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. Only mystery is why you think this is such a dam secret. 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. 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 . 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.

To Lloyd Raworth. You said: “I have to say it's highly amusing to find an artist and teacher with ‘several decades of experience’ unable to explain what he thinks art is.” Lloyd, I fail to see the irony in that as I do know for a fact that just about anyone I have met who has gone in depth into any subject shares the same awe in front of that very subject that has been investigated for so long. We share the same sense that “the more one knows, the less one understands.” (Or is it “the more one understands, the less one knows?”) That being said, if I can't really define what Art is, I can most definitely see what is not Art, and that includes a lot of the animation we can see today. You also said: “You didn't reply to my comment on your last article (I hope it wasn't too rude) so in a way this is a continuation of it. “ That article was published on February 28, 2002. Your comments were posted on July 23rd of the same year! I had not seen them, but had I done so, I am not sure I would have bothered responding anyway because of the time between publication and comments (things have a way of “moving on”), and the tone in which your comments were uttered. As for the contents of both those “lost” comments and the present ones, I find myself lacking the interest and drive it would take me in order to examine them one item at a time. I have far more interesting things to do with my life, in animation especially. To make a long story short, let’s say that you are swimming in waters that are all about what one does “with” one’s perceptions, sort of an “intentional path to some kind of art,” while I am all about what precedes that, what makes it possible, very much related to Heidegger’s “always-already-there.” To say that Fine Art “has become progressively less central culturally and socially but internally it has itself been ebbing away” is missing the point I am trying to make. I am not talking about the “Fine Art tradition” as exemplified by late 19th Century works, I am talking about a “tradition” that can be traced as far back as cave paintings, a “tradition” that is not in need of being transmitted verbally, it is indeed something we are all born with. It is the tradition of “catering to the appearing as it appears.” This “tradition” is much closer to a universal than the 19th Century Fine Art tradition(s) ever could be, though there are a few 19th Century painters and paintings that managed to connect with it, transcending the great limitations of that era and genre. Philip Guston called it “inherent composition,” and I borrowed from that great painter positing that it also can be seen at least potentially as/in “inherent animation.” I could also call that “Art,” in fact, I will. But considering that all you have seen of my writing in this “Notes from the Underground” series consists only of part #1 and #5, and that you did not seem to know that part #2, 3 and 4 had also been published since February 2002, I can’t expect you to “know” what I am talking about. Mind you, I am only too painfully aware of the fact that reading this stuff does not make one able to comprehend it, let alone “apply” it in/to one’s work, one's life. All I am saying in these articles both stems from and is leading to work, not mere theory. As I always try to put my work where my mouth is (there is lots of it all over the web, including here at AWN), I’d really love to see where your words are coming from, do you have any “pudding” available on line?

@l be ok when they get all the jaggies out of the display, apart from the fact that it does your eyes in, animation is a fairly accurate process and it s almost impossible to put lines in the right place if what you draw in not what you see.

I just happen to have this book, and it is quite fit me! Mr.Steed have stated this book is specific to 3ds max and Character stuio, so readers won't confuse by the cover of the book, and for readers who use other 3d package, parts of info provided by this book would help you think how to implement this concept in your 3d program. If you want to know what is 'weight, timing, use of arcs, slow-ins, slow-outs, overlap, follow through' all about, then I recommend you this book of 'inspired 3D Character animation',published by Premier press.but you still need Mr. Steed's book, because it provided you how to implement those concept of 'weight,...' if you are 3dsmax user. Like Oliver Wade said, Chapter 1 is just conclusion of modeling, but you can use it as your checklist of modeling, if you wanna know more detail of modeling, I recommend this book of 'Modeling a Character in 3Ds Max', of course written by Paul Steed. As for the content of this book, I think it doesn't quite fit for plasma, because plasma is specific to web content, it provided only enough tools for web, that's why the price is lower than 3ds max. but it still fit for gmax, because gmax is designed for Game production. and this book solely use Character Studio, it didn't mension 3dsmax's bone system.

