To Chris Lanier You say: I'd say again, you have many good points, but have somewhat undermined yourself by painting with too broad a brush (not neccessarily fatal on a canvas, but in rhetoric, it's a kind of sin). Are you trying to out-Godard Godard? His brand of anti-Americanism is the sort that makes me ashamed to be an anti-American. Me: You should be ashamed of being ashamed of being an anti-American! This is tongue-in-cheek as well, but there is some truth to the expression that, replying to “My country, right or wrong” says: “My country, when right, kept right. When wrong, made right!” My approach is indeed broad, and this for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that I am not a writer. One very interesting thing worth noting: the comments made publicly her are less than half of all the comments I have received. Most of the supportive comments are from Europe, almost all the negative ones are from North America! I find that fascinating. You: while I'd agree that the big "culture industry" in America is a generally detrimental influence in world culture, America has also produced some of the most vibrant culture the world has seen. Me: I totally agree with you here, most of my heroes in painting are American, with the exception of my favorite artist being Alberto Giacometti. You: Your choice of "Amelie" as an exemplar of non-hollywood film-making has already been greeted with a certain amount of puzzlement (I haven't seen it yet, so I can't offer my own opinion, but it was widely criticized in the US as being too treacly and sentimental, afflicted with a need to be adored. Me: I ain't backing down on this one, something in that movie is moving me so very deeply, and not just sentimentally (though I was a sucker for “An American in Paris” and even “West Side Story” thought this latter one did not fare a well for me in time as the former did). Amélie seems tot talk to me in such a strange way, the first time I saw it was as if I had already seen it, but not in any cliché predictable way, more as if the mind of the director and mine were on a similar “plane.” As I said earlier, only “8 1/2” managed to do that to me in the world of movies so far. You: But it should also be pointed out that the reason it lost the Oscar for best foreign film (and does anyone thinks the Oscars get anything right more than 5% of the time anyway?), is because the Croatian film "No Man's Land" won -- again, I haven't seen this film yet (though I intend to), but its win over "Amelie" was a surprise, as it's considered a far less "audience-pleasing" film -- it's a black comedy that delves into the absurdity of the Balkan conflict, and by most accounts it's very tough-minded, sharp, and uncompromising -- that is to say, the opposite of what gets pegged as "Hollywood fare." Me: I am not sure I agree with this here, it seems to me that the darkness of “No Man’s Land” fits better in the American Weltanschauung then the light of Amélie. I have only seen excerpts from “No Man’s Land” so far so I can’t say much more about it either. You: That said, it's surprising how violently some people have reacted to what you've said Me: I was rather surprised too! Me: In parting, I'll say you also have to acquaint yourself with some Japanese animation (and here again, you come off somewhat high-handed, while at the same time you admit you know very little on the subject!). There, especially in the work of Studio Ghibli, I think you'll find plenty of narrative animation that's quite open to those touches of "poetry." Me: Given a chance, I sure will do that, outside of the Ottawa festivals, there is very little else I have access to in my area (could be a hell of a lot worse!).. You: There's more to say -- I think you're quite right that much animation follows the idea of a literary "story" to its detriment, giving up its more natural storytelling domain, that of the visual (the logic of the text as opposed to the logic of the eye). Me: Exactly! And you have a key to my “position” here, not being an animator (in the story-telling-character-animation sense) nor a film maker (in any sense), my approach to this is, above all, focused on the visual! Not to rub it in, but visually, most work of animation is pathetic! You: Anyway, looking forward to seeing you develop your argument -- hopefully with some better-chosen examples next time... Me: Next time should be very mellow and even boring, it will be all about drawing, without knowing! You: Thanks for taking the time to reply to so many comments, too -- AWN should pay you double for the articles they publish, since you usually end up writing just as much on the "comments" board. Me: Heather, do you copy that?

