Search form

Writing on animation as a way of portraying inner states. Any hints?

2 posts / 0 new
Last post
Writing on animation as a way of portraying inner states. Any hints?

Hello,

As part of my Master's degree in Animation at the Royal College of Art, I am currently in the process of researching for a thesis in which I want to look at animation and whether it has any inherent qualities which allow for a privileged way of portraying inner mental states, when compared to live-action film.

At this point I am looking for any kind of academic or other writing on animation (especially more experimental, "independent" animation) and inner states, madness, psychoanalysis, subconsciousness, surrealism etc. Also any writing comparing live-action film and animation, and looking at differences between the two media. If you know of any such writing, or if you have written about or researched into something related, please get in touch. Any hints greatly appreciated.

The idea originally started by looking at British independent animation and how so many of the "classic" short animation films of the last two decades deal with mental disorders or interiority/subjectivity, themes less often dealt with in live-action cinema (i.e. Tim Webb's A is for Autism; Jonathan Hodgson's Camouflage; Vivienne Jones' The House; Molly Okell's Asperger and Proud etc). Another strand of animation films to look at would be films which don't deal with interiority in terms of its narrative object but which try to express (rather than narrate) inner life through its images, i.e. films of the Brothers Quay or Larry Jordan. As yet, I am not sure yet which route to follow, and I am happy about viewing as well as reading tips in both directions. Please email me at hamax@gmx.net

Thank you,

MaxH

Max,
I don't know very much about the animators you mention below, but one particular fine artist stands out in my mind when you talk about art and psychosis: Francis Bacon. http://www.francis-bacon.cx/

The reason the topic is such a difficult one to broach is because the very nature of subjectivity implies the difficulty of the outside world to breach the wall an individual places around one's self. One common reason artists create what they create is to develop a passage--a communication portal, if you will-- to the outside world. Perhaps they've tried bluntness and straightforwardness in the past and were met with opposition and rebuke.

Many artists are frightened by their own thoughts and an acceptible way for them to confess those thoughts and sometimes haunting and persistent images to the outside world is through artistry. Many have disorders or borderline disorders: obsessive-compulsiveness, narcissism, neuroses, phobias, etc. It just so happens, in the case of the British indies (little "i" indies) you mention, they are able to manifest those psychoses in art.

The dilemma arises--and you can address this if you like--that the psychosis is so extreme and so subjectively interanlized, that no one, not even those with mild neurotic disorders, is going to understand, much less sympathize with the artist. Does the artist want the viewer to find the open door? Does he only want the door open a crack? Does he care whether one person gets through or one million? Compare the work of Emily Dickenson--a troubled soul who opened the door in the 1860s and is still in college curricula 150 years later, to Sylvia Plath, who was extremely notable in her time yet only suicide ended her suffering, in her mind.

You have to admire the artists with the deepest afflictions for actually completing a work to be seen. There is no telling how many half-completed works there are out there. However, if the work is so subjective, they run the risk of alienating the viewship. If only a small percentage of others (usually other artists, and not "connected" souls like bankers, engineers, scientists, blue collar workers, etc.) with simliar disconnectedness are viewing the work with sympathy, is it a successful work, or does it need to be mass marketed to achieve cultural acceptance? Even if it did, would it cure the affliction?

If it cured the affliction, would that be the end of the artist's work? If it didn't, would the artist gauge his success or failure on the work itself or on his own personal failings?

Ahem. Anyway, you asked the question. I realize I'm not an academic or published writer by trade, but if you have any other questions, just let me know.

Thanks,
H