Good on ya Gene. Down here in New Zealand we have been using a range of second based X sheets since the late 1970's. We mostly animate to PAL TV so we work in 25 frames/sec. The American footage sheets were a waste of time for us. I know of 3 studios here who made up their own 50 or 100 frame sheets way back then. My guess is that the same may have happened in England and Australia when TV commercials started.

the czech have a beautiful culture, some great artists and prague is an amazing city. i have to wonder what the state of anim is in czech rep now and what studios in existence? the place and people have a great deal of creative potential.

I think the article is generally right in its conception about "educational" TV not helping to raise children and not supposed to do so. But it´s not fair to complain about having new options of entertainment and hoping everything is like Looney Tunes or Hanna Barbera. In another column, Dr. Toons encourages readers to watch original foreign animation and not the watered-down cut 'american' versions. This is right and promotes the diversity of styles and points of view. I usually don't like the absolut "USA correctness" of Disney's creations nor Barney, but, thank god, is not the only thing we can watch. Hopely, the presence of educated (and intelligent) people in the animation industry can increase the richness and diversity of choices. I'm sure bland toddler shows is not the only thing PhD's can offer.

Well, Danny, many comics fans laud the day Frank Miller came on the scene and introduced heroes as dark and warped as the forces of evil they fight, grim, neurotic figures who are barely distinguishable in their morality from villians. Living by concrete moral codes that allow little joy and minimal psychological flexibility, these heroes are no longer fun to read (or watch when transferred to screen), and at $3.00 and up per comic book, too boring and expensive to follow. "Spiderman" was a terrific film because the hero was a basically well-adjusted young man who truly marvelled at his powers and the way in which they expanded his humanity. This is infinitely more preferable than heroes whose mental world actually shrinks until it encompasses little but brooding vigilantism. To hell with them! You want to see a good Daredevil flick, Danny? Let's dig up Stilt-Man, Mr. Hyde, The Cobra, the Matador, Electro and the Leap-Frog and let 'em all rip against DD in a brilliant battle royale in front of Rockefeller Center. Let's go back to the brilliant days of Marvel when what heroes DID was much more balanced with what they THOUGHT.

I thought "Saddle Rash" was great. The first time I saw it, I was taken back by the tongue-in-cheek humor and thought, "Not everyone's going to get this." But, who cares? I was ready with my VCR the next time it ran. Apart from the witty (but deadpan) dialogue, what really caught my attention was how the animators took the time to show some accuracy in how the world looks through old fashioned windows. Looking through glass during that era would not have provided a crystal clear vision, it would be like looking through water--which is exactly the case in this cartoon. Maybe I'm out in left field but I think it's a metaphorical statement. Personally, I'd like to see another episode just so I could see Morgan come back to town "pissed off."

Thank you for your kind responce, as I understand from it (without being secure about my intellectual abilities to absorb it adequately), that you consider animation as art only when it deals with abstract images (I am sure you will correct me here about my terminology). Character animation for you can not be art because there is no exploration level to a task of bringing a character from pose A to pose B, which is not the purpose, but the main element of character animation. At least all the examples of animated work you have mentioned are abstract. However I think that maybe you have a wrong approach to the appreciation of the animation medium, maybe the drawing in animation is not the purpose, but only a tool, and the art is contained not in it, but in the artist's personal approach to storytelling and character creation. It doesn't mean that the drawing and movement idea has to follow the same simplistic formula that it unfortunatelly usually does in animation, and I am really glad that there are such artists as the ones you have mentioned that give the drawing this exploration dimension, but in my opinion in animation sometimes you also can explore the visual storytelling or character perceiving, paying less attention to the drawing, treating it only as a tool. What do you think about such animators as Paul Fierlinger, O.R.Blechman or Frederic Bach, do you consider their work art? They do put a lot of their "deeper self" into their films, but it's still character animation, a single frame from it is meaningless. Animation maybe is a much more infantile art form than the Fine Art, but is not the same thing and cannot be always treated the same way. But I definitely salut you for opening this discussion and writing such a deep thought provoking interesting article about it. Also, you slightly misquoted me in your previous answer, probably because of my bad writing. By "inbetween" I meant a drawing that comes between two key drawings, and by "inbetweening" I meant the work of creating those secondary drawings.