After reading the excellent biography by John Canemaker, I think Winsor McCay would express an optimistic view of 3d animation if he were to witness it today. For the reason that now, artists everywhere can create more personal animations without necessarily being part of a big studio or constrained by expensive equipment or processes (i.e., one animator can do it all like McCay) It was McCay's dream that any artist can express their unique visions in animation. A painting, with motion. Business minded people took animation history into another direction, however. It's only now that it's coming around, as McCay envisioned it. Back into the hands of artists who want to create for the sheer joy of it rather that for profit.

If you got it. it was amazing. This failed pilot now just gets run every now and then as a special on the now very famous "adult swim". Still for those who are familiar with these dudes and there work, Saddle Rash was a masterpiece; if coach mgirk makes you wet yourself, so will this.

Dear Jean, thanks for your latest installment. I have to say it's highly amusing to find an artist and teacher with "several decades of experience" unable to explain what he thinks art is. Joking aside though, you have raised some serious issues. Presumably your frequent references to philosophical texts are intended to underline this. Unfortunately neither they nor the "cunningly" deployed "quotation" marks peppering "your" "article" can "disguise" the "inconsistencies" "in" "your" "thinking". You didn't reply to my comment on your last article (I hope it wasn't too rude) so in a way this is a continuation of it. As for the question of "art". Peter Fuller in Beyond the Crisis in Art (ISBN: 0 906495 33 4 2 P/B), a very illuminating book, writes of the way "great and authentic art, whatever its subject matter, constitutes a ‘moment of becoming’ which speaks of a possible historical future now." Assuming one wants to regard authenticity as a creative merit, this seems a pretty useful definition to me. One of the problems with your "argument" seems to be your emphasis on "Art" and "Artists" in ideological terms. This isn't unusual these days: Damien Hirst, when recently asked whether his pickled shark was really "Art" replied that since it was in an art gallery, it must be. In other words, he seems to be saying that because he is an "Artist", "Art" is whatever he says it is, and its status is confirmed by its presence in a socially and historically endorsed institution and therefore within the western professional Fine Art tradition. Thus his lofty position as an "Artist" in the social and economic hierarchy is assured, as a producer of luxury commodities for the cognoscenti – somewhat above craftspeople, and even further above peddlers of "mere merchandise". This isn't very satisfactory, as I feel sure you will agree, and even if it is not what you mean, it's where your thinking appears to lead. There a number of reasons for this kind of attitude within the "Art" world. One of them might be the fact the professional Fine Art tradition has been eclipsed by what Peter Fuller has called the "mega-visual" tradition of monopoly capitalism: ie, advertising, movies, colour supplements. He also wrote: " We tend to hear a lot about the enduring ‘autonomy’ of art, and so on. But this position can be defended only through the kind of sophistry which which accepts, say, the markings on a Boetian vase, or Lascaux cave paintings, decorated Greek mirrors, Cycladic dolls, Russian icons or Italian altar-pieces as art, but which denies that billboards, colour supplements or posters belong to this category while going on to assert that certain (but not all) piles of bricks and certain (but not all) grey monochromes do. I believe that it only really only makes sense to talk about the visual tradition as a whole as constituting a relatively enduring and autonomous cultural component. There will always be images but under different social formations they will emerge in different forms and be put to different uses. There is nothing about the professional Fine Art tradition which makes it more likely to endure and to continue to occupy the centre of the visual tradition than, say, the great medieval tradition of manuscript illumination. Indeed, if we look at the Fine Art tradition from the closing decades of the nineteenth century until the present day it is clear that not only has it become progressively less central culturally and socially but internally it has itself been ebbing away." Can you see the irony in your wish to co-opt animation for the Fine Art tradition? It is a form with a very different history and practice, and in some ways might actually be responsible for the erosion of the status of Fine Art. And who could say that, perhaps, a few hundred years from now, people looking at an episode of Road Runner won't experience a "moment of becoming" every bit as real as we as do now when looking at Van Gogh?