To Corey Bean You say: I say put you dukes up! Show us what you've got! Me: Corey, on my three web sites alone I’ve got in excess of 350 MB of material available for public viewing (there’s even more stuff than that, put not made available yet), clips and still images and more. On top of that, there’s what is available in the AWN Showcase, and on several other sites, including museums’. It’s perfectly all right to not like what I am showing, but don’t act as if I did not have anything to show! I always put my work where my mouth is, even if at times, I have to remove my foot first!

I used to complain a lot about the state of animation, music, movies, blah... Then one day my brother said something to me: "Instead of complaining, why don't you just create something better?" He's got a point. I say put you dukes up! Show us what you've got! There's way too much whining going on and not enough animating. And on that note: I don't think painters should speak so loud on animation; indeed it's all the "outsiders" (say the moneymen...) who are causing a lot of animations current problems. I also think that using a non-animated film as your main example is a little off base. And-! Go to France, turn on the television, and tell me what kind of cartoons you see... well? All I can say is I'm tired of everyone trying to talk hardcore. Put up a animated film that moves me and then talk. I'm not defending the sad state of animation (and not just in America...) I'm just saying that I'd rather watch good films than complain (or listen to someone complain) about bad ones.

To Bernardo Santos You say: I don’t think narrativeness (not sure if the word exists) is the key problem, rather the lack of creator->public relationship that exists in most artistic expression, but in commercial animation seems to have taken the day off. I mean, in art (maybe I conceive it wrongly) the point is for the artist to transmit something of himself onto the rest of the world. Me: Bernardo, these are important points, and you seem to hint at something that struck me in “Amélie” (the original French version): the relationship between the creator and its audience is a key here, and that movie has, in my opinion, opened totally new doors. I almost agree with your saying that the artist is trying to “transmit something of himself onto the rest of the world,” but I differ in this respect: it is not so much a matter of transmission as it is one of uncovering. Having been around art schools for far too long, I can see that placing the emphasis on “expression” often results in having people say loudly very hollow things. “Art is what makes me see” is a bit closer to what it is, for me, all about. And, if indeed there is something universal in the particular, when “I” see, “we” all do too! In that sense, most commercial animation is like a parasite, it isn’t about uncovering anything in the particular, sharing it with the rest of us, it is apparently mostly interested in rehashing the same old things in order to once again make a box office hit. Taking, not contributing. You: Even minimal art aims at expression, the artist always aims at showing something to somebody although there might not be a lot of those “somebody”’s out there. Me: The “somebody” that matters the most in the act of creation is the doer, and the observer in him/her. If what one does really connects with oneself, it is bound to also connect with (some) others. As T.S Eliot would say, “the rest isn’t our business.” You: In animation, he (the artist) may choose to do so visually or narratively, normally both. Pierre Hebert has both non-linear/abstract/visual films, but he also has narrative films, although in some respects the visual complexity of his first films has something to do with the narrative density (structure-wise) of his first narrative films. The fact is that interesting films are being made in an environment (auteur animation) that seems to be limiting itself more and more. What you suggest by criticizing narrative/story-telling seems to limit it further. Me: Good points, and Pierre Hébert’s works are definitely amongst the few I would have liked to use to illustrate my articles with (unfortunately it is not possible). Some of Pierre’s recent work can also be seen as one that is above all like a “ritual,” during which he acts like a “high priest” surrounded by the faithful. The “performance” angle seems very important in it. (I remember he was in Portugal fairly recently, did you see his lectures there?) My criticism of narrative animation is, as I realized in an earlier reply, much more one that criticizes a terrible lack of poetry, and a sickly reliance on linear form, than it was/is a critique of narrative animation per se. You: I think what we all should be thinking about is how to acknowledge this situation (lack of public for animation shorts) and try to revert it. Maybe using the means big studios have for feeding the crap to the world but then feeding them more “challenging” films (on a principal, I don’t like to use “good” or “bad”), maybe infiltrating distribution channels, who knows? Me: This sounds very similar to ideas some of my friends had when we were rewriting the world in May ‘68. Most of those who “infiltrated the system to change it from within” were assimilated. I feel it is a lot better to focus on one’s work, every time one of us connects wit his/her little music, we all gain a great deal. You: Concluding, I feel reluctant in calling animation an art form, although I perceive a lot of animated films as art. Maybe because all moving image started only a while ago and creating new art forms along with the ones that have existed for so long(painting, sculpting, theatre, etc) strikes me as odd. Me: My take on that is very different: animation, like any other form of art, comes from the one mind, ours. I find that what “works” is much more a result of the attitude the work was made under than as a result of one particular technique or art ‘form.” That being said, so much work in animation today belongs to the realm of “plumbing” (no offense meant to plumbers). not to the one of art. The whole point of undergoing a creative journey as one of “self discovery” (what ‘self” is a question though) is missing, the point of taking risks for the sake of an even slight progress in the unfolding of what “we” are is almost totally absent. You: But yes, I do like telling stories, is there anything wrong with me? Me: No one has the right to answer that question for you, no one! That being said, I really and honestly doubt there’s anything wrong with you. But don’t take my word for it, find out for yourself, by doing animation.

