To Chris Robinson: You say: “The question of seeking quality of life is of a course a worthy task, but again, what you call shit, might be gold to the person next to you. You seem pretty intolerant towards those who do think that Shrek is quality (for example).” Me: Fair enough, but as I find my space (whatever that is) more and more invaded by Shrek/South Park, I see very little room left for the search for Quality as I see/need it. Even to simply mention the fact that there is such a thing as a search for Quality is often now enough to be branded an elitist. As a teacher, I have seen, time and again, students coming in with a “Shrek baggage:” who very quickly open up to their need to search for (their) Quality the minute the environment is supportive of such a journey. I honestly believe that we not only can differentiate between “Shrek” and Quality without “special education” (it is an inherent ability), we actually need to do so (it is an inherent drive). You: “Secondly...I noticed a not so subtle punch at the Ottawa festival...about narrative films...but I might add that just this year we introduced a non-narrative category.” Me: And that is great news, really. I’ve attended a bunch of your festivals and was beginning to wonder when (and if) that would ever happen (and yet, I owe Ottawa the chance to have seen Mary Ellen Bute’s work, something that actually confirmed my own direction in animation; I finally found my "kin" in animation). In fact, I believe that if we were to explore more non-narrative animation, we may find in there ways to really renew narrative work, just as (so-called) “abstract art” has been a way by which we changed our way of seeing “figurative” images. You: “The rest...well...hey..I respectfully disagree.... “ Me: I can live with that, and appreciate your saying so.

Just two points: The question of seeking quality of life is of a course a worthy task, but again, what you call shit, might be gold to the person next to you. You seem pretty intolerant towards those who do think that Shrek is quality (for example). Secondly...I noticed a not so subtle punch at the Ottawa festival...about narrative films...but I might add that just this year we introduced a non-narrative category. The rest...well...hey..I respectfully disagree....

To Elias Dancey: You say: “How daring or impossible is it to "create" when given money outside the free market and have, going into it, no expectation of people liking it or not. It need not succede. In fact, the article seems to say that the more people who like it, the more dumb it must be.” Me: Not quite, I defended “Amélie” and it was/is a huge success. However, because it does not cater to the usual proven commercial agenda, it would never have had a chance to be made had it not been for the peculiar French funding system. That system is under direct attack by the US-led juggernaut, and that is what I am taking issue at. Funding in the world defined but this religion of “free market” relies almost exclusively on what has worked, precluding any serious support for what is yet to be made, or proven by being made. The experimental aspect of art work (in terms of “pure science versus applied science”) is now almost totally killed, except in places where either wisdom, vision, or old habits have made that experimental approach still part of the landscape. You: “It would be much more daring and much more like ART in my eyes to sacrifice your own time and invest your own money, or find actual people who are willing to invest their own money on such unaccepted or undesired forms of art. Why must the masses pay for art pre-defined as something the masses DON'T want.” Me: This is another load of “crap.” Obviously today, the taste of the masses isn’t their inherent taste, it is the one that is instilled and nurtured by the mass media and the organized campaigns orchestrated to “keep them in their place” (the good old “bread and games”). The masses are made of "you," and "me." (Actually, on second thought...?) You: “You want something "different", then create it.” Me: Man, you better believe I am doing just that, and doing it without much money to boot, nor any attempt to find any. But the search for meaning -or being- is far more important to me than the search for having. You: “The diversity in private and corporate and indie and freelance and artsy films is up to the creators. Asking for public funding kills the whole purpose of art,” Me: More “crap.” It is/was possible for an “independent painter” to paint without much public (or corporate) support (cost of materials is a lot less than for film), but it is still likely impossible for a truly independent film maker (unless he is independently wealthy) to find the means to do his/her work without doing a song and a dance which have very little to do with the work itself. I said “still likely impossible” because, with the advent of, for example Apple’s G4 and Final Cut Pro, this is likely to change, and to change quickly. I know so many animators who had to mortgage their life (and/or flip burgers) just to find some of the money needed to do their “real” work, only to come up with a 6 minutes marvel that nobody gives a hoot about, and still be full of debts. Yet that type of work is the much needed opening away from Disney and the likes... You: “Corporations MAKE money, and put it into something that they like, want and