Interesting article. It would have been nice to have an online link to examples of the projects listed. So I've read about this nice thick 'n' thin line quality now I'd like to see it. Frankly, the examples on Toon Boom's site are as good (Chris Hinton's) or as crappy (Superman Meets Bin Laden) as many things done in Flash. I guess I'll have to download a trial. And its described intuitiveness does seem appealing but the examples out there, as with Flash, only prove it's the artist not the tool.

TOM TERRIFIC WAS APTLY NAMED, SINCE IT'S ONE OF THE MOST UNUSUAL, MOST ORIGINAL, MOST CLEVER CARTOONS EVER PRODUCED. THE OPAQUE CHARACTERS, THE VERBAL PUNS, THE MINIMALIST MUSICAL SCORE, AND THE "SERIAL" PACKAGE ALL ADDED UP TO ANIMATED NIRVANA. THE MIGHTY MANFRED WAS A WONDERFUL, LOVABLE SIDEKICK (AND CUNNING COMIC RELIEF), AND DO-BADDIE CRABBY APPLETON EVEN INSPIRED A SUCCESSFUL ROCK BAND OF THE SAME NAME. THANK HEAVENS NOBODY'S EVER MESSED WITH "TOM TERRIFIC"!! HE'S ONE OF THE ALARMINGLY FEW CARTOON STARS WHO HASN'T BEEN DEGRADED IN THE HANDS OF A NEW STUDIO OR A NEW CAMPAIGN. YOU SIMPLY CAN'T MESS WITH PERFECTION!!!

THANKS SO MUCH, THE ARTICLE REALLY HELPED ME. I AM ONLY FOURTEEN, BUT I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO GET A CAREER IN VOICE ACTING IN MY FUTURE. I WAS THINKING MAYBE WITH BIG IDEA STUDIOS! I'M GOING TO JOIN THE DRAMA AND ACTING CLASS IN MY HIGH SCHOOL NEXT YEAR! THANKS! GOD BLESS, TIFF

can you tell me why silly sidney, one of my childhood favorites, had, in his brief career, three distinctly different voices (one baby-ish and high pitched, one nasally, and one happy go lucky)? even as a child, i detected them (and liked them) all...thanx!

AS A KID, "TOM TERRIFIC" WAS ONE OF THE MAIN HIGHLIGHTS WHILE WATCHING "CAPTAIN KANGAROO". TOM WAS A VISUALLY CLEVER, HIGHLY INFLUENTIAL AND SURREALISTIC MASTERSTROKE BOASTING NIFTY DIALOGUE AND CHARISMATIC CHARACTERS. ONE CAST MEMBER EVEN INSPIRED AN EARLY 70S ROCK GROUP CALLED CRABBY APPLETON, OBVIOUSLY NAMED IN HONOR OF TOM'S FIENDISH ARCH ENEMY. THEY HAD A HIT SONG TITLED "GO BACK". I EVEN HAVE A COUPLE OF THEIR LPS (ONE FEATURING A DRAWING OF CRABBY ON THE COVER!)...

ONE GOOD THING YOUR VERSION OF "POPEYE" DID WAS INTRODUCE FANS TO MANY OF THE LESSER KNOWN CHARACTERS THAT INHABITED HIS WORLD. THE IMPOSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND ALICE THE GOON, THE CRABBY SEA HAG AND HER BUZZARD CRONIE, EUGENE THE JEEP (SEEN VERY OCCASIONALLY IN THE EARLY FLEISHER POPEYES), AND OTHERS WERE ALL WELCOME ADDITIONS TO THE CLASSIC CARTOON. YOU ALSO WISELY UTILIZED THE GREAT WIMPY MUCH MORE THAN ANY OTHER POPEYE SERIES, AND GAVE SWEE' PEA A VOICE. IT WAS NICE TO SEE A SLIGHLTY DIFFERENT TAKE ON THE SQUINT EYED SAILOR...