First let me say that after my last posting and having noe of what I felt were my key point's adressed I had resolved not to post again just write you off as a pomus french "man" the natural resalt of a gean pool based in legal prostitution but reading The poasting where you copaired this Jew to a Nazi? No mater how distant you mean the comparison, it was not rite, period. But wile my bile is still up let me get a couple of thing's off my chest. we all respond to this guy as an equal a felo animater, that is a mistake he has no exeriance as an animater he is a Gallery worker and a painting Teacher. He talk's about a muny driven holly wood when he was all to happy to take 60% 70% of the profet's away from some starving painter's sail. For what ? at hull for one nite, maby a baroed tux , free shrimp for a nite? And a Teacher, dont get me rong some of the best of us are teacher's But a teacher never has to put up with recruter's tell you that you did fit into a corporate culture , never had an agent put you on hold for an hower , never had a to have the old lady giving out free sample's dead eye you caws you had been by ten time's that day. He for all I know hasent dune a single walk cycle . Yet still feal's empowered to tell all of us that we should reject any job we feal douse not live up to ower intelectual standard's ? as if they will not simply just give the job to some one elce, so what douse he think is the ancer ? should we organise to the point where the animation comunity can grind the movie industry to a hult at a wim. to turn the entier animation industry into the over beurocrasied economic Icon that is the french economy , oh that's rite france is a second world country ! In the end a super union would fail to further the artistic eather for the same reson that govern ment baised funding would fail that reason being prick's like you would be at the helm this time not just backed up bye a cheesy artical but a budget and burocracy . Ps. Shut up about Amile, the stuck up Art history major I was dating at the time it came out her self called it " pretinsious eye candy " if you want a much better movie with a good back ground by far superior charictor development and a much less perdictable ending I personaly sujest Friday. and further more I believe that Fite club was the most powerfull and most intricate charictor study in a couple of of generation's this being said I do not see the point of french cultere any more maby it should be dismantled and chanaled in to more pruductive activitie's .