that they are hoping will make more money for them....So it requires money then too, huh? Well, no one OWES the arts money forced out of them through taxes.” Me: Corporations are today’s “Royal Houses,” and they most certainly do not often support art that is not glorifying them (unlike “enlightened patrons”). Yet, without a deep and vibrant criticism, corporations, like Royal Houses and countries, will die and collapse under their own bloat. The amount of money large animation studios could invest in supporting truly experimental work is almost insignificant to them, yet it could be the lifeline for some poor sucker still trying to follow another piper. And in return, it could provide those studios with possibilities they are too big to uncover themselves. You: “Taxes are for the NECISSARY.” Me: Elias, if Art is not part and parcel of what is truly NECESSARY, what is? And if you really believe that Art is futile, the icing on the cake, the fat that we can really do without, what the hell are you in animation for? Or is this an implicit acceptance that animation, as you practise it, is not Art? By the way, I totally agree with J.K. Galbraith, “taxes are the price of civilization.” You: “Business and art are two different things, pal.” Me: Thank god (or whatever)! You: “Private sacrifice, investment and risk, or asking for some government cheese under the condition of "if no one likes it, thats because its art" expectation. Thats intellectually dishonest because then the funded art can NEVER be proven unworthy.... no one likes it or wants it? must be important. Garbage all the way around.” Me: You’ve got that all wrong, according to Chris Robinson, “it is all Art!” Cheesy, no? Rembrandt and your favorite cartoon character, hand in hand walking towards the dark hole that awaits us all, singing at the top of their voice: “Life is a bitch, and then you die! Tideli, tidelidum.”

"Art is made by those who dare explore the impossible" That statement alone, I agree with.... but to use it in an article that starts off very much saying that public funding ought to go towards this "daring" for or art, this "exploration of the impossible" is shear hyppocracy. How daring or impossible is it to "create" when given money outside the free market and have, going into it, no expectation of people liking it or not. It need not succede. In fact, the article seems to say that the more people who like it, the more dumb it must be. It would be much more daring and much more like ART in my eyes to sacrifice your own time and invest your own money, or find actual people who are willing to invest their own money on such unaccepted or undesired forms of art. Why must the masses pay for art pre-defined as something the masses DON'T want. You want something "different", then create it. Animation's lack of diversity is due to those creating. Look at the variety of films in Hollywood... there is more there than is first apparent.... and you know what? Film exists outside Hollywood. There is a huge diversity in indie films in America and elsewhere. If there weren't would it suddenly become public necessity to have the government sponsor this "indie" art form of filmmaking with tax payer dollars? No. The diversity in private and corporate and indie and freelance and artsy films is up to the creators. Asking for public funding kills the whole purpose of art, especially in seeing art as: made by those who dare explore the impossible. Wouldn't, then, the struggle to make it outside the dependence on money be part of it. Look at the issue involved here. Corporations MAKE money, and put it into something that they like, want and that they are hoping will make more money for them. The indies that hate is corporate capitolist evil MONEY being involved, and MONEY being the important thing.... whats he asking for: for PUBLIC MONEY in order to make this "outside the evil corporate MONEY system" art possible. So it requires money then too, huh? Well, no one OWES the arts money forced out of them through taxes. Taxes are for the NECISSARY. Artists are not government fat. That is, if they are those who dare explore the impossible. Perhaps its just me, but who cares about someone who can dare whilst suckling on a nipple of the government sow. Sounds like you're nothing more than a corporation without a market and you're ticked people aren't buying the art. Business and art are two different things, pal. Business is making money, be it with art or service or functional products... art is outside of the business profit world in its creation, though art can be then taken to the business world and put out there for marketing and money. They are two seperate ideas, but claiming public funds a necissary for it only proves PRECISELY WHY corporate animation is "lowest common denomenator". They can't just take money from every household in order to fund their next project like taxes can and art levied.... they have to actually produce something that people bother to get up and go out to see and plop down their money for WILLINGLY. Which is the more daring? Private sacrifice, investment and risk, or asking for some government cheese under the condition of "if no one likes it, thats because its art" expectation. Thats intellectually dishonest because then the funded art can NEVER be proven unworthy.... no one likes it or wants it? must be important. Garbage all the way around.