To Erwin Lian: Erwin, when you say “But what is not Art ?”, I can relate to your questioning, but I feel you are asking the question backward. I would put it this way: “What is Art”? To which I would answer “I don’t (really) know.” But as to “What is not Art?”, the answer is easy: “plenty!” So much of what we see around us, especially in animation, is nowhere near “Art,” It is craft (sometimes at its best), but most often, it is commerce, a mere merchandise. Most animation, especially of the commercial kind, brings nothing of importance to its doers, and even less to its viewers, it is precisely the opposite of “Art.” Remember my first article in this series, its title was “Animation: Prozac or Kyosaku?” Either “it” helps us “awake,” or it puts us to sleep. It’s here: You also ask: “And who is to say ?” You, me, each and every one of “us.” We do know the difference, though we often have dulled our awareness of that difference. And you continue: “Can we "really" put what we "see" on to a canvas ?” No, but that’s one more (“The?”) reason to try. If failure is inevitable, at least one can get closer to succeeding, by daring the impossible. (“The failure shall be the measure of success” as Camus said). You still: “Can we "really" share what we see ?” As in “totally?” I don’t think so. Can we really get in the shoes of the other and see through his/her eyes? Not at all, or at least, not often. Yet, a work of Art is precisely one that transcends that unbridgeable gap between “me” and “the other,” and which, if only briefly, makes “me” see as “he/she does.” “Art is what makes us see” is still true for me, there are so many experiences we all have had in connection with “Art” that made a difference in the way(s) we see. Again: “If not ? Why the worthless effort?” “He who does not go for the impossible will scarcely do anything worthwhile!” (This was possibly the most significant graffiti of May ’68 for me). And finally: “If yes, why the explanation?” Because many of us need just that little push to get going in attempting the impossible. Many of us already know much of that “stuff” intuitively, but too many of us do not trust their intuition. To have some of those “things” mentioned be it in a classroom or on a public forum can help a few that are/were just ready, and we will all benefit from their resuming real work, they will contribute to make our world a better place to live in. But seeing what you asked, you most likely already knew “all that.”

Hey Ted! Just a quick comment. CD Burners can be had dirt cheap, but you can't always be sure that the recipient of the CD will be able to run it on their PC. With a proper site setup, drivers and players will update automatically when a client tries to view your stuff, for example, if you've got Shockwave 3d or Flash MX content on your site, and the client's got an older version of those plugins, they'll either be prompted to download an upgrade, or the browser will do it automatically in the background. That way, you know your client will always be able to view your samples! (providing you've got a good, reliable ISP, o' course) Cheers! Neil LaPointe NeillyWorks p.s.: a brand-new version of my site will be up on Valentine's Day, Feb. 14th. Come take a look!

hello, This is Manas Sahoo & am an 2-D Animator working in the aforewritten org. I 've watched the movie twice & Iwas completely thrilled by the kind of character animation & spl-fx created by you . After watching this movie I've decieded to switch over to 3-D animation & I want to create something like you.Therefore I'll be highly obliged if u kindly guide me in developing myself as an 3D artist. thank you manas sahoo

I like your articles and work. But what is not Art ? And who is to say ? Can we "really" put what we "see" on to a canvas ? Can we "really" share what we see ? If not ? Why the worthless effort? If yes, why the explanation?

hello Jean first off i love reading your articles, they give me something to think about. my influences in animation are len lye ,norman mclaren & oskar fishinger, whilst in college i tried to emulate these guys in my work. when i went for my first animation job interview my prospective employer called my work "Eye candy" now with comments like these what does the future of animation hold. thank you . please keep writing i always look forward to reading your essays lilian

