give the air time that demand a cookie cutter product. Until American pop culture wakes up and realizes the error of its ways, or it dies all together, you will not find executives willing to finance projects with substantial artistic value. Thought it would be lovely if this apparent hole in funding was filled by the government, it seems entirely unlikely that the current administration will allow for funding of cutting edge projects. Yes, the artists should continue to enter their works in festivals and try to promote visibility for the true Art films. That responsibility is certainly theirs. It seems that the either the executives or the government needs to consider taking responsibility for funding projects that do not merely entertain, but enrich lives and bring the art form to a new level.

Before it gets too far out of whack, the NFB problems have less to do with budget cuts then with a thorough lack of creative vision. The problem has been with the people put in charge...and I'd say that in the early 1980s when a bureaucrat rather than an artist was put in charge of the English studio...you could really see the quality of SOME the work begin to go down hill. Certainly the overall decline of state funding along with the opening up of an animation marketplace has changed the way the NFB has to do things...but let's not blame all of it on globalization because that's just wrong.

For most of your article, i have to agree - there is a general trend towards 'Conglomorated Mediocrity' in much of Culture, where the McWorld wins out over independent culturally significant contexts. in this regard, in many instances, there is overwhelming inertia to accept the dominant cultural context. Many people say that there is choice to choose McWorld or Indie Artist - but this would only be true if things were picked from an offering of equal representation - as it is now, they are not - things are not picked out of their popularity, they are completely skewed by millions and millions of dollars poured into MARKETING to skew that level playing field, so popular vote is completely biased, and things of real value (which often are recognised through word-of-mouth and PEER-REVIEW) are often passed-over and marginalised. For example, 'spice girls' (pop tarts?) are not good musicians (how would they fare in a PEER-REVIEW by other practicing musicians?) - they are simply well marketed. i think your point that the view of 'culture as a commodity' is detrimental to the imbuing of MEANING within art is a valid one. so the question arises - how does one allow the worth of individual initiative to thrive when confronted with the need to produce for the public (not the individual) good!? The problem is how to keep the inidividual artistic initiative from becoming wrapped-up in their own little world without being relevant to the public that they serve with the production of their art. this is largely addressed through Social Threefolding - some useful, well thought-through and insightful solutions for the interaction between ART and COMMERCE are outline in that link - check it out. :-) Re: 'you are what you eat' It would be better to say: 'You Are What You THINK'. Best regards from Toronto, john penner - Storm's Journal

To Ryan Grobins: You say: "Animation is all about escape. It is a medium that allows us to travel to places that are not real, that are only limited by our imagination." Me: One must have a firm belief in an “objective reality” to subscribe to your views, positing that “imagination is not real.” I love the attitude of Munchausen, his “refusal to believe that imagination can't be reality” (to quote a dear friend) is really what I consider essential to “make art,” and to enjoy art as well. There is a very very very thin line between creativity, “madness,” and the fallacy of misplaced concreteness (this referring to what most people believe the real to be). You: "Such a statement revels how little you know about animation, and where it has gone already. For some reason unknown, you have forgotten to mention the largest animation viewing nation in the world: Japan. The Japanese have been exploring animation far more in depth than any other group of people for a while now. The sheer amount of diversity that can be found (and not just in the small trickle that makes it to the Western shores) is quite startling. Do some in-depth research there before you misguidedly throw around comments like yours, and you will see that there are no confines." Me: I claim ignorance as far as Japanese animation is concerned. What I have seen of it so far has shown it to be pathetically idiotic and manipulative, sort of a gross caricature of what’s already bad in the West. I’d love to see something better, I do have strong ties with some aspects of the Japanese culture, but those antedate the advent of animation. (That makes me believe that you are likely right, such great culture must have produced better animation than the samples I have seen so far.) You: That the exploration of the animation medium is astounding. Me: I wholeheartedly agree with you.

To Pigalow Bradle: Pigalow, I agree with you, the means of distribution are changing fast (though I prefer to think of that as “ways of sharing work”). Much change is sure to come from that in the very near future (I am personally on the verge of being able to burn my own DVDs, something I would not have been able to even dream about a few short years ago). Issues of income, family, housing, and means to live and work are not futile, I agree. But so many people “have” all that and “are” nothing. “Are” nothing in the sense that they are not “actualizing their potential” (as I once saw it written) or, to use my words, they are not exploring their own unknown. I personally can’t think of a more important and meaningful thing to do. Why do you equate “non-narrative animation” with “cheap tricks?” I know of a few non-narrative pieces that support being viewed over and over because, and this is important, they are not pre-digested food. They leave a great deal of their appearance to be developed/invented by the viewer (“invented” as in Piaget’s “To understand is to invent”). So much of habitual narrative animation is carried only by a linear story, it often has very little to offer visually, leaving nothing to the viewer's imgination. It’s not so much the narrative I am having problems with, it is the shallow narrative and the lack of poetry and ambiguity that bugs me. You say: “Have you sean waking life yet ? No atack I just want to know your impresion's” Funny you ask. Many people I know are convinced it was made with my very favorite piece of software, “Studio Artist” (from www.synthetik.com). I have serious problems with rotoscoping: I believe Art is all about transposition, and I find rotoscoping lacking almost totally in transposition, completely (or almost completely) relying on the literal. So, in that sense, Waking Life did not work for me, in that sense it is almost form-less. But, I now surrender!. ;-)

To Simon Woods: Simon, even Canada, through frantic budget cuts, seems to be on the verge of seeing its National Film Board reduced to a shadow of what it was (I think that may already be the case today actually). It’s so ironic that a state like Canada would spend millions on flags and propaganda, and yet starve one of its most prestigious institutions, an institution that brought the country a great deal of note, far beyond what flags and propaganda ever could. This is another indication of the undermining effect of the commerce agenda, cultural “things” are either mere goods, and/or good for the establishment’s self-glorification, or as some form of “vacation from the harshness of life” with which to keep “the masses” quiet/asleep. As long as cultural “things” are not critical, subversive, and/or, god forbid, meaningful, they will be supported/tolerated. Ever noticed how in history the dictators always have shown impeccable taste for the arts, but in reverse? (They intuitively knew/know which ones to forbid/repress. Invariably, those were/are the better ones.)

