Notes from the Underground Part Two — Highjacking Animation (And Taking It Back!)
So, what could animation contribute to this debate in a way that would raise the current standards? If all that we see in Art is a form of entertainment that provides a respite from the harshness of life, we will increasingly demand more and more of the same (the "Prozac" in Part #1). If, on the other hand, we see that Art is not a respite from "the real," but a privileged way of deepening our experiencing and understanding of it, we will want to lower the level of "entertainment noise" we are constantly being bombarded with, something akin to saying, "Shut up please, I can't hear myself think!"
Cézanne's "Art is a religion, its aim is the elevation of thought" comes to mind again.
Reflecting on the kind of art and music I live with, I was almost at a loss trying to find in animation something that belonged to the same "sphere." Most of the animation choices I have seen do belong to a world I feel very little connection with. Going to animation festivals and looking at most of the offerings, I often wonder what "they" are doing in "my" world.
Where's the equivalent of chamber music in today's animation?
Where are the likes of Rembrandt, Vermeer, Chardin, Cézanne, Giacometti, Pollock, de Kooning, Guston, Riopelle? (Or, as in cinéma, the likes of Fellini and Kieszlowski?)
In fact, what happened after McLaren and Mary Ellen Bute left us?
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?"
How is it that this overwhelming invasion of the animation space by the permanently juvenile "escapists" was allowed to take place?
I wonder if the shift that took place happened when "animation as a genuine Art form" was progressively absorbed and assimilated by this relatively new monster, the "culture industry?"
Animation seems to be a privileged medium by which viewers are easily touched; there seem to be very few barriers between an animation and its audience. Most people are sucked in as soon as "it" starts moving, and this is so much the case, it seems to me that a story need not necessarily be told, the experience of seeing form unfolding in time already provides a structure, a "content." (Just as Maurice Merleau-Ponty said that "perception is constitutive," one could suggest that the perception of an animation, even story-less, constitutes a content by the sheer fact of it being seen.) As soon as "it" moves, and especially if it moves "with" sound, the magic is established, the bewitching has begun!
Who needs a story "on top" of that?
The magic of form unfolding in time makes most stories unnecessary, at least redundant.
Why kill that magic by once again reducing everything to a level at which we (think we) understand?
Can't we function efficiently within "unresolved and equivocal space?"
One aspect of animation that is almost totally ignored today even though it is most likely very close to being at its core, is its "form." Beyond, or rather "beneath" what one can do with animation, is that which animation does, what it is before we "use" it.
Printer-friendly version
Post new comment