Does Anibator represent a new season of discontent in animation? Courtesy of iStockphoto.

The year 2007 marks my 11th year of writing (largely) about the relationship between animation and popular culture, and the fact that I am still mining the topic amazes me. Whether the discourse is about the rise of adult-oriented cartoons or the failures of deconstructive critique in analyzing mainstream animation, the topic of animation's role in American society appears to be inexhaustible.

In truth, there is no art form as plastic or as mercurial. Animation's evolution from slash technique, ink, and rice paper to Maya 8.5 kinematics is one of the most amazing ever experienced in the history of art, and it dazes one to think that such a leap was accomplished in just over one hundred years. It took twice as long for Renaissance art to evolve through Giotto di Bondone to Masaccio to Michelangelo's magmum opus in the Sistine Chapel.

Yet, at the same time, all is not harmonious in that world. Animation is a vulnerable art form. At its most accessible, that is to say, as seen on screen and television, animation is at times forced into an unholy marriage with executives that see only a bottom line where creators see a masterpiece. The battles against economic forces that send animation overseas, against labor conditions that necessitate constant watchdog efforts by unions, and clashes with market forces determined by ratings can make animation a difficult and frustrating avocation. There are other difficulties as well.

Independents struggle for recognition outside of festivals, and many of them pin their hopes on pitches to mainstream studios, which can be a soul-numbing experience. Many animation schools seem to need more courses in history and animation appreciation, which could help aspiring animators develop ideas that spin off from some of the greatest concepts of the past. Animation execs and accountants do not always understand the creative end of animation before handing off projects to the unproven and less prepared hopefuls based on a single drawing or sketchy concept. Both suit and artist do not always understand that selling points such as "edgy" might need more specificity before time, effort and money is invested into a pilot.

Anibator takes the animation business to task and has poured vituperation all over the industry. The blogger attacks some of animation's brighter lights, such as John Kricfalusi (above) for his dogmatism.

The past couple of months saw the rise of a notorious blogger known as the Anibator, and s(he) takes the animation business to task on all these points and more. This individual, who retains anonymity, has poured vituperation all over the industry, claiming to be the only soul daring to expose the dark side of the cartoon business. If nothing else, the Anibator is an equal opportunity antagonist, challenging both this website and Animation Magazine to dispute his/her bitter claims about the industry, while also harrying some of animation's brighter lights, such as John Kricfalusi, for his dogmatism.

In the Anibator's view, a modern career in animation is roughly equivalent to the Inquisition as conducted by Philistines; it can only end in disappointment and futility. As s(he) avers, "I work in animation. I am in hell." This entity's bitterness was such that the Anibator became a cause célèbre among animation fans; some people submitting comments to the blogspot treated the Anibator with disdain, challenging the blogger to go out and improve things if s(he) didn't like them.

An equal number, however, responded to the blog with great relish, avidly naming shows that they considered to be the crippled and enervated products of an art that had sold its soul to incompetent, uncaring businessmen. It is not my intent to glorify or defile the Anibator. I don't agree with the Anibator's every conclusion, nor do I believe American animation to be corrupted beyond redemption. I believe that the Anibator must passionately love animation, and that is worth much. Where I most strongly contend the Anibator's viewpoint is through an overall perception of historical context, and that might well be where both s(he) and some (but not all) of the Anibator's supporters may be missing the point. The truth is, animation has never been an easy business to work in, whether one focuses on 1927 or 2007.

Before exploring this further, I must first ask: Is there a business extant, which is not at times hell for its workers? How many degrees is Dilbert actually removed from the truth? As I write this, there are legions of American workers struggling under execs who may be distinctly less gifted in intellect than them. There are corporate dictators, untalented decision-makers and managers who substitute MBA courses and the managerial equivalent of self-help books for true leadership talent. There is no guarantee of safety from outsourcing, layoffs and paring from the payrolls through mergers, and this does not even begin to take into account those of us in relative safety who dislike our jobs, our non-managerial co-workers or who would -- and do -- change careers out of dissatisfaction or a yearning for something more rewarding.

There has been an excellent publication of late, Drawing The Line, by Tom Sito, who is no stranger to the issues faced by animation's labor unions past and present. Animation personnel of yore were traditionally underpaid, overworked, exploited and, in some instances, watched characters they created add millions to the coffers of the studios they worked for while their own wallets remained thin. The only reward was continued employment, and even this was subject to the capricious whim of management. Every major studio suffered strikes by animation workers, and many times the labor end came off the worst.