To Anik Rosenblum. You say: “Thank you for your kind response, as I understand from it (without being secure about my intellectual abilities to absorb it adequately), that you consider animation as art only when it deals with abstract images (I am sure you will correct me here about my terminology). Character animation for you can not be art because there is no exploration level to a task of bringing a character from pose A to pose B, which is not the purpose, but the main element of character animation.” Anik, I most certainly do not privilege “abstract” over “figurative,” but I definitely am expecting animation to show us images that are other than what one finds in “paint by numbers” books. It is really pathetic to see how most animation are made by way of images that are a dime a dozen, pulled straight from “recipe books” disseminated by “how-to” gurus and pseudo artists! Whether you are an “artist” or an animator, you are creating your image one stroke at a time, one breath at a time. What happens in this “here and now” is essential to what the drawing connects with, what it makes visible, and yet, unless one pays the price of admission to the awareness of that which happens at this precise moment (which is often the awareness that one does not really know what is going on;-), one is merely drawing images that are pulled from those recipe books and/or from the store of clichés and innuendoes our culture is so full of. Animation as art ought to dig deeper than that if it claims to be more than mere “animation plumbing,” but to me, it seldom does. We need to reopen the box we got in on the heels of Disney and such, and reconnect with what we would be doing if we did not see through those “Disney colored goggles.” One of my closest friends (and a terrific animator) is Martine Chartrand. She won the “Golden Bear” award for short films at the Berlin Film Festival with her great animation “Ame Noire” (Black Soul). Martine is totally absorbed by the narrative, but she treats it so very competently in her paintings on glass, she is one of the better examples I can think of that can marry the obligations of the story with a concern for the quality of the form of the images. If there is one aspect of working with visuals that Martine and I agree upon, it is the need for us to have images come from “within,” we both greatly value the help provided us by “fortuitous accidents.” There will be a short excerpt of Martine’s work in my next article. What really lacks quality in “habitual animation” comes from animators having had very little training in the fine art of drawing. Not “drawing as it pertains to the needs of animation as an established language,” but drawing as a means to discover and explore the unknown that our reality is. Any serious drawing done “from life” is bound to lead one to an awareness of the ambiguity of it all, ambiguity that is so very sorely lacking in most ”habitual animation.” Every time I visit an art school that caters to animation’s needs for figure drawing, I see appalling drawings that only pay lip service to the “notion” of “figure drawing done from life.” They are riddled with recipes, held back by the intentionality of the students, the teachers, and the school, totally limited by and to what most people think "drawing for animation" should look like.. Once one has tasted the privileged tool drawing is when one is opened to the mysterious in the ordinary, nothing short of what was tasted will do. I have said all along that art schools should first and foremost make it possible for their students to taste this mystery, but it is unfortunately obvious to me that most remain at the level of teaching “how to” and now, trying to meet the needs of potential employers in the animation industry. Art, which had been for so long the last refuge of the “misfits” is now too becoming just another way of fitting in, at least as far as the animation departments are concerned. You continue: “At least all the examples of animated work you have mentioned are abstract. However I think that maybe you have a wrong approach to the appreciation of the animation medium, maybe the drawing in animation is not the purpose, but only a tool, and the art is contained not in it, but in the artist's personal approach to storytelling and character creation. It doesn't mean that the drawing and movement idea has to follow the same simplistic formula that it unfortunately usually does in animation, and I am really glad that there are such artists as the ones you have mentioned that give the drawing this exploration dimension, but in my opinion in animation sometimes you also can explore the visual storytelling or character perceiving, paying less attention to the drawing, treating it only as a tool.” Animation needs not be so hooked on storytelling, there are other ways, and those other ways could actually be a source of renewal for story telling itself, a genre that is becoming staler and staler. Look, animators are, for the most art, drawing as if Cézanne, Pollock and Giacometti never existed, and they are telling stories as if Proust, Joyce and Beckett never existed either! Surely, we can do better than that, we can open our work and our self to the fragmentation of our experience of life, we can bring into our work all the flipping forward and backward in time that constantly happens in our mind, we can accept and make visible all the metamorphosis that constitute our experience of the visible world. Most “habitual animation” is a huge lie, an enormous deception that only caters to the need to increase the deception! A real vicious circle. Another friend, Sharon Katz, is trying to find ways to approach character animation without falling into the “Muybridge’s Curse,” I will also show some of her work in my next article (you can see some samples of her work here: www.sharonkatz.net). You say: “What do you think about such animators as Paul Fierlinger, O.R.Blechman or Frederic Bach, do you consider their work art? They do put a lot of their "deeper self" into their films, but it's still character animation, a single frame from it is meaningless. Animation maybe is a much more infantile art form than the Fine Art, but is not the same thing and cannot be always treated the same way.” ** NOTE-continued on next comment **