To James Boty: You say: "The piece seems to undermine itself a little by holding up Amélie as being a artful, good example of great french cinema, its just isn't , its not bad entertainment, but its no why an 'art' film. I don't think it is intended to be either." Me: James, earlier, some people called me “elitist,” and now you are (almost;-) calling me a “low brow.” I stand by my remarks about “Amélie,” this is a movie that has moved me very deeply, and not “just” sentimentally (in any case, what would be wrong with that?) No, the aspect of Amélie that hit me the most is its form, yes, its form. I have to date seen two movies that have had that kind of impact on me as an “artist,” one is Fellini’s "8 1/2," the other is Amélie. There is in this Jeunet film something totally new for me, a way of relating to the audience on many simultaneous levels, like nothing I have ever seen before (it is still too potent for me right now to try to articulate it in public, I want to integrate that through my work first). Amélie is to me a great example of what it is like to find one’s own voice, one’s little music, and next to that kind of honesty and “rightness of tone,” who needs “art?” I only wish I could connect with my own little music with as much success as Jeunet has in this piece before I die. You: PS painting is 6000 years plus old, animation is say 200 years (or so) old, its got a long way to go yet. If you look at how painting has developed over that period, it hasn't come so far, so quickly. Me: Good point, but if I had a deep conviction that the problem with animation (as I see it) had to do with its relatively young age, I doubt I would have come down as hard on it as I have in my article(s). (After all, to translate from a French song: “To treat a baby as an adult is a sure way of killing it.”) No, what I take issue with is the lack of “rightness of tone” and “honest little music” I see in most animation I have seen in the past few years. Mind you, and this is so very important in the context of these articles, I have seen works that really moved me, works that have made it very clear to me that animation is a major art form. (Too bad one can’t have access to clips from those pieces I have liked to illustrate my words.) And as far as painting is concerned, it has been fairly obvious to me that the things that “work” are “things” one sees already in cave paintings, and in moments of our history all the way till now. I see a huge underground link between humans that runs across time, and when this link is intuited, it makes time almost irrelevant. I see traces of that in, for example, Mary Ellen Bute's work.

While I agree with you in many respects, there are a few points in which I differ, and for the sake of constructive arguing, I'll try to make them clear (forgive me if I don't). I'm 18 and study in a course that not being dedicated to animation is related to the moving image side of things as a whole. The animation classes were oriented by Abi Feijó ("os salteadores", "clandestino") and although i am presently undertaking those classes i have been animating (mostly stop-motion) for two years. Knowing Abi from his studio and a few workshops he oriented i got a chance to know a few "auteur" films, mostly eastern European or NFB productions. That broadened my scope which was somewhat limited to aardman films, and not even the best ones. You seem to point out the last 20/25 years of animation as relatively stale, content and visually-wise. Yes, McLaren is dead, but a lot of people were inspired by him and found their own expression. Ryan Larkin, Caroline Leaf, Pierre Hebert are of an older generation than mine but all have created interesting films that leave a lot for the audience to figure out, moving away from entertainment as you rightly (I think) criticize it. However, not only from Canada, and not only from older people, we have seen a great deal non-in-your-face/brain films. Being Portuguese, I am especially proud of Abi’s work and even more of the effort Regina Pessoa made in her film, “A Noite”. All of them are narrative, but I don’t think that fact diminishes them in any way. While “monk and the fish” is a narrative film, I believe that Michael Dudok left a lot for the audience to figure out. Also Stan Brachages’ non-linear/narrative films are recent. I don’t think narrativeness (not sure if the word exists) is the key problem, rather the lack of creator->public relationship that exists in most artistic expression, but in commercial animation seems to have taken the day off. I mean, in art (maybe I conceive it wrongly) the point is for the artist to transmit something of himself onto the rest of the world. Even minimal art aims at expression, the artist always aims at showing something to somebody although there might not be a lot of those “somebody”’s out there. In animation, he (the artist) may choose to do so visually or narratively, normally both. Pierre Hebert has both non-linear/abstract/visual films, but he also has narrative films, although in some respects the visual complexity of his first films has something to do with the narrative density (structure-wise) of his first narrative films. The fact is that interesting films are being made in an environment (auteur animation) that seems to be limiting itself more and more. What you suggest by criticizing narrative/story-telling seems to limit it further. I think what we all should be thinking about is how to acknowledge this situation (lack of public for animation shorts) and try to revert it. Maybe using the means big studios have for feeding the crap to the world but then feeding them more “challenging” films (on a principal, I don’t like to use “good” or “bad”), maybe infiltrating distribution channels, who knows? I mean this sounds so basic that someone has certainly thought of it/tried it before. In any case I think being coherent and making good films is an obvious step. Getting onto the mainstream (not selling out but giving people better stuff) is starting to get easier, the fad with animated music videos continues. Phil Robinson wrote about Film Teknarka a while ago, I think they are a good example. Concluding, I feel reluctant in calling animation an art form, although I perceive a lot of animated films as art. Maybe because all moving image started only a while ago and creating new art forms along with the ones that have existed for so long(painting, sculpting, theatre, etc) strikes me as odd. And, coming back to the narrative/non-linear issue I would like to say that I work in stop-motion, normally puppets and it is somewhat difficult to avoid story-telling in this technique. Yes Svankmajer and the Brothers Quay (for example) work three-dimensionally and have made non-linear films, but I think you know what I’m trying to say. This doesn’t mean that I don’t try to get as much of what I feel and like across, both on a plastic level and on the way the story is told. But yes, I do like telling stories, is there anything wrong with me?