To Chris (Robinson): You said: “Gee...I gotta read this again, but my first impression is that this is just an outdated elitist longing for a world that once was.” Me: Chris, what is so strange about that? Isn’t Art itself a way we have to look for our forgotten world, our forgotten self? Trust your first impression, it *is* elitist. If being an elitist means being concerned with Quality, and not to be afraid of going one’s own way singing one’s own little music, then you are very right, I am an elitist. You: “(Amélie, first of all, is an overrated crock of poo. Sure..the first few scenes are dandy fine, but then it inevitably slips into Hollywood coupling and all.) Me: I wonder Chris if you possibly are having serious problems with any work of art that triggers a repressed sensitivity in you? “Amélie” to me (and millions of others) isn't “an overrated crock of poo,” it is a glimmer of hope in a world that seems bent on diving into its own self destructive drives. In that sense, “Amélie” paints a picture of a world in which relationships between people are closer to what they should/could be like than most current animation movies. Being the softy that I am, I really like Martine Chartrand’s “Black Soul,” Frédéric Back’s, Michaël Dudok de Wit’s, and many more. This actually makes me realize that I don’t as much have a real issue with “narrative animation,” I have a totally visceral dislike for anything that lacks poetry (which means the vast majority of the works available almost everywhere). You: “And this stuff about the entertainment noise. Those who want this ambitious forms of art can get it if they want it. Those who want light should have it. Who are YOU to say that THIS is wrong and THAT is right? “ Me: I guess you are telling me I am wrong, right? You: “That's just b.s. elitism. And how many hockey games do you attend? Hockey, my friend, I could argue is a fuggin spiritual form of art whose artists rival Norman McLaren for their spontaneity, rhythm, grace and innovations.” Me: Chris, I was selected to the Belgian National ice hockey team more than fifty times, even was its captain several times. I played semi-pro hockey in Europe for many years, so if you want to talk hockey, I’m game! And I do watch hockey games regularly when they mean something, which means I seldom follow games during the regular season and only get involved during the playoffs (“Go Sens Go!”). You: “And hey..the french! Werent they the first country to let the Germans in? Arent they close to voting in a racist government? Didnt they salivate over the very overrated Jerry Lewis? Didnt they WELCOME, inevitably, all this supposed U.S. garbage you so loath?” Me: I totally agree with you as far as Jerry Lewis (and Disney) are concerned, but I think you missed completely what happened during the first turn (“tour” in French) of these presidential elections, and the second turn this coming Sunday will likely set the record straight. You: “To get the codes for most of this ELEVATED STUFF ones needs an education in art history...among other things... without that it's tuff...and how do people get these educations? That requires, unlike Europe, MONEY for a post-secondary education. (along with educated teachers) So...in short...to acquire the tools to be prepped for this non-narrative stuff you so love..one needs experience and how does one get that without an education, money, class etc... “ Me: Wrong, so very wrong.You totally overlook the inherent ability we have to recognize Quality when we see it! (I’ll read Bourdieu but please, read Pirsig, or reread what Socrates has to say about that.) Of course, if we do have this ability, then to be satisfied with crap becomes our “fault,” and I believe that may be the (raw) nerve I just struck here. You: “and of course...the other problem is distribution and exhibition---if I had the freedom to program the Cartoon Network for a year and wanted to just do sophisticated festival shorts...no one would friggin watch...they'd switch over because they are not accustomed to non-narrative or even elliptical narratives or absurd narratives (ie. Priit Parn)... Me: You’re kidding right? How could “they” be accustomed to a non-narrative discourse if all they ever are offered by people like you (who could make a difference) is that bland narrative pabulum? What’s the point of doing anything if that which we do does not speak directly to us, regardless of the public’s response/expectations? You: “And this nonsense about animation being stagnant is load of HOOOOOOOOOOOOEEEEEEEEEEEYYYYYYYYYYY. McLaren and Bute? that's it? So..you're saying that animation ended there? Just in Canada...Richard Reeves, Stephen Arthur, Stephen Woloshen, Rick Raxlen, Jean Theberge, Pierre Hebert...in the U.S. David Ehrlich, Janie Geiser, George Griffin, Joanna Priestly, Joan Gratz,...the list goes on and on and on.” Me: Yes, and I personally like some of them. But please, tell me: where can one see their