Continued from previous comment... Frédéric Back is one of the few that made animation a medium in which I felt serious work could be done when I started looking at alternatives to my natural media “life.” There is an honesty and poetry in his work that takes his work far far beyond mere entertainment, it is not a surprise to me that he had to work in Canada in order to find support for his work. At face value, his films are not commercial and would likely not have received the support they needed if they had been attempted elsewhere. He is one of a kind, and one that will no doubt have made a difference in animation, but also in something larger as well (“Life?”). As for the “worth” of single frames from his work, I think they actually do stand up as genuine art works, see for yourself: www.awn.com/gallery/back/overview.html I better stop here, this is getting to be so long! You may consider moving this discussion to the comments section of my part 5 article, or even to private email, I doubt anybody reads comments to an article that was published last July?

I totally agree with you that most of the animation have nothing to do with art or selfexpression, neither do the drawings used in this medium. But how can a drawing have this dimension of exploration in a medium where it has to be redrawn and duplicated with gradual changes and readjustments in order to create the desirable effect of movement or transformation? How much of our personal vision can we put into drawings that have to be inbetweened within a reasonable time, and how inbetween drawings can each represent a unique searching experience? I mean it as a real question, not as a disagreement, maybe you can suggest an approach. Can you give an example of an animated film that you like?

To Anik Rosenblum You say: “I totally agree with you that most of the animation have nothing to do with art or self-expression, neither do the drawings used in this medium.” Anik, I have long been convinced that art has very little to do with self expression. Expression is a given in art, one can’t avoid but have the work express “something.” So to me, art is much more about exploration than about expression, why try so hard to "put in" something that is always already there? You continue: “But how can a drawing have this dimension of exploration in a medium where it has to be redrawn and duplicated with gradual changes and readjustments in order to create the desirable effect of movement or transformation? How much of our personal vision can we put into drawings that have to be within a reasonable time, and how unbeaten drawings can each represent a unique searching experience? I mean it as a real question, not as a disagreement, maybe you can suggest an approach. Can you give an example of an animated film that you like?” Anik, this is one of, if not the best question asked yet in the context of my articles, so no, I do not perceive it at all as a disagreement (and what's wrong with disagreement anyway?;-). Seeing that you write from Montréal, you must be familiar with Pierre Hébert and his work? Pierre is very concerned about one fundamental of animation, the one that constitutes the re-invention of cinema with every frame (my words). In that sense, if animation is to be truly an art form, it must reinvent the wheel constantly, and the answer to your great question can only reflect one solution, yours! The fact is, animation does reinvent the wheel all the time, but only a few animators are truly aware of that, most take the form they exploit totally for granted. I am not avoiding the issue by not replying "dorestly" to your question, I am trying to point to the sense I have that if “each one of us is a brand new point of view on the world” (as Merleau-Ponty said so well), surely, each one of us is also a brand new point of view on animation. Very few people invest in this though, most people try to fit in the pre-established form of “habitual animation.” I sense a real concern about “how to invest our personal vision in drawings that have to be within a reasonable time” in you, I however wonder if you need to stay confined to the notion of “reasonable time” at all? That could be, for you, the start of a new way of working, something that would help us all see something that could not have existed if you had not done it. I explain a little bit about my process in a reply to comments made about my part 5 article, I talk about the application that makes it possible for me, so far, to work according to what I am here talking about, “Studio Artist.” Here’s the (partial) url to the reply in which I talk about that and other related things, just write http:// in your browser’s location field and copy paste the following: mag.awn.com/index.php3?ltype=comments2&article_no=1601#970 As for animation works that I like, it so happens that my next article will be all about that, with lots of clips from people that I highly respect. One name that stands out for me as I find her work to be the start of a tradition that has not been really fulfilled till now is Mary Ellen Bute, and there’s one good article on her at AWN. No clip though, again, write http:// followed by: www.awn.com/mag/issue1.2/articles1.2/moritz1.2.html If you are really concerned about trying to find ways by which you could, in animation, explore that which you seem to be responding to in what I am talking about, I would suggest you try a very simple and possibly short animation, without any external pressure whatsoever, no deadline, even letting it run for as long as it pleases, don’t close its durtion, leave that wide open, connecting as much as you are able to with the way you probably were as a child when you were looking at clouds, seeing castles and rabbits and more, focusing on what Picasso talked about, “becoming more interested in what you find than in what you were looking for.” And instead of constantly trying to force the work to conform to a pre-established form, follow the hints one gets as soon as one drops one's “ideas,” and see where that may take you. Happy “floating.”