The piece seems to undermine itself a little by holding up Amélie as being a artful, good example of great french cinema, its just isn't , its not bad entertainment, but its no way an 'art' film. i don't think it is intended to be either. PS painting is 6000 years plus old, animation is say 200 years (or so) old, its got a long way to go yet. If you look at how painting has developed over that period, it hasn't come so far, so quickly. Anyway good piece.

To Danielle H: You say: ...Detheux seems to be laying the blame entirely on artists... Me: Danielle, I am not sure I meant to lay the blame entirely on artists, but I sure am convinced they are hugely responsible for accepting to do what "they" (many) are doing. Let me take a very extreme example: Nuremberg seemed bent on judging mostly the leaders of that Nazi monstrosity, but, to quote a favorite old line “What if there was a war, and nobody came?” The number of “leaders” is infinitesimal when compared to the number of ants that do their dirty work, “following orders.” “What if there was yet another big dumbing-down production and no animator came?” You: 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. Me: I’m with you here too, this brings back a bit that notion of ”communal responsibility” that we have, each and every one of us, pointing to the possibility (the fact?) that every thing we do impacts on everything and every one else. As for “the executives or the government,” it seems to me that most managers have found it a lot easier to deal with the short term, the “small picture,” thus are not very interested in the broad issues we are talking about here. I find it strange (to say the least) that so many people have to devote more energy on finding the means to do their work, then on the work itself! What a waste to time, talent, and energy! (We all loose in this.) I have mailed several letters to major animation studios managers, suggesting they fund an experimental program that would give out grants to independent animators to support “research” that has no obvious immediate commercial application. (This is very similar to struggling against the tendency in scientific research that sees applied science privileged over “pure” research, ultimately assuring that applied science will eventually run out of ideas). The idea was/is based on providing support for the minimal needs of individuals working with minimal means, not on anything resembling a “production” (hence “minimal”). This would require almost insignificant money, especially by large studios’ standards. My letters have all remained unanswered, not even having been acknowledged! I am personally thrilled to see the coming changes new technologies bring to small time animators/artists. We now are very close to being able to do it all by ourselves and this, at relatively small costs. Both the web and things like Final Cut Pro, FireWire, DV and relatively cheap DVD burners are helping more and more people bypass the control on what’s available exercised by the “big guys.” We may be on the threshold of some major changes, bringing the making of animation closer to what painting has been for a very long time (*relatively* easy to afford even on minimal income).

To John Penner: John, I think you bring up something important, something that I overlooked a bit in my article: marketing or, as you say, MARKETING. Indeed, we often are not choosing from what is, we are choosing from only that which we are allowed to see/present. And most of the time, our gaze is also being directed, conditioned. :Spice Girls” as “Pop Tarts” is very nice, I will try that one on my teenage daughter (from a safe distance;-). When you say: “The problem is how to keep the individual 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,” I feel that you are giving too little value to what constitutes our personal interest. What I mean is that there may be (I believe there is) something universal in our particular interest, in our particular experience. If that is so, it is only the quality of the form of the work done in (pseudo) isolation that will determine its worth on a more universal/societal scale, not whether or not it was done in isolation (in a real sense,we are a lot closer to one another than we may often realize). In any case, how could genuine isolation be possible nowadays?