To lilian igbinosun Lilian, You raise an interesting question, the connection between “work,” and “employment.” I am old enough to have had the privilege of going through school at a time when the agenda was still set by the Socratic ideal of “know thyself.” It is with great dismay that I witnessed universities and other schools of “higher learning” progressively abandon that goal and turn into glorified vocational schools. Whereby schools, and especially art schools, then placed the emphasis on “your” discovery, they now funnel “you” into career tracks. With that in mind, I reflect on my decades of work as a painter, and see that many of my peers barely made a dime through their work as painter. Indeed, most of us have had to support our real work by doing something else (teaching im my case) and now that I have a foot in the animation community, I can see that some of the most interesting independent work done today is done by artists who do not make a living from their work in animation. (I will show some clips of that type of work in my next article.) Animation suffers a lot from its being identified with the productions of the major studios, the economic model derived from that “poisons” the frame of reference of animators who could do some exceptional work but choose not to because it may not be financially profitable. In this sense, animation lags far behind what artists have known for years, we can go as far back as Rembrandt in painting and Mozart in music to see examples of great masters who worked whether they were commissioned to or not. I have so little respect for the entertainment side of animation, for its crass commercial aspect, that I think you should feel grateful that somehow, the work you showed that prospective employer was immediately perceived as “not fit for the industry!” Congratulations! (I mean it.) Given you interest in “eye candy animation,” can you imagine what you might have fallen into if you had been accepted? ;-) Jean

I was reading your commentary for 2002 while on a friends computer this morning before work... I think you made some very good points here and were right on about quality and rehash. Two things-I think people have to understand is 3D or anime is not what makes a film great. Animne has become a bore as all characters in all films look the same and there is bareley any animation and mostly camera moves-non synced mouths are annoying and also to people who can't animate themselves. I didn't see the 3D Ali Baba but maybe that should be shown to studio execs to let them know that maybe it's not a good idea to send projects overseas. People here that have the skill can do the job and would probably do it for less with pride and honour especially now that the economy is bad. I am glad the veggie tales did allright. It is time there is something made for kids that is a G film. The last PDI film wasn't the best thing to show to kids - donky relieving themself( joke didn't work)in the fire etc and some of the Pixar stuff is not G either (Although Pixar is a story champion) and anything PG can't legally be shown in an elementary school setting-what does that tell you? I think we should save spike and mike/Tom Green humor for the college party crowd and maybe remeber these projects sell themselves, the story writers "values" and their toys to kids and we should remember this. If the quick crude unsucessful joke were taken out noone would miss them at all and the studio would be better for it. There are a lot of stories out there but using already designed characters is cheap cheap cheap and are probably helping to float studios in these hard times. We should, look at so many other children's books if money is to be spent for untapped stories-Hans Christian Anderson and maybe the original Dolittle book series(if you want sequel material) that are bareley tapped. It is sad that the only Dr. Dolittle was slaughtered by Eddie Murphy last time. I don't think the talented person who wrote that series of books would be pleased if he viewed the butchery. If you looked at the original musical film it is a pure classic and like Disney greats a pleasure to pay to see again and again and always sells to advertisers when on tv-no problem. It is too bad many of these films are made over and slaughtered and thrown in the home video trashcan where and kids can never see the quality version because the first time with Mr. Murphy set a bad tone and that was about enough. Also what is going on with voice talent? Yuck. Lets get some people/voice back on film with mirroring the talent of Mel Blanc, Sterling Holloway, Paul Frieze, and well I forget his name-the fellow who was the mad hatter in Alice in Wonderland-Disney version. Today's voice acting needs a shakedown and a little less canned TV actor quick fix-does nothing for the characters and is so stale. You should never say "Oh thats Rosie O'Donnel's voice" whenyou see the character on screen-then it kills the character. There are people out there that can do it-time to find round II. Music-Time to loose the pop music on the animation features. That Brian Adams was hard to choke down. Time to stop to sit down and listen to the bambi soundtrack. I really hope Disney pulls through because they are basically a good company with a lot of good people for the most part trying to make it work. They have been the launchpad for the development of modern day animation but maybe we need to get the people at Genentech busy at unfreezing and cloning Mr. Disney now that it seems possible because it looks like we might need his expertise once again on a few things. Lets hope Home on the Range does well so we can keep our industry and 2D churning which in turn will help keep our economy up as far as it can in these hard times.