No I do not think inteligence is a sence . A sence deliver's information . Inteligence take's information apart . If you are navigating a dark room with your inteligence you are only navigating by bious and pregidus . And to explane the part you didnt understand . There are two inclanation's whitch bring one to a correr in the art's . Pushes one past doodling in a note book to a twenty hour day . One the inclanation to build up an identity and elivate that perseved identity above thow's around them . Two the inclanation to learn about life using the tool's art has to provide . Question what is the difference between the techneek's you are talking about and just some sullen teen looking in the mirror until they dont recognise there own face ? I will read your article again if I come to different conclusion's than I did in the first one I will post an apaology .

To Pigalow Bradley, You said: “what is the difference between the techneek's you are talking about and just some sullen teen looking in the mirror until they dont recognise there own face ?” Your teen most likely stops there (probably in terror) even if that is barely where the beginning of real work is. “We project meaning into the experience while simultaneously deriving meaning from it,” so where do the senses end and the “intelligence” begin? For that matter, where does the world end and “I” begin? It seems to me as difficult to separate the senses from the mind as it is to separate the world from the self, the boundaries, if any, are very blurry, and get blurrier the more one looks for them. Also, I am not talking about “technique” at all here, you’ve been around schools too long, I am talking about what may happen if you pay attention to the workings of your mind “as is,” without any intentional interference (“to cater to the appearing as it appears” of Husserl, or “shikantaza” in Zen practise). Start drawing to the point when you loose all hope, and then carry on hopeless, but with full caring, “just” doodling. Only then, with "luck," may it become clear(er).

I was a bit surprised at the picture of Bob Clampett and Mel Blanc together. In Mel's autobiography he was not too kind to Mr. Clampett, who was deceased a number of years when it came out. Was the photo in John's article just a "make nice" publicity pic?