Having read the article through several times now and also the comments above I’d like to add my thoughts. I live in the U.K. where the TV is national and funded by licence regulated by government. We are informed that the service is the best in the world – but they would say that! Anyhow, at least if you stay up late enough you will sometimes see "cutting edge" animation, some of the best of which to my understanding comes from Canada! We also see UK offerings from each year’s latest animation graduates – often a bit too much like moving Lowry paintings with added flicker for my taste. Quirky narrative often, but beyond that disappointing, once you get educated above ‘bog standard.’ My training was in Fine Art, so I am familiar with Jean’s arguments – (so well put across too) – it’s a shame that since college I have been isolated from them. One night a couple of years back they showed work by Mary Ellen Bute, wow! I thought, because you just don’t see that kind of thing often enough, I forgot her name and had to ask around message boards to find out if anyone could help. I thought surely someone on a US art board will know her work – no such luck, it was only through this site that I finally found her again – thanks! Well at least its still out there . . . I saw Shreck recently, it was Okay in that it does what would have taken years to do using traditional methods, but beyond that I felt that I could have done with a better story. Having grown up in the 70’s it wasn’t until I went to college aged 30 that I found out about what art really could / can be. A couple of years ago we had a Cezzane exhibition in London, it was well supported on TV and was a sell out, does this contradict the idea that you need art history to appreciate elitist art and so forth? Well, later we had the sensations exhibition which was also well presented on TV and was also a sell out! Well – the power of telly eh? I also took a course in art history as it happens – on what is called "the Open University" set up by a left wing government – I received financial aid to cover the costs as I was then unemployed. Well politics crops up in discussions, I think Jean was careful to avoid a ‘commie rant’ (my little joke folks – no need to look for that in the text!) At college I was conscious of not developing too far as an individual so that no one understands who I am and where I’m coming from. I opted to go down paths where this would be avoided, I couldn’t see that it would be right to use my loan (we no longer have full state funding here) to do something Just for myself. Now that I’m out of college a few years I do feel that I need to develop work further, for myself, after all – its not My fault your all so dumb! By the way, I have been using a board where people chat about music – when the subject of favourite films came up the taste of mid 30’s chatter’s was often leaning towards films made 40+ years ago. I think this all shows that our generation has had to clamber out of such a pit of Hollywood Mc’garbage – that it takes most of us half our lives to manage to even get a foot on the first rung of a ladder that could have been ascended so much sooner with better funding and education, after all, are we here for the money, or to learn to live and breathe the good clean air?

Author: '"How did the world of animation get invaded by (and succumb to) this domination by the story tellers, especially the invasion of the "one-dimensional-linear-supersimplistic-story tellers?"' Me: The fact is, it never was invaded. It began as another method of telling stories by such people as Winsor McCay (who is considered as the father of animation). On top of that, the earliest animations were founded on "one-dimensional-linear-supersimplistic-story tellers?" To quote Dick Huemer in 1957: "Plots? We never bothered with plots. They were just a series of gags strung together. And not very funny, I'm afraid." Author: 'How is it that this overwhelming invasion of the animation space by the permanently juvenile "escapists" was allowed to take place?' Me: Animation is all about escape. It is a medium that allows us to travel to places that are not real, that are only limited by our imagination. Author: 'Today animation seems to be stuck within the confines of the already known, and to get out of that box, to break down those walls we talked about in Part #1, we need to be able to work without relying on the already known, without necessarily securing our work in the safety of, for example, a story, also freeing ourselves of all that we take for granted about the appearance of the visible world, finally reaching beyond the limitations of "beginning, middle and end" (this applies to not only stories, it applies as well to images).' Me: Such a statement revels how little you know about animation, and where it has gone already. For some reason unknown, you have forgotten to mention the largest animation viewing nation in the world: Japan. The Japanese have been exploring animation far more in depth than any other group of people for a while now. The sheer amount of diversity that can be found (and not just in the small trickle that makes it to the Western shores) is quite startling. Do some indepth research there before you misguidedly throw around comments like yours, and you will see that there are no confines. That the exploration of the animation medium is astounding.

Rather than reply to this cynical and antihuman article point-by-point I merely wish to say that I am greatly saddened to see a creative soul obviously endowed with so much intelligence sink to such high-blown guttersniping and cynicism against a culture to which he does not belong or identify with. Particularly depressing are the assertions that the corporate culture of America has absolute power to trump so many minds in so many ways; this is not valid cultural critique as I understand it; it comes off more as overblown generalization and unfair stereotypy. My reply comes from one of our debased, culturally bankrupt B-films, one that I'm sure the author would not stoop to consider in any canon (save as an exemplar of cinematic corruption): "If only he had used his powers for good instead of evil" I question whether or not the author is actually an artist, as claimed; no one that mean-spirited towards ANY public ought to be granted the honor.