works? Where are they available for viewing outside of very obscure circuits, especially if festivals like Ottawa’s are now going to “go with the linear narrative flow because that’s what people are used to?” You: “And hey...yeah sure...once in a while I lose my cool with U.S. either/or 'world as merchandise' attitudes...but hey...fuggit...there's lots of damn good things out of the U.S. Find me a better writer than William Faulkner? Hubert Selby Jr? Charles Olson? William Carlos Williams? Robert Creeley, William Burroughs,... Me: Proust, Céline, Joyce, Beckett, T.S. Eliot, and on and on... You: “You attack the U.S. for it's either/or culture and its subsequent detonation of the past but then you apply THOSE very attitudes when you write off the U.S. as nothing but a Disnified Mcculture filled with YEEHAWS and Toothless morons...and that's b.s. Me: “the U.S. as nothing but a Disnified Mcculture filled with YEEHAWS and Toothless morons” I like that one, can I borrow it from you? But of course, the US also gave us Pollock, de Kooning, Rothko, Kline, Guston, and more. It is not all “Disnified Mcculture,” at least not yet, but it sure looks like it’s gettin’ there!. (I sure hope I am wrong!) You: “The world is as WE made it. We have the art (I refuse to differentiate between art and entertainment anymore) WE created. You are what you eat.” Me: The world is not -only- what we made it, it is also what we are making it right now. We are not only what we eat, we also are what that which we eat ate, and so on. There is a communal responsibility inherent in the things we tend to settle for, and most of the stuff most people seem to be willing to settle for leaves me totally unfulfilled. I guess that’s why I am an artist, if I could get satisfied by proxy, I would be happy being a spectator. “What did you eat today?”

Gee...I gotta read this again, but my first impression is that this is just an outdated elitist longing for a world that once was. (Amelie, first of all, is an overrated crock of poo. Sure..the first few scenes are dandy fine, but then it inevitably slips into Hollywood coupling and all.) And this stuff about the entertainment noise. Those who want this ambitious forms of art can get it if they want it. Those who want light should have it. Who are YOU to say that THIS is wrong and THAT is right? That's just b.s. elitism. And how many hockey games do you attend? Hockey, my friend, I could argue is a fuggin spiritual form of art whose artists rival Norman McLaren for their spontaneity, rhythm, grace and innovations. And hey..the french! Werent they the first country to let the Germans in? Arent they close to voting in a racist government? Didnt they salivate over the very overrated Jerry Lewis? Didnt they WELCOME, inevitably, all this supposed U.S. garbage you so loath? To get the codes for most of this ELEVATED STUFF ones needs an education in art history...among other things... without that it's tuff...and how do people get these educations? That requires, unlike Europe, MONEY for a post-secondary education. (along with educated teachers) So...in short...to acquire the tools to be prepped for this non-narrative stuff you so love..one needs experience and how does one get that without an education, money, class etc... (READ Bourdieu). (and of course...the other problem is distribution and exhibition---if I had the freedom to program the Cartoon Network for a year and wanted to just so sophisticated festival shorts...no one would friggin watch...they'd switch over because they are not accustomed to non-narrative or even elliptical narratives or absurd narratives (ie. Priit Parn)... And this nonsense about animation being stagnant is load of HOOOOOOOOOOOOEEEEEEEEEEEYYYYYYYYYYY. McLaren and Bute? that's it? So..you're saying that animation ended there? Just in Canada...Richard Reeves, Stephen Arthur, Stephen Woloshen, Rick Raxlen, Jean Theberge, Pierre Hebert...in the U.S. David Ehrlich, Janie Geiser, George Griffin, Joanna Priestly, Joan Gratz,...the list goes on and on and on. And hey...yeah sure...once in a while I lose my cool with U.S. either/or 'world as merchandise' attitudes...but hey...fuggit...there's lots of damn good things out of the U.S. Find me a better writer than William Faulkner? Hubert Selby Jr? Charles Olson? William Carlos Williams? Robert Creeley, William Burroughs,... You attack the U.S. for it's either/or culture and its subsequent detonation of the past but then you apply THOSE very attitudes when you write off the U.S. as nothing but a Disnified Mcculture filled with YEEHAWS and Toothless morons...and that's b.s. Yeah...all that CRAP is there front and centre...but as a film prof reminded me once: "what's important is not what's in the frame, but what's outside of it." Ya just gotta open your eyes and ears and you'll find it. The world is as WE made it. We have the art (I refuse to differentiate between art and entertainment anymore) WE created. You are what you eat.