To Pigalow bradley: You say: “Ok! We understand what your saing. The universe gives out huge load's of information. Our senses do there thing .Stuff is polished stuff is tarnished and stuf is omitted . we never see the universe, we only see our swaying perception's of it . Got it. Dune. Fin.”” You’re kidding right? Surely, you place “intelligence” amongst our senses, don’t you? And if you do, don’t you see that “The universe” you are talking about is already constituted by perception? It is not “The universe in itself,” it is “The universe as it is constituted by my intentionality,” in other words, “The universe for me” or, if I really work on that, “The universe itself for me.” You are merely ontologizing again, which is another way of demonstrating how little you actually understand of what I am talking about. Mind you, that has to be my fault, I did not simplify my discourse enough so that you would be able to get it. You add: “Only mystery is why you think this is such a dam secret.” Obviously, it is a bigger secret than you “think.” And you go on: “I think I have some lite to shed on that one. In my experiance there are two reason's one come's to art. First to think there beter than other people and they whom persue both internal tool's and exterior tool's to see the world in a superior degree. Yes there are gradation's but I have found this to be usualy true. I believe you are part of the first group and simply dont understand how many people are in the second.” I am at times painfully reminded of the fact that English is not my native tongue, so I can personally relate to the serious problems you are having with that language as well. I sympathize. But still, try as I may, I don’t “get it,” what were you trying to say above? And you still go on: “This conclusion's raises two question's for me. One ,how can one observe the idea that there is a near infinite amount of information behind very perseption and not take away a sence of humility. Rather turn it into yet another tierd excuse to pontificate . Sad .” ? What else am I saying than “pay attention, look again?” I have quoted several times Giacometti’s “I could paint the same chair all my life.” Isn’t that humble enough for you? You conclude (sort of): “Second. If you are realy studing human perseption why do you ignore , yes I herd you phrase it "move away from" But I say ignore, the staple's of human perseption ? Hope this point of view help's you out.” It does, a lot actually. I owe it to you to realize once again (I had almost forgotten it) that those who know don’t need to be told, those who don’t can’t learn. Hopefully, there are the very few on the fringe who are ready for some sort of a leap, and were it not for those, I would not bother you with my writing. Why waste all that time? Why do you waste your time reading my stuff anyway, just “zap” it and move on to another programme, something on the “lite” side perhaps? And just as I asked to the previous person who commented on my article(s), do you have any pudding on line, can you show me some evidence of where your words are coming from?

To Jean Thanks for your reply. I have read all your articles and as already stated found in them food for thought and little to disagree with (apologies about the confusion with the dates). Your position seems to be we should be aware of our ignorance. So far, so Socratic. As your tone can be confrontational, though, I’m simply responding in kind, thus my comment about your being unable to define art. If you accuse others of being "borderline fascists" you shouldn’d find this surprising. As a Frenchman I am sure you don't use words like that lightly. Coleridge once called poetry "the blossom on the tree of human knowledge". I was merely hoping to provoke you into making a similar kind of reply – I realise there is no 'theoretical' definition. In view of what you have written though, a suitably metaphorical and imaginative one shouldn't be too much to ask. As for me, I currently work as a graphic designer. Boredom with this has led me to animation which I'm presently teaching myself. It's hard work and, to be honest, I have found some of your remarks quite dispiriting, which is one of the reasons I responded. Unlike you, I see things to admire in some commercial animation. For me the possibilities it holds are to do with storytelling. You have called it a "mechanical" process. But it's no more so than drawing. Correct me if I am wrong here, but your approach is that you are happy for a computer to do the "mechanical" part (in-betweening) between different frames (or separate paintings). My present understanding of animation though, is that it is in precisely these in-between frames that expressive possibilities exist. So how can you leave those to a computer in the light of what you have written about faith to experience? (I am not asking this to annoy you by the way, it's a genuine question). You can see some of my work at www.lrd.biz. Please feel free to trash it publicly if you feel so inclined – you won't be the first. (But you will be one of the few whose done it for free…) Best regards, Lloyd Raworth

To Lloyd Raworth: First, I appreciate the change in tone, it is now a lot more conducive to having a civil conversation. Thank you. You say: “Correct me if I am wrong here, but your approach is that you are happy for a computer to do the "mechanical" part (in-betweening) between different frames (or separate paintings). My present understanding of animation though, is that it is in precisely these in-between frames that expressive possibilities exist. So how can you leave those to a computer in the light of what you have written about faith to experience? (I am not asking this to annoy you by the way, it's a genuine question).” I see this as a great question, and one that is front and centre of the work I do. As I work mostly with “Studio Artist” (a Mac-only amazing application designed by John Dalton, at www.synthetik.com, to me a paradigm shift in digital media and animation), the “in-betweening” is most often done by morphing on layers, and by using the process of Bézier selection and editing as if it were one of “painting in time.” Not only do I paint in time with the Bézier selecting and editing, but also, the morphing engine that is part of Studio Artist is based on an intelligent model of perception derived from cognitive science. Add to that that just about every single parameter in Studio Artist is highly customizable, and you have one super tool, a tool like I have never seen before. There is very little that is “:mechanical” in Studio Artist. It is a tool powerful and intriguing enough to have several of my friends, PC based artists, switch to the Mac, just to have access to it. With a bit of familiarity with Studio Artist (it is a real bitch to learn, very complex), one can actually sense what the “in-betweening” will be like, and still have those glorious fortuitous accidents take place, so vast are the variables at play, I do believe that artists have been deeply committed, for quite some time, to an ever increasing contact with fragmentation, with randomness, with something that cannot be “recuperated,” or/and turned into another merchandise. Working with a tool like Studio Artist can be a sure way of regularly pulling the rug from under one’s feet, and learn to practise more what Picasso preached, “to become more interested in what one finds than in what one was looking for.” The difference between “image 1” and “image 2,” especially if “image 2” is a variation of “image 1,” is already an animation of sort, the passage from one to the other is what I am working with, and if there is any intentional element at play in this, it is my hope to “unearth” that which is already present, though potentially, “in between” those two images. I am currently reading “Non-Photorealistic Computer Graphics,” a book that goes in depth into what is under the hood of the applications we so often use (Photoshop, Painter, Studio Artist, Expression, Illustrator, etc.). Even a single stroke, especially if on a virtual paper texture and simulating a wet medium is already something that calls greatly upon the computer in order to exist, and is doing so in ways far above what I can comprehend in programming terms. So the suspicion you harbour towards computer generated “in-betweening” could be addressed to even the simplest of computer aided operations. The fact is that, with a programme as intelligently put together as Studio Artist, two people, using the same tools (“presets” in Studio Artist) are bound to come up with different results, so in my view (and please remember I can no longer go back to natural media due health reasons), it is not what one uses that really matters, but what one does with it. Studio Artist is using the music synthesizer as its metaphor, and what it is doing to/as images is very similar to what synthesizers can do to/as music. I love it. You also said: “You can see some of my work at www.lrd.biz. Please feel free to trash it publicly if you feel so inclined – you won't be the first. (But you will be one of the few whose done it for free…) “ I took a quick look and did not see anything there to either “go against,” nor “for.” It seems to me, based on your words, not on your work, that your heart is elsewhere, and that is the part I would like to see. For what it is worth, I have received many private letters since starting this series of articles from people who were caught in “plumbing,” and who have seen yet another prodding, in my papers, to try to go back to something that matters more to them personally. The more of us that can and will do that, the better we all will be.

There are less expensive software options such as Macromedia Dreamweaver and Paint Shop Pro which together cost less than $500. You can also get add-free web hosting that costs less than $10 per month. Try to keep your initial website simple or you'll never finish it. Once you get your small website looking good you can expand it later. My website needs alot of work so I won't even bother posting a link. I definitely have a layout that is too complex and needs to be revised.

Might I just reitorate what everybody has said so far?... I love Jhonen Vasquez! When I first say "Invador Zim" I said to myself "What is this?" It was one of the best shows I ever saw. Not Just for the animation, but the writing was unique and damn funny. Then after I raved about this show, my friends told me about his book series. I though I was going to die. The library at my school actually had the "Big Wonderful Book of Unspeakible Horrors" collection. I read that thing from cover to cover. Then my friend lent me his JTHM series. I thought I was going to cry. I read all seven in one night, which I don't recomend when your trying to get to sleep and have school the next day, but lets not get into that (man I'm a dork!) Anyway, I really love his work and highly recomend it to everyone who is remotely interested in "Zim"

To Whom It May Concern, I was wondering if you could be of some assistance in a search for two animated films that I saw as a teenager. Both were, I believe, made during the 1980's. The first was a sort of rock and roll storyline with dog/humanoid characters, the main villain of which was named Mok(voice by mick jagger or lou reed?). The second was a film that supposedly was made by filming real human actors and then animating them to achieve a more fluid, realistic effect. The movie had a sort of action/old world Conan type storyline/look to it. I thought the name of that film was Fire and Ice, but searches for that title have been futile. Any help you could provide would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Pablo Davila

TRAVIS is a joke! I do all his artwork when no ones lookin. ha! ha! I love this guy. He was my drawing buddy in college. He has always been a great source of inspiration to me and a lot of other guys. Cheers! luve